Close

Activity Stream

Filter
Sort By Time Show
Recent Recent Popular Popular Anytime Anytime Last 24 Hours Last 24 Hours Last 7 Days Last 7 Days Last 30 Days Last 30 Days All All Photos Photos Forum Forums Articles Articles
Filter by: Popular Last 7 Days Clear All
  • richpike's Avatar
    03-24-2015, 06:54 PM
    richpike started a thread New S65 Record? 785whp in S65
    Saw this on the other forum. Built motor, ESS VT3. 6mt. Baseline is 93oct, stock headers. 732whp Next he added LT headers. 765whp Finally did a mix of race gas and a smaller pulley. 785whp. Pretty impressive. Lots happening in the E9x chassis lately. I'd love to see some of these high HP M3s and the new high HP 335s battle it out at a 1/2 mile event. -Rich
    146 replies | 1878 view(s)
  • drfrink24's Avatar
    03-27-2015, 01:08 PM
    Researching fueling options, would like some thoughts: Seems like port-injection (or TB injection) is starting to show up in several builds, however, VTTs single/double shotgun appears to be fairly straight forward and elegant solution, yet we're not seeing it show up as much. Has there been some problems with the shotgun option? Less tuning support? Less capacity? Install overly difficult? Its cheaper as well.. what am I missing?
    81 replies | 1853 view(s)
  • drfrink24's Avatar
    03-28-2015, 03:40 PM
    Struggling with the decision between upgraded twins + inlets vs. top mount single (VM TM w/6465 1.0AR) for a daily driver 335xi that will never see a track or airstrip. I think with either option, most FBO people will still likely need: Fueling (stage 2 or stage 3 LPFP + PI or VTT HPFP) Charge pipe (some FBO, including myself, haven't had issues with stock CP + DVs) Labor is nearly identical, though you don't need to hassle with shipping your old turbos back w/Single Upgraded twins RB or Stage2 = $3000 + cores (hexon are a cheaper option) TFT inlets = $1500 (includes CP) BOV = $250 = $4750 I agree there are cheaper options (including MM inlets or VTT inlets) but the TFT seem like the most potential for power out of those 3 options. You could go with Hexon, or VTT Stage 1, but you're not saving much money and leaving lots of power on the table for a LOT of labor. VM Top mount $6400 + CP $250 (BMS using stock DVs) = $6650 This is less than $2000 more (yes, $2000 isn't exactly chump change), this gap gets even smaller if you're comparing VTT 2+ or RB "super" turbos. The advantages, that I can tell: - Minimizes regret factor and allows easy swaps of bigger or smaller turbos - Happier engine with less octane required - You could return your car to stock without the hassle of needing new or used stock turbos Seems to me, that for all the labor involved, and potentially being a longer lasting solution, $2000 really isn't all that much more to spend.
    82 replies | 1212 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-25-2015, 11:15 PM
    The 'professionals' at MotorTrend often amuse this network with their work. For a big name that has been doing this for decades it is mind boggling how the magazine simply can not understand that crank ratings do not mean much of anything. Seriously, does anyone think the S55 engine the F80 M3 and F82 M4 is actually putting out 425 horsepower? It takes just a basic google search to get a dyno of the new M car and see its output at the wheels exceeds the crank HP rating on a Dynojet. We are seeing many high performance cars underrated and BMW has routinely been doing this with their turbo motors. So why does this fly over the heads of the geniuses at MotorTrend? "At 464 hp, the ATS-V has 39 hp and 38 lb-ft on the BMW M3 and M4, which make 425 hp and 406 lb-ft from a twin-turbo 3.0-liter I-6." There is no doubt the ATS-V is putting out 464 horsepower and 444 lb-ft of torque. The thing is, the F80 M3 is also matching that output and then some. Shouldn't a publication like MotorTrend understand their statement based on paper figures is misleading and uninformed? It's hard for enthusiasts to take the big publications seriously when they make basic mistakes and comparisons like this that do not delve even slightly beyond the superficial. I suppose that says something about the writer and the target audience. P.S. This was the power rating Cadillac claimed at the LA Auto Show for the ATS-V: Source
    31 replies | 199 view(s)
  • Abacus38's Avatar
    03-26-2015, 01:04 PM
    I sold my Cobb unit since I'm going to be picking up the MHD flasher when its release. I was just wondering do guys recommend stacking the JB4 on top so I can used the boost by gear and NLS/2 step or should I just stick to the flasher and buy the WOT box.
    22 replies | 458 view(s)
  • 3000gt MR's Avatar
    03-26-2015, 07:29 AM
    I've had a lot of questions regarding some of my comments regarding PI injection. I'm not even close to the most experienced tuner but i have done a lot in the past and have found things out the hard way The quick down and dirty. The #55 injectors that people are using flow 55lbs @ 43.5 (578cc/Min) (standard psi for fuel injector flow benchmark and 99% of EFI engines) and we are running them at 72psi ( So they really flow 744cc/min) Take Josh's (MR2 Josh) for example 861WHP 100% e85 and 80% IDC and his HPFP is about 80% from what he said. That is a shit ton of fuel and still has a lot of head room (80% is a good peak IDC). This is way to much for anyone running less than 860whp. Even though they are considered secondary fueling they need to be power matched to the engine. You want to be around 75% idc at your peak power/rpm to leave some head room and not over work the injectors. This can easily be done with a few calculations. Batch firing is what scares me when the injector is open for such a short period at such a high power and RPM. Terry is only at 30 or 35% at 600+ on straight E85. To me that injection window is way to short and i wonder if thats why he is having timing pulls and cant figure it out. Here is the secondary PI injector window based off Terrys published results. RPM IPW IDC 4000 10ms 33.3% 5000 8ms 33.3% 6000 6.65ms 33.25 I know its not 33% across the board it probably starts off lower and rises, so technically these numbers would be even smaller. Normal IPW is more than double that. With race fuel these numbers would be in upwards of 30% less. If your barley using them and don't plan on making much more power I would defiantly go to a smaller injector and increase the IPW. That's just me though. It's not a one size fits all. On batch firing each injector is spraying at 6 different phases of rotational event. What would help greatly is if we knew what the stock HPFP puts out with a 1.00 scalar so that we can maintain HPFP headroom and calculate remaining flow for PI for given HP levels. Any insight on this. I'm sure if i sat down and thought it out with some calculations we could come up with a good guesstimate Terry@BMS SteveAZ I wrote this up pretty quick and copied and pasted from PM's I've answered. From my own tuning experience on normal EFI's, injector lag times and IPW are huge players in proper tuning. To each their own. Please comment with any insight or added info.
    22 replies | 518 view(s)
  • brendanrule's Avatar
    03-28-2015, 12:53 AM
    I'm looking for more power so I want to get proper inlets. TFT don't fit without fabricating so has anyone fit VTT inlets on RHD? I know Vargass said they fit but I've heard they don't fit up to "stock style box" Dinan or AFE intakes. Has anyone installed them I have only heard of one set being fitted on RHD so far.
    22 replies | 313 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-25-2015, 06:47 PM
    This is not the first time we have seen something like this. Anyone remember the marketing material for the E82 BMW 1M showing it driving around with the E30 M3? This got people saying the 1M was a return to the BMW driver's car producing fun and cheap lightweight models. This despite the fact the E30 M3 has absolutely nothing in common with the E82 1M and it will also have nothing in common with the F87 M2. This is what BMW head of design Adrian van Hooydonk stated, "The E30 M3 has a really big fan base, and we are going to be taking cues from it for a future product." Not really saying much there, now is he? Perhaps he will incorporate something from a styling standpoint that serves as some kind of homage or link to the original E30 M3. From an actual M car standpoint the M2 and 1M are nothing like the E30 M3. The cars are not built for DTM homologation purposes. They do not have naturally aspirated motors. They do not have four-cylinder high revving naturally aspirated M motors designed for racing. In the case of the 1M that particular car does not even have an M motor under hood. Once you factor in the weight difference between the E82 1M at 3339 pounds and E30 M3 at 2857 pounds and that the original was actually built for DTM competition you realize this is nothing more than marketing speak. The 2016 F87 M2 is expected to come with a tweaked N55 engine offering 370 horsepower and likely will have a DCT option. Considering the F22 M235i weighs 3494 pounds do not expect some new E30 M3. It won't even be a new E46 M3. Expect an M235i with some minor tweaks. Just like how the 1M was a 135i with some minor tweaks (and no M motor). Bringing up the E30 M3 is just marketing speak. Nothing more, nothing less. Source
    15 replies | 1140 view(s)
  • 3000gt MR's Avatar
    03-28-2015, 10:22 AM
    3000gt MR started a thread Ethanol vs methanol in N54
    Well this weeks N54 trend and word of the day is "band-aid". I dont have much time today but i'm sure this thread will be a mess when i get back to reading it. This is a debate between a properly built meth injection system vs a PI e85 injection system First off when searching methanol vs ethanol you will come across 2 things that are mentioned in just about every comparison. 1. Meth is more poisonous 2. Meth has 67% the energy of 100% gas where as ethanol is 83%. BTW. Both are alcohol based and both are poisonous in high concentrates. Methanol is used in racing, theres even a class for it. Yes the engines are build and tuned different to handle the cooler burn and the added fuel but to everyone's surprise a 100% ethanol engine would be built the same. So is there a distinguishable trait that makes 1 fuel less better than another besides needing more meth than eth? They're anti Knock properties are about the same with the octane being close to equal (R+M)/2 112-115 (although true alcohol readings are not obtainable) So now let put fuel to the side and look at systems. 99.5% of meth injection systems are put together cheap with poor design. On the contrary probably 99.9% of failures is due to poor system design. If your just looking for a minor performance enhancer than sticking 2 smaller nozzles in the charge pipe is fine. When you start getting greedy and keep upsizing nozzles and cranking up the boost is when you run into issues. When you start using it to increase your fuel capacity the charge pipe just became the worst place to inject. Would anyone run their ethanol through their charge pipe to make up for fueling? I know Fuel-it is working on a TB injection system which perfectly fine because they are not advertising 1000HP through it. They have done a great job making it pretty conservative. So lets face it, the only practical place to inject any type of secondary fuel whether its ethanol or methanol would be in the intake runner for each cylinder. As most of you know (based off the amount of txt, PM's, phone calls, tagged posts i get) I run meth, I'm starting to think my nickname should be methhead. I love power, i'm no different than the next person. I have access to 1 gas station that carries E85 and now that my GF doesn't live 20 min from it, its now a 40 min drive. I'm stuck with pump 93 and methanol if i want to make any type of power with a ST. So i went out and designed a bullet proof system that has worked great. I did not invent something new here. I just implemented it on a platform that relies heavily on methanol. For some reason when you start talking meth one of the first things people say is "what if a nozzle gets clogged?" I have no idea where this even came about. Was the first methanol injection systems mixed with sand and unfiltered? Meth out of a VP barrel is already extremely pure, 10 times more pure than anything you get out of a pump at a gas station. If you dont run a filter in any type of fueling system than you deserve to have problems. I run 3 which is 66% overkill. Not once have i even came close to this clogged nozzle BS. A proper meth system has boost kill fail safes which i think most all do now. Todays controllers have a range so if there is leaks or a kinked line it kills boost. Basically if the flow isn't within the user specified range. A proper system needs to utilize the following IPW controller with solenoid function of given fail safes individual cyl nozzles quality lines and hardware remote tank Built like you would build a factory fuel system. Dont be stupid Just about all problems are contributed to these. Some methanol donts: Progressive controllers single point injection CP location for added fuel. window fluid tank dyes no filters Most tuners dont mess with tuning meth injected cars for a bunch of good reasons. You dont know the condition its in, how well its working, blah blah blah. So for a tuner to take the responsibility in tuning something with that big of an unknown is dumb. If something shall happen the first person to always get blamed is the tuner. Some references: http://www.bimmerboost.com/showthread.php?61772-Meth-Injection-system-design-best-practice-discussion http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=947629&highlight=direct+port (@sticky If you dont want this link here let me know i'll delete it. Has to much stuff to copy over) i have to end it here for now but please discuss.
    20 replies | 330 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-27-2015, 06:07 PM
    That is the rumor going around. We have no official source on this but apparently there was some Audi employee meeting in the USA and the RS3 was confirmed for the USA at that meeting. It is really no surprise as we always expected to get the sedan. The hatchback we knew was out of the question based on precedent. Audi already sells an RS3 Sportback in Europe based on the 8V platform. So, expect that same drivetrain to make its way into the 8V A3 sedan. That means a 367 horsepower and 343 lb-ft of torque 2.5 liter turbocharged and direct injected inline-5 sending its power to all four wheels courtesy of a 7-speed dual clutch transmission. Now the 2.5 TFSI motor can put out a heck of a lot more power than that. Remember the 525 horsepower A3 Clubsport concept car from last year? That is what the RS3 should be but it would eat everything else in the Audi lineup alive. That's ok, that is what tuning is for. The most obvious competition for this car would be from the Mercedes CLA45 AMG. The RS3 should be able to out-muscle it though. Whatever happened to Audi's high output EA888 that was supposed to go in the RS3 anyway? Hopefully we can get more concrete details and not just some rumor someone supposedly overheard somewhere. The chances of an RS3 in the US are the best they have ever been though. The sedan seems like a certainty.
    16 replies | 751 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-27-2015, 10:40 PM
    The S54 remains the BMW inline-6 power king going into 2015. Well, the S38 may have something to say about that but that is a discussion for another day. Sound Performance built the E46 M3 S54 motor and Saad Racing provided a turbo kit utilizing a Precision 6766 turbocharger. The result? 859 wheel horsepower pushing 29 psi of boost on a Mustang Dyno. Here are the numbers at the various boost levels tested: 678whp @ 18psi 740whp 624wtq @ 23psi 859whp 710wtq @ 29psi On a Dynojet this should be breaking 900 whp. They of course also have 1000+ whp M3's but this shows what is possible with a Precision 6766, a ProEFI 128 ECU, and a built motor. Specs: SP Built 10:1 CR Engine Saad Racing Turbo Kit w/ SP 3" Boost Activated Exhaust Cutout Saad Racing E85 Fuel System Saad Racing Intake Manifold w/ LS3 DBW Throttle Body SP Direct-Port Nitrous Kit ProEFI Pro128 Flex Fuel Standalone EMS OS Giken Twin Disc Clutch They plan to test the Precision 6870 CEA GEN2 turbocharger next. 9XX whp on the Mustang? We will have to wait and see.
    12 replies | 838 view(s)
  • Stucks's Avatar
    03-25-2015, 07:56 PM
    Stucks started a thread pcv heater element in N54
    So ive seen a couple of threads that mention this, but not a whole lot. for those installing aftermarket inlets like the tft or vtt units, what are people doing with these? Its the little wire that runs to the recirculation point on the rear of the factory intake tube where the outlet of the bms occ connects to. are there any effects of unplugging this and leaving it that way? ive heard rumors it makes the water pump continuously run after you shut the car off, but is this fact or fiction? thanks.
    17 replies | 232 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-29-2015, 01:51 AM
    You are going to see these cars compared frequently. They are not exactly the same thing but they represent tremendous performance cars from their respective countries. You are smart enough to know what those countries are so we do not need to go over the basics here and can get right down to the meat and potatoes. The Chevrolet Corvette Z06 is the newest of the trio. The GTR at this point is riding the most dated platform but it can not be overstated just how admirable of a job Nissan has done in continually updating the GTR. The Porsche 991 Turbo S of course is the highest performance turbocharged 911 available these days. All of these cars have forced induction powerplants but the GTR and 911 Turbo S have all wheel drive and dual clutch transmissions. Major factors admittedly versus the 7-speed manual rear wheel drive Corvette Z06. Now, on paper, the Z06 should demolish these cars. Z06 performance has been very perplexing though as MotorTrend learned when they compared the Z06 to the Nismo GTR. Well, now it is Car and Driver's turn. The Z06 is the lightest car here at 3530 pounds. It offers the most power and torque with its 650 horsepower and 650 lb-ft of torque supercharged LT4 V8. So why is it the slowest in a straight line? It isn't surprising the Z06 can not win 0-60 sprints against all wheel drive competition but trailing 0-150? And in 1/4 mile trap speed? The 991 Turbo S beats both but that also raises questions as the Car and Driver previously got a 10.8 @ 126 out of the Turbo S in a 1/4 mile. Is this car a ringer? Or did Car and Driver suddenly master the ever so complicated PDK? Something already stinks here. Regardless, the 991 Turbo S with its 10.6 @ 130 is the quickest and fastest car. The Nismo brings up the middle with an 11.0 @ 128. The Z06 trails with an 11.5 @ 125. Maybe Car and Driver needs the automatic Z06? Is it the drag of the Z07 package that is an issue again? Acceleration isn't everything, right? The Z06 brakes better than the other two. It is better balanced being the closest to 50/50. Its skidpad number is an insane 1.15g. It has the best slalom speed. It has everything going for it. So what wins on the roadcourse? We don't know. Car and Driver is 'saving' themselves for their Lightning Lap comparison. What is this, a freshman cheerleader on prom night? Give us the goods. MotorTrend put out, why can't you? Instead we get a bunch of talk from Car and Driver regarding which car they liked the best. It turns out the Z06 is the car they liked the best. Its handling is described as next level and indeed it is. The Z06 is amazing when you do things other than accelerate which is why this network is pissed off we have no laptimes. The GTR finishes in last and is said to feel dated. It is dated. That does not mean it still is not a hell of a performance car but when a Corvette Z06 feels more refined there are problems. The 911 Turbo S finishes in the middle of the pack and perhaps it is time too for Porsche to re-evaluate this whole the 911 has to be the top of the food chain mentality. It did finish last in the slalom and perhaps having all that weight over the rear end is not the best for handling transitions. What would happen if they gave the Cayman the 911 Turbo S engine? Yeah, we all know what would happen. Porsche does too. So, an interesting comparison despite Car and Driver not giving us the real goods. These days though, we don't like to be teased. We want to come away satisfied. This comparison does not provide that satisfaction. COMPARISON TESTS VEHICLE 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S BASE PRICE $78,995 $151,585 $183,695 PRICE AS TESTED $102,120 $151,880 $195,175 DIMENSIONS LENGTH 177.9 inches 184.3 inches 177.4 inches WIDTH 77.4 inches 74.6 inches 74.0 inches HEIGHT 48.6 inches 54.2 inches 51.0 inches WHEELBASE 106.7 inches 109.4 inches 96.5 inches FRONT TRACK 63.5 inches 63.0 inches 60.6 inches REAR TRACK 62.5 inches 63.0 inches 62.6 inches INTERIOR VOLUME F: 52 cubic feet F: 53 cubic feet R: 26 cubic feet F: 50 cubic feet R: 17 cubic feet CARGO 15 cubic feet 9 cubic feet 13 cubic feet POWERTRAIN ENGINE supercharged pushrod 16-valve V-8 376 cu in (6162 cc) twin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve V-6 232 cu in (3799 cc) twin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve flat-6 232 cu in (3800 cc) POWER HP @ RPM 650 @ 6400 600 @ 6800 560 @ 6750 TORQUE LB-FT @ RPM 650 @ 3600 481 @ 3200 516 @ 2100 REDLINE / FUEL CUTOFF 6500/6700 rpm 7000/7000 rpm 7000/7200 rpm LB PER HP 5.4 6.5 6.4 DRIVELINE TRANSMISSION 7-speed manual 6-speed dual-clutch automatic 7-speed dual-clutch automatic DRIVEN WHEELS rear all all GEAR RATIO:1/ MPH PER 1000 RPM/ MAX MPH 1. 2.29/9.8/66 2. 1.61/13.9/93 3. 1.21/18.5/124 4. 1.00/22.4/150 5. 0.82/27.3/183 6. 0.68/32.9/185 7. 0.45/49.8/175 1. 4.06/5.3/37 2. 2.30/9.4/66 3. 1.60/13.6/95 4. 1.25/17.3/121 5. 1.00/21.6/151 6. 0.80/27.2/191 1. 3.91/5.9/42 2. 2.29/10.0/72 3. 1.58/14.6/105 4. 1.18/19.4/140 5. 0.94/24.4/176 6. 0.79/29.2/198 7. 0.62/36.9/180 AXLE RATIO:1 3.42 3.70 3.44 CHASSIS SUSPENSION F: control arms, leaf spring, anti-roll bar R: control arms, leaf spring, anti-roll bar F: control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar F: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar BRAKES F: 15.5-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc R: 15.3-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc F: 15.4-inch vented, cross-drilled disc R: 15.0-inch vented, cross-drilled disc F: 16.1-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc R: 15.4-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc STABILITY CONTROL fully defeatable, traction off, competition mode, launch control fully defeatable, competition mode, launch control fully defeatable, launch control TIRES Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 ZP F: P285/30ZR-19 (94Y) R: P335/25ZR-20 (99Y) Dunlop SP Sport Maxx GT 600 DSST CTT F: 255/40ZRF-20 (97Y) R: 285/35ZRF-20 (100Y) Pirelli P Zero F: 245/35ZR-20 (91Y) R: 305/30ZR-20 (103Y) C/D TEST RESULTS ACCELERATION 030 MPH 1.6 sec 1.2 sec 1.0 sec 060 MPH 3.3 sec 2.9 sec 2.5 sec 0100 MPH 7.5 sec 6.6 sec 6.2 sec 0150 MPH 17.9 sec 15.8 sec 14.9 sec -MILE @ MPH 11.5 sec @ 125 11.0 sec @ 128 10.6 sec @ 130 ROLLING START, 560 MPH 4.0 sec 3.8 sec 3.4 sec TOP GEAR, 3050 MPH 13.9 sec 3.8 sec 2.1 sec TOP GEAR, 5070 MPH 10.8 sec 3.0 sec 2.3 sec TOP SPEED 185 mph (drag ltd)* 191 mph (redline ltd) 198 mph (drag ltd, mfr's claim) CHASSIS BRAKING 700 MPH 135 feet 152 feet 145 feet BRAKING 1000 MPH 261 feet 275 feet 291 feet ROADHOLDING, 300-FT-DIA SKIDPAD 1.15 g 1.02 g 1.07 g 610-FT SLALOM 50.1 mph 48.2 mph 48.1 mph WEIGHT CURB 3530 pounds 3894 pounds 3590 pounds %FRONT/%REAR 50.3/49.7 54.3/45.7 38.8/61.2 FUEL TANK 18.5 gallons 19.5 gallons 18.0 gallons RATING 91 octane 93 octane 93 octane EPA CITY/HWY 15/22 mpg 16/23 mpg 17/24 mpg C/D 450-MILE TRIP 13 mpg 12 mpg 14 mpg SOUND LEVEL IDLE 60 dBA 54 dBA 55 dBA FULL THROTTLE 93 dBA 90 dBA 83 dBA 70-MPH CRUISE 77 dBA 75 dBA 73 dBA *C/D estimated. tested in California City, California, by K.C. COLWELL and TONY QUIROGA Final Results VEHICLE RANK Max Pts. Available 1 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 2 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S 3 2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO DRIVER COMFORT 10 8 10 7 ERGONOMICS 10 9 9 8 REAR-SEAT COMFORT 5 0 1 1 CARGO SPACE* 5 5 4 2 FEATURES/AMENITIES* 10 9 10 7 FIT AND FINISH 10 8 10 8 INTERIOR STYLING 10 8 9 7 EXTERIOR STYLING 10 9 9 8 REBATES/EXTRAS* 5 0 0 0 AS-TESTED PRICE* 20 20 2 8 SUBTOTAL 95 76 64 56 POWERTRAIN 1/4-MILE ACCELERATION* 20 16 20 18 FLEXIBILITY* 5 3 3 3 FUEL ECONOMY* 10 9 10 8 ENGINE NVH 10 8 10 7 TRANSMISSION 10 9 10 7 SUBTOTAL 55 45 53 43 CHASSIS PERFORMANCE* 20 20 17 15 STEERING FEEL 10 10 9 9 BRAKE FEEL 10 10 9 8 HANDLING 10 10 9 8 RIDE 10 8 10 6 SUBTOTAL 60 58 54 46 EXPERIENCE FUN TO DRIVE 25 24 24 20 342352234 203 195 165
    18 replies | 283 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-29-2015, 03:25 AM
    Nobody loves the BMW N52 motor. If someone has a 328i or 128i model equipped with the N52 and asks about more power they are told to trade it in for an N54 or N55 based car. Even the aftermarket basically abandoned it and there are no production forced induction kits for the engine. It's rough being an N52 when the N54/N55 exist. Even BMW themselves replaced it with the N20 2.0 liter four-cylinder which is a far more tuner friendly motor. If you love your N52 relax, Active Autowerke has you covered with some performance parts. On a BMW E82 128i 6-speed manual Active Autowerke picked up just under 40 whp on a Dynojet with the following modifications: 1) Active Autowerke N52 exhaust headers installed 2) Stage 3 intake manifold with charcoal air filter removed 3) K+N drop used 4) stock exhaust system from the header back. Meaning that the secondary cats were still in place along with stock rear muffler BLUE line- stock 128 6 speed 208.48 whp - 207.63 wtq GREEN line- AA Header, 3 stage manif, K&N drop-in with No charcoal filter, stock exhaust 248.02 whp - 225.15 wtq Not bad, right? Now let's look at Mustang numbers from an automatic E9X 328i with the Active Headers and tune but without the intake manifold: 1) stock intake manifold with charcoal air filter removed but stock factory paper filter ( we did not have a K+N drop in at the time to use) 2) stock exhaust system from the header back. Meaning that the secondary cats were still in place along with stock rear muffler Bottom line- stock 328 auto 175 whp - 161 wtq Middle line- AA Header, charcoal filter delete 198 whp - 179 wtq Top line- AA header, AA software and charcoal filter 207whp - 192 wtq So with the full gamut of Active Autowerke N52 products one can expect roughly 40 wheel horsepower gains and roughly 30 lb-ft of torque gains at the wheels. That is about the best anyone is going to do on this motor without forced induction. Which at that point it makes sense to go to an N54/N55 or even N20, doesn't it?
    12 replies | 689 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-29-2015, 01:41 AM
    You are going to see these cars compared frequently. They are not exactly the same thing but they represent tremendous performance cars from their respective countries. You are smart enough to know what those countries are so we do not need to go over the basics here and can get right down to the meat and potatoes. The Chevrolet Corvette Z06 is the newest of the trio. The GTR at this point is riding the most dated platform but it can not be overstated just how admirable of a job Nissan has done in continually updating the GTR. The Porsche 991 Turbo S of course is the highest performance turbocharged 911 available these days. All of these cars have forced induction powerplants but the GTR and 911 Turbo S have all wheel drive and dual clutch transmissions. Major factors admittedly versus the 7-speed manual rear wheel drive Corvette Z06. Now, on paper, the Z06 should demolish these cars. Z06 performance has been very perplexing though as MotorTrend learned when they compared the Z06 to the Nismo GTR. Well, now it is Car and Driver's turn. The Z06 is the lightest car here at 3530 pounds. It offers the most power and torque with its 650 horsepower and 650 lb-ft of torque supercharged LT4 V8. So why is it the slowest in a straight line? It isn't surprising the Z06 can not win 0-60 sprints against all wheel drive competition but trailing 0-150? And in 1/4 mile trap speed? The 991 Turbo S beats both but that also raises questions as the Car and Driver previously got a 10.8 @ 126 out of the Turbo S in a 1/4 mile. Is this car a ringer? Or did Car and Driver suddenly master the ever so complicated PDK? Something already stinks here. Regardless, the 991 Turbo S with its 10.6 @ 130 is the quickest and fastest car. The Nismo brings up the middle with an 11.0 @ 128. The Z06 trails with an 11.5 @ 125. Maybe Car and Driver needs the automatic Z06? Is it the drag of the Z07 package that is an issue again? Acceleration isn't everything, right? The Z06 brakes better than the other two. It is better balanced being the closest to 50/50. Its skidpad number is an insane 1.15g. It has the best slalom speed. It has everything going for it. So what wins on the roadcourse? We don't know. Car and Driver is 'saving' themselves for their Lightning Lap comparison. What is this, a freshman cheerleader on prom night? Give us the goods. MotorTrend put out, why can't you? Instead we get a bunch of talk from Car and Driver regarding which car they liked the best. It turns out the Z06 is the car they liked the best. Its handling is described as next level and indeed it is. The Z06 is amazing when you do things other than accelerate which is why this network is pissed off we have no laptimes. The GTR finishes in last and is said to feel dated. It is dated. That does not mean it still is not a hell of a performance car but when a Corvette Z06 feels more refined there are problems. The 911 Turbo S finishes in the middle of the pack and perhaps it is time too for Porsche to re-evaluate this whole the 911 has to be the top of the food chain mentality. It did finish last in the slalom and perhaps having all that weight over the rear end is not the best for handling transitions. What would happen if they gave the Cayman the 911 Turbo S engine? Yeah, we all know what would happen. Porsche does too. So, an interesting comparison despite Car and Driver not giving us the real goods. These days though, we don't like to be teased. We want to come away satisfied. This comparison does not provide that satisfaction. COMPARISON TESTS VEHICLE 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S BASE PRICE $78,995 $151,585 $183,695 PRICE AS TESTED $102,120 $151,880 $195,175 DIMENSIONS LENGTH 177.9 inches 184.3 inches 177.4 inches WIDTH 77.4 inches 74.6 inches 74.0 inches HEIGHT 48.6 inches 54.2 inches 51.0 inches WHEELBASE 106.7 inches 109.4 inches 96.5 inches FRONT TRACK 63.5 inches 63.0 inches 60.6 inches REAR TRACK 62.5 inches 63.0 inches 62.6 inches INTERIOR VOLUME F: 52 cubic feet F: 53 cubic feet R: 26 cubic feet F: 50 cubic feet R: 17 cubic feet CARGO 15 cubic feet 9 cubic feet 13 cubic feet POWERTRAIN ENGINE supercharged pushrod 16-valve V-8 376 cu in (6162 cc) twin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve V-6 232 cu in (3799 cc) twin-turbocharged DOHC 24-valve flat-6 232 cu in (3800 cc) POWER HP @ RPM 650 @ 6400 600 @ 6800 560 @ 6750 TORQUE LB-FT @ RPM 650 @ 3600 481 @ 3200 516 @ 2100 REDLINE / FUEL CUTOFF 6500/6700 rpm 7000/7000 rpm 7000/7200 rpm LB PER HP 5.4 6.5 6.4 DRIVELINE TRANSMISSION 7-speed manual 6-speed dual-clutch automatic 7-speed dual-clutch automatic DRIVEN WHEELS rear all all GEAR RATIO:1/ MPH PER 1000 RPM/ MAX MPH 1. 2.29/9.8/66 2. 1.61/13.9/93 3. 1.21/18.5/124 4. 1.00/22.4/150 5. 0.82/27.3/183 6. 0.68/32.9/185 7. 0.45/49.8/175 1. 4.06/5.3/37 2. 2.30/9.4/66 3. 1.60/13.6/95 4. 1.25/17.3/121 5. 1.00/21.6/151 6. 0.80/27.2/191 1. 3.91/5.9/42 2. 2.29/10.0/72 3. 1.58/14.6/105 4. 1.18/19.4/140 5. 0.94/24.4/176 6. 0.79/29.2/198 7. 0.62/36.9/180 AXLE RATIO:1 3.42 3.70 3.44 CHASSIS SUSPENSION F: control arms, leaf spring, anti-roll bar R: control arms, leaf spring, anti-roll bar F: control arms, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar F: struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar R: multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar BRAKES F: 15.5-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc R: 15.3-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc F: 15.4-inch vented, cross-drilled disc R: 15.0-inch vented, cross-drilled disc F: 16.1-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc R: 15.4-inch vented, cross-drilled, ceramic disc STABILITY CONTROL fully defeatable, traction off, competition mode, launch control fully defeatable, competition mode, launch control fully defeatable, launch control TIRES Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 ZP F: P285/30ZR-19 (94Y) R: P335/25ZR-20 (99Y) Dunlop SP Sport Maxx GT 600 DSST CTT F: 255/40ZRF-20 (97Y) R: 285/35ZRF-20 (100Y) Pirelli P Zero F: 245/35ZR-20 (91Y) R: 305/30ZR-20 (103Y) C/D TEST RESULTS ACCELERATION 0–30 MPH 1.6 sec 1.2 sec 1.0 sec 0–60 MPH 3.3 sec 2.9 sec 2.5 sec 0–100 MPH 7.5 sec 6.6 sec 6.2 sec 0–150 MPH 17.9 sec 15.8 sec 14.9 sec -MILE @ MPH 11.5 sec @ 125 11.0 sec @ 128 10.6 sec @ 130 ROLLING START, 5–60 MPH 4.0 sec 3.8 sec 3.4 sec TOP GEAR, 30–50 MPH 13.9 sec 3.8 sec 2.1 sec TOP GEAR, 50–70 MPH 10.8 sec 3.0 sec 2.3 sec TOP SPEED 185 mph (drag ltd)* 191 mph (redline ltd) 198 mph (drag ltd, mfr's claim) CHASSIS BRAKING 70–0 MPH 135 feet 152 feet 145 feet BRAKING 100–0 MPH 261 feet 275 feet 291 feet ROADHOLDING, 300-FT-DIA SKIDPAD 1.15 g 1.02 g 1.07 g 610-FT SLALOM 50.1 mph 48.2 mph 48.1 mph WEIGHT CURB 3530 pounds 3894 pounds 3590 pounds %FRONT/%REAR 50.3/49.7 54.3/45.7 38.8/61.2 FUEL TANK 18.5 gallons 19.5 gallons 18.0 gallons RATING 91 octane 93 octane 93 octane EPA CITY/HWY 15/22 mpg 16/23 mpg 17/24 mpg C/D 450-MILE TRIP 13 mpg 12 mpg 14 mpg SOUND LEVEL IDLE 60 dBA 54 dBA 55 dBA FULL THROTTLE 93 dBA 90 dBA 83 dBA 70-MPH CRUISE 77 dBA 75 dBA 73 dBA *C/D estimated. tested in California City, California, by K.C. COLWELL and TONY QUIROGA Final Results VEHICLE RANK Max Pts. Available 1 2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 2 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S 3 2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO DRIVER COMFORT 10 8 10 7 ERGONOMICS 10 9 9 8 REAR-SEAT COMFORT 5 0 1 1 CARGO SPACE* 5 5 4 2 FEATURES/AMENITIES* 10 9 10 7 FIT AND FINISH 10 8 10 8 INTERIOR STYLING 10 8 9 7 EXTERIOR STYLING 10 9 9 8 REBATES/EXTRAS* 5 0 0 0 AS-TESTED PRICE* 20 20 2 8 SUBTOTAL 95 76 64 56 POWERTRAIN 1/4-MILE ACCELERATION* 20 16 20 18 FLEXIBILITY* 5 3 3 3 FUEL ECONOMY* 10 9 10 8 ENGINE NVH 10 8 10 7 TRANSMISSION 10 9 10 7 SUBTOTAL 55 45 53 43 CHASSIS PERFORMANCE* 20 20 17 15 STEERING FEEL 10 10 9 9 BRAKE FEEL 10 10 9 8 HANDLING 10 10 9 8 RIDE 10 8 10 6 SUBTOTAL 60 58 54 46 EXPERIENCE FUN TO DRIVE 25 24 24 20 342352234 203 195 165
    18 replies | 104 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-25-2015, 06:30 PM
    This is not the first time we have seen something like this. Anyone remember the marketing material for the E82 BMW 1M showing it driving around with the E30 M3? This got people saying the 1M was a return to the BMW driver's car producing fun and cheap lightweight models. This despite the fact the E30 M3 has absolutely nothing in common with the E82 1M and it will also have nothing in common with the F87 M2. This is what BMW head of design Adrian van Hooydonk stated, "The E30 M3 has a really big fan base, and we are going to be taking cues from it for a future product." Not really saying much there, now is he? Perhaps he will incorporate something from a styling standpoint that serves as some kind of homage or link to the original E30 M3. From an actual M car standpoint the M2 and 1M are nothing like the E30 M3. The cars are not built for DTM homologation purposes. They do not have naturally aspirated motors. They do not have four-cylinder high revving naturally aspirated M motors designed for racing. In the case of the 1M that particular car does not even have an M motor under hood. Once you factor in the weight difference between the E82 1M at 3339 pounds and E30 M3 at 2857 pounds and that the original was actually built for DTM competition you realize this is nothing more than marketing speak. The 2016 F87 M2 is expected to come with a tweaked N55 engine offering 370 horsepower and likely will have a DCT option. Considering the F22 M235i weighs 3494 pounds do not expect some new E30 M3. It won't even be a new E46 M3. Expect an M235i with some minor tweaks. Just like how the 1M was a 135i with some minor tweaks (and no M motor). Bringing up the E30 M3 is just marketing speak. Nothing more, nothing less. Source
    15 replies | 61 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-26-2015, 07:21 PM
    Not much can play with a BMW S1000RR in stock form. The bike is flat out absurdly fast. When tuned? Well, it takes something pretty damn special to run it. An 1100+ horsepower Boost Logic Nissan GTR may just qualify as something up to the task. The thing is though these two S1000RR's in the video are tuned. The camera bike has a Brentuning ECU tune in addition to a full Akrapovic exhaust system. The other S1000RR just features a full exhaust and a PCV (Power Commander V). The Brentuning ECU tune makes a large difference as the camera bike destroys the other S1000RR and the GTR. They do three runs and in all three it pulls pretty hard. Thank you to BimmerBoost member @Czero for the video.
    6 replies | 1053 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-27-2015, 10:35 PM
    The S54 remains the BMW inline-6 power king going into 2015. Well, the S38 may have something to say about that but that is a discussion for another day. Sound Performance built the E46 M3 S54 motor and Saad Racing provided a turbo kit utilizing a Precision 6766 turbocharger. The result? 859 wheel horsepower pushing 29 psi of boost on a Mustang Dyno. Here are the numbers at the various boost levels tested: 678whp @ 18psi 740whp 624wtq @ 23psi 859whp 710wtq @ 29psi On a Dynojet this should be breaking 900 whp. They of course also have 1000+ whp M3's but this shows what is possible with a Precision 6766, a ProEFI 128 ECU, and a built motor. Specs: SP Built 10:1 CR Engine Saad Racing Turbo Kit w/ SP 3" Boost Activated Exhaust Cutout Saad Racing E85 Fuel System Saad Racing Intake Manifold w/ LS3 DBW Throttle Body SP Direct-Port Nitrous Kit ProEFI Pro128 Flex Fuel Standalone EMS OS Giken Twin Disc Clutch They plan to test the Precision 6870 CEA GEN2 turbocharger next. 9XX whp on the Mustang? We will have to wait and see.
    12 replies | 81 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-29-2015, 03:11 AM
    Nobody loves the BMW N52 motor. If someone has a 328i or 128i model equipped with the N52 and asks about more power they are told to trade it in for an N54 or N55 based car. Even the aftermarket basically abandoned it and there are no production forced induction kits for the engine. It's rough being an N52 when the N54/N55 exist. Even BMW themselves replaced it with the N20 2.0 liter four-cylinder which is a far more tuner friendly motor. If you love your N52 relax, Active Autowerke has you covered with some performance parts. On a BMW E82 128i 6-speed manual Active Autowerke picked up just under 40 whp on a Dynojet with the following modifications: 1) Active Autowerke N52 exhaust headers installed 2) Stage 3 intake manifold with charcoal air filter removed 3) K+N drop used 4) stock exhaust system from the header back. Meaning that the secondary cats were still in place along with stock rear muffler BLUE line- stock 128 6 speed 208.48 whp - 207.63 wtq GREEN line- AA Header, 3 stage manif, K&N drop-in with No charcoal filter, stock exhaust 248.02 whp - 225.15 wtq Not bad, right? Now let's look at Mustang numbers from an automatic E9X 328i with the Active Headers and tune but without the intake manifold: 1) stock intake manifold with charcoal air filter removed but stock factory paper filter ( we did not have a K+N drop in at the time to use) 2) stock exhaust system from the header back. Meaning that the secondary cats were still in place along with stock rear muffler Bottom line- stock 328 auto 175 whp - 161 wtq Middle line- AA Header, charcoal filter delete 198 whp - 179 wtq Top line- AA header, AA software and charcoal filter 207whp - 192 wtq So with the full gamut of Active Autowerke N52 products one can expect roughly 40 wheel horsepower gains and roughly 30 lb-ft of torque gains at the wheels. That is about the best anyone is going to do on this motor without forced induction. Which at that point it makes sense to go to an N54/N55 or even N20, doesn't it?
    12 replies | 57 view(s)
  • tjobeid's Avatar
    03-28-2015, 05:09 PM
    http://www.datazap.me/u/tjobeid1991/dyno?log=0&data=1-3-4-6-8-10-11-13-17-18-20-25-26-27-28-29 Here are some logs attached as we'll as a dyno sheet. Car was on e60 running an unmodified bms e85 flash boost set to 20psti from 2500-6000rpm.FBO +255 walbro+ TFT style inlets. RUN 004 was before new intakes
    8 replies | 361 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-27-2015, 08:17 PM
    Last month we saw an 8L90 automatic C7 Z06 go 10's in the 1/4 mile completely stock. Well, here is yet another one reinforcing the point. The Z06 with the 8L90 8-speed automatic transmission is a high 10 second car. The thing is, the previous generation Z06 also broke into the 10's at MIR with far less power. It truly makes one wonder a bit why the C7 Z06 is not much faster in a straight line considering its massive power and torque from the supercharged LT4 motor. Especially when this run is put into the context of having run at one of the fastest strips in the United States and in -800 density altitude. Still, 10.770 @ 129.080 on street tires is not bad at all and the automatic is a few tenths quicker and a couple miles per hour faster than the manual from the data we have seen. Oddly though, the previous generation C6 ZR1 despite having less power and torque (although it is lighter) still is the faster Corvette.
    10 replies | 144 view(s)
  • Terry@BMS's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:56 PM
    Hey guys, We were finally able to find time to pickup our 2015 M3 DCT from PURE Turbo to test out the new Dodson clutch packs. The car is equipped with PURE S2 turbos, JB4, ER pipes, and a meth injection kit. The clutch packs run around $3200 installed. I'll be testing these at Shift Sector and No Fly Zone 1/2 mile events at the end of April but I was able to do a little advance testing on a private track. So far, no DCT slippage shifting at up to 29psi. And the shifts feel firm and crisp. The OEM clutch packs would slip at around 26psi. So definite improvement. During routine driving the clutch packs feel like stock. The only hint of a difference is when you're coming to a stop and the car shifts in to 1st or when putting it in gear. I hear and feel a subtle jolt as it shifts in to 1st. My new problem: Traction. Especially in 3rd gear. Even with Toyo R888s out back. Fortunately I've recently added 3rd gear boost limiting to the JB4 which was just what the doctor ordered for 60-130 testing. Without the limiting at 29psi it was spin city in 3rd. Same goes for 26psi. So for my last run I limited boost in 3rd by 5psi, down to 21psi, which made for improved traction and .2ths quicker 60-130 over my spin city 29psi run! This is on 50% meth (boost juice) and 94 octane fuel, full weight, so the car will get faster when I find the time to go get a clean 30psi run in. Up next I promised Jesse some 91 and 93 octane tuning so I'll work on that and get back to 60-130 stuff in a couple weeks.
    8 replies | 91 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-25-2015, 10:48 PM
    The Audi RS7 is capable of mid 10 second performance at over 130 miles per hour of trap speed with just basic bolt on modifications. This is something we already knew and the record (in the USA... and officially) is 10.388 @ 133.54 in the 1/4 mile. The car that went 10.3 had a full exhaust and race gas. This RS7 is just tune only. Whose tune is it running? And what fuel is it running on? Good questions. That information for whatever reason is not provided. It is best to assume race gas though. Regardless, mid to low 10 second performance from an RS7 with bolt ons is well within reason. Now how about some turbo upgrades?
    2 replies | 961 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-26-2015, 07:16 PM
    Not much can play with a BMW S1000RR in stock form. The bike is flat out absurdly fast. When tuned? Well, it takes something pretty damn special to run it. An 1100+ horsepower Boost Logic Nissan GTR may just qualify as something up to the task. The thing is though these two S1000RR's in the video are tuned. The camera bike has a Brentuning ECU tune in addition to a full Akrapovic exhaust system. The other S1000RR just features a full exhaust and a PCV (Power Commander V). The Brentuning ECU tune makes a large difference as the camera bike destroys the other S1000RR and the GTR. They do three runs and in all three it pulls pretty hard. Thank you to BimmerBoost member @Czero for the video.
    6 replies | 126 view(s)
  • Slicksilver's Avatar
    03-25-2015, 08:17 PM
    So here are some pretty cool dyno results with upgraded inlets I sell and with wedge tuning them. Below is a 4th gear comparison of my best dyno run before inlets in 4th gear and the two good runs I had this this week with the new inlets in 4th gear. As you can see picked up power across the board. +32whp max horsepower , +51whp midrange , +23whp top end just before 6k, +22wtq max torque . Also shown is a dyno from from my previous dyno session without inlets were i did a pull with stock tuning on full bolt ons and 100% E85 and you can see made just over 300whp which is par for the course for a dynojet on car with those mods so dyno doesn't read abnormally high. Also consider this is on a 6AT with 3% more drivetrain loss than 6MT. Overall very happy with results. After discussing the results and logs with wedge today after the dyno, we both agree there is a possibility for a dyno glory run in a couple weeks with more tuning to try and get over 500whp magic barrier for stock turbos. We will try to tune and dyno test over the next couple weeks or so to see if we can brake that limit on the dyno :) Going to be fun trying. Mods on the car: MMP 2.5" turbo inlet intake kit, intercooler, catless downpipes, TFT charge pipe, 50 mm BOV, meth injection dual nozzle, fuel it stage 2 LPFP, NGK 1 step colder plugs gapped .022", stock everything else Fuel: 100% E85 I have been trying to blow these turbos since September of last year running really high WGDC and boost and that's how i got the previous non-inlet dyno results but the turbos wont blow. Every time i drop the DPs (3 times in past couple months) I check shaft play and no issues and no smoke out exhaust. Amazing little suckers. One thing I figured out from the dyno runs taking a look at the data later is that the tires were slipping and I didnt notice so there and made the most power on the 3rd run where the tires were the warmest and only slipped a little, more power to be had with properly warm tires that dont slip, lol! You can see that in the engine speed vs road speed plot below and the dips in the power vs engine speed graphs. Also below is first the datalog of my previous dyno run shown on the chart (447whp max) and the log of my current max hp run. Discalimer: This is a wedge tune that runs a bit outside the stock pressure sensor range in low end, not for the faint at heart and risks were understood by me, requested by me, and went against BQ and Wedge recoomendation to do it without being able to log where the boost was exactly but I wanted to test max power with the inlets. Not reccomended for others ;) I just got my N20 sensor and harness and will be logging with JB4 pass through gauge function the boost curve in the next week or so. You can see that it is running several psi more of boost at far less WGDC in the top end. The reason for this is the pressure loss due to the highly restrictive stock inlets. Think about when you upgrade intake filters, what are you really accomplishing if you are still sucking all that are through those pancake flat turbo inlet pipes and about a 1.5 inch tiny tube at the bottom where it goes into the turbo, that is the horrible intake choke point to the airflow that my 2.5" inlet pipes get rid of!! They will flow 178% more airflow than stock inlet pipes because of the MUCH larger flow through areas. disclaimer: that flow calc is based strictly on the difference in flow through area ratios, no bench testing has been done. Turbos increase pressure by increasing the pressure ratio of the air density. A turbo can only do a max pressure ratio based on its design. The stock TD03-10tk3 turbos on the N54 can only do a max of 2.3 pressure ratio at 5k rpm (published by Mitsubishi on the compressor map for this turbo) which is around the rpm where most people make peak power on the N54 with stock turbos. So if the ambient pressure is 14.7 psi and turbo can only do 2.3 pressure ratio the max boost it can produce, assuming no pressure loses, at 5k rpm is around 19.1 psi. This number can be increased a bit (<1 psi) by spinning the turbos into the inefficiency range and using E85. Now let’s say you have restrictive inlets that cause pressure loses as in the case with the N54 where the inlets were designed for just 7-8psi boost by the turbos' stock tune, at high boost demands and air flow (high CFM airflow) you could easily be losing 1 psi just from the inlets. So the pressure into the turbo could be 13.7 psi @5000 rpm and PR of 2.3 (13.7*2.3-14.7 ambient) yields a max boost possible of 16.8psi. This is exactly why you see stock turbos drop off to 16-17 psi around 5000 rpm to redline on everyone’s dyno, the turbos are choked because the inlets are choking them and that causes the turbo to work really hard and generate a lot of heat and backpressure and intake air temperatures and WGDC sky rocket because of that if you run up the max possible boost. So you see that by removing the horrible choke point restriction by the inlet pipes you free up your turbos to run more boost with less stress and really open up the performance potential of the car for higher boost tunes than stock boost. The inlet kit is $450. Email me at mmperformanceparts@gmail.com if you are interested in buying. Picture of kit below and installed in engine bay. There are some other details about the kit but I will post another thread that announces the kit itself, this is mainly a dyno results thread for these inlets. Big props to @WedgePerformance and @BuraQ for helping me tune the extra air flow from the inlets. oh and full disclosure, I make these in my garage, picture of kit on my garage floor ;)
    5 replies | 310 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    03-28-2015, 07:21 PM
    AudiBoost raised the question last week as to where the Audi 4.0 TFSI V8 turbo upgrades are. We found a picture of Loba Motorsport's 4.0 TFSI upgrade but that was shown in 2013 and we have not seen much since. AMS also announced their intention of rolling out a 4.0 TFSI V8 turbo upgrade recently. Well here is another entry from The Turbo Engineers located in Germany. This network is not familiar with this German tuner but they are working on a 4.0 TFSI C7 RS6 turbo upgrade. What are the spes? Unknown. Who is doing the tuning? Unknown. All we know is it appears turbo upgrades on the 4.0 TFSI are progressing on a variety of fronts.
    2 replies | 646 view(s)
More Activity