SPA GT3071r Build Thread

**dougyfresh** · 11-14-2009 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by 7speed

It is common practice. The MAF is not needed, it is a secondary form of verification for the ECU. Several people run without a MAF.

The MAF is actually primary form of verification. By not running a MAF the ECU is in closed loop form and takes orders from the primary O2.

By not running a MAF the car's traction control is also turned off.

**A4 TSCHUSS** · 11-14-2009 10:03 AM

Bet you didnt know this, but the car will run fine with the maf AND the o2 unplugged. Kinda crazy but a kid has his car running like that right now since there is an issue with his o2 sensor/harness not working correctly. And the programming can be changed to make the traction control work without a maf, that is how Adams gti was.

**Dan[FN]6262** · 11-14-2009 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by A4 TSCHUSS

Bet you didnt know this, but the car will run fine with the maf AND the o2 unplugged. Kinda crazy but a kid has his car running like that right now since there is an issue with his o2 sensor/harness not working correctly. And the programming can be changed to make the traction control work without a maf, that is how Adams gti was.

lol thats cool. i guess it just runs off of predetermined maps that the ECU has stored?

**Sales@RAI** · 11-14-2009 11:01 PM

my car still has traction control

**7speed** · 01-24-2010 07:05 PM

Another update added these Items***** VR6 Throttle body and Apikol Big Plenum Intake Manifold

**Sales@RAI** · 01-24-2010 11:18 PM

did u feel a difference?

**7speed** · 01-24-2010 11:34 PM

huge difference on the butt-dyno. I will need to get new software and tune for the new manifold

**Sales@RAI** · 01-25-2010 07:06 AM

is your lambda correction maxed out?

**7speed** · 02-15-2010 04:09 PM

Just a quick update

- added the Apikol Intake Manifold to the mix. On my last dyno I was pretty much maxing my 630cc injectors out. After I added my Apikol IM I went back to the dyno. The results were not good. I basically maxed ou the 630cc's and threw of the cars balance. As a result I lost power. 10AWHP to be exact. Below is a dyno of the old setup with the new setup, both were at 26psi. Also a log of the run that netted the loss.

**F16HTON** · 02-15-2010 04:28 PM

Did you upgrade your fuel pump? If not the fuel pressure is what is maxed out, not your injectors.

**7speed** · 02-15-2010 05:35 PM

No I did not upgrade the pump yet. It will be upgraded in the next month. That is good to know that the pump was maxed and not the injectors

**A4 TSCHUSS** · 02-15-2010 06:36 PM

I had 630cc injectors and an upgraded pump (bosch 040 at the time) and my car would go lean above 24psi. It would run 12:1 air/fuel if I stayed below 24 but if I went above that it would start going up to like 12.6:1 so I think the 630cc injectors could definitely be maxed out with that static fuel pressure of the stock fuel system.

**F16HTON** · 02-15-2010 07:38 PM

Not a chance at those power levels, I made the same power (334 dynojet) on 440cc injectors. Once he puts the pump in, the air/fuel will be right back at request.

**A4 TSCHUSS** · 02-16-2010 11:48 AM

You made 334hp on a different dyno and with race gas which can run leaner. I am not gonna go back and forth argueing, I ran the same turbo (GT3076r) with the same injectors and the same software as Sam. Difference is I have an AEB head and cams while also having a Bosch 040 pump, but he has a bigger throttle body and intake manifold than I did at the time. I could only run 24psi, he is running more than that. I have logs to prove the air/fuel went lean whenever I would try to run more boost and saw the wideband gauge with my own eyes start going lean until I turned the boost back down where it would then be perfect at between 11.8-12:1. I am so tired of this damn dyno comparison shit, because it is just that, shit. Show me a trap speed if you want to say your car is fast, because dyno numbers don't mean dick when comparing to someone else (p.s. this is not directed toward anyone specific, just a general comment since lots of people are so fixed on dyno numbers to compare to one another.

You want to see how dynos vary, here you go, this is ONE example of MANY out there if you look around, so one persons numbers don't mean shit to compare to anothers if it isn't on the same dyno.

I read a thread a while back that I will use as an example on an Evo forum where David Buscher was talking about some stuff with his personal Evo and added in some dyno stuff with identical settings on two different dynoes, look at how far away the numbers are from each other. Here is the thread if anyone want to read about his little quest for Street car 8s click here

661whp 579wtq on his Mustang dyno at the shop

700whp 646wtq on a Dynojet he brought the car to. So as you can see there was a 39whp difference and 67wtq difference just by taking it to a differnt dyno. Now I have seen even bigger difference where people posted thier graph from one dyno and then another showing like 65whp difference between the two.

So once again, you can't say X car made this on this dyno with this so Y car can to because X dyno can read way different than Y dyno. If you want me to dig up more dyno comparisions where people brought their cars to different dynos running the identical setup so you can see the differences they got I will.

And while we are on the topic of different dynos, there is always the debate between Mustang and Dynojet, I found this interesting from an LS1 webforum. Taken from here click here

I have written pages and pages of posts on this topic on various forums. Here's a little write up I did a few weeks ago. . .

DynoJets are inertia dynos, and have been around for years, much longer than any type of load cell dyno. Inertia dyno's work on the principle of the acceleration of a known mass over time. Their rollers are the known mass. Weighing in at over 2500lbs or so. Your car gets strapped down to the machine, and the dyno collects it's data. It is able to calculate horsepower by measuring the acceleration in rpm of the rollers in regards to RPM. This is why gearing can affect the dyno results, more on that in a bit. Now that the dyno has recorded the horsepower curve, it can take the integral of that curve and get the torque curve. Since the dyno’s power calculations are based on the acceleration of mass over time in regards to RPM, gearing is very important. Since a vehicle with a lower gear ratio can accelerate the mass to a higher speed using less engine RPM, it will show a higher horsepower number than a car with a higher gear ratio. If a car is able to accelerate the dyno’s rollers from 200rpm (roller) to 300rpm (roller)in 1500rpm (engine), then the dyno is going to record more power than a car that did that in 2000rpm (engine).

Now we go to Mustang dyno’s and other loaded dyno’s. Our Mustang MD-1100SE dyno’s rollers weigh 2560lbs. That is the actual mass of the rollers, much like the DynoJet. That’s about where all the similarities end. When we get a car on our dyno, we enter two constants for the dyno’s algorithms. One being the vehicle weight, the other being what’s called “Horsepower At 50mph”. This is a number that represents how much horsepower it takes for the vehicle to push the air to maintain 50mph. This is used as the aerodynamic force. Mustang dyno’s are also equipped with a eddy currant load cell. Think of a magnetic brake from a freight train. This magnetic brake can apply enough resistance to stall a big rig. Off one side of the eddy currant load cell, there is a cantilever with a 5volt reference load sensor (strain gage). As the rollers are spinning this load sensor is measuring the actual torque being applied. So as the rollers spin, the load sensor is measuring the force being applied, sending that information to the dyno computer, taking into account the two constants entered earlier, computing the amount of resistance needed to be applied to the rollers to load the car so that the force of the rollers resistance is as close to the force the car sees on the street. The dyno is then able to calculate the total force being applied to the rollers in torque, and then taking the derivative of that torque curve to arrive at the horsepower curve. Since torque is an actual force of nature, like gravity and electricity, it can be directly measured. Horsepower is an idea that was thought up by man, and cannot be directly measured, only calculated.

I like to state it like this. . . I start by asking how much your car weighs, lets say 3500lbs. Now you take your car and you make a make a WOT rip in your tallest non overdrive gear, how much mass is your engine working against? 3500lbs right? Now you strap your car on a DynoJet and you make a WOT in the same gear, how much mass is your engine working against? 2500lbs right? Now you strap your car on a Mustang dyno, how much mass is your engine working against? 2500lbs. Plus the resistance being applied by the eddy current generator. We’ve seen anywhere for 470lbs of resistance to over 700lbs of resistance as measured in PAU force in the data logs. So which one is more accurate? Well they their both accurate. If a DynoJet dyno says you made 460rwhp, then you made 460rwhp. If a Mustang dyno says you made 460rwhp, you also made 460rwhp. Now which one of those numbers best represents what your car is doing when its on the street. That’s a different question.

The most important thing to remember is that a dyno is a testing tool. If the numbers keep increasing, then you’re doing the right thing. We try to look over at NET gain, instead of Peak HP numbers. A 30rwhp increase is a 30rwhp increase regardless of what dyno it is on.

Now I can address how to calculate the difference between one type of dyno and another. Simply put, you can’t. Because Mustang dyno’s have so many more variables, it’s not a simple percentage difference. We’ve had cars that made 422rwhp on our Dyno, two days later make 458rwhp on a DynoJet the next day. We’ve also had cars that made 550rwhp on our dyno, make 650+rwhp on a DynoJet a few days later at another shops Dyno Day. For instance, my 2002 Z28 with a forged internal LS6 Heads/Cam/Intake, makes 460rwhp on our dyno. I thought that was a little low, since I’ve had cam only LS6 Z06 vettes make 450rwhp. So I overlaid the dyno graphs. Guess what, the PAU force for my car was almost 200lbs more than the C5Z06 that made 450rwhp with cam only. So I entered the weight and horsepower at 50 number for a C5Z06 and did another horsepower rip with my car. The only reason I did that was to compare Apples to Apples. This time my car made 490rwhp, no other changes. Now I don’t go around saying my car made 490rwhp, I say what it actually did with the correct information entered into the computer. It made 460rwhp. Now if I ever get a chance to take it on a DynoJet (which I plan to in the spring), I have no doubts it’ll be over 500rwhp. I know this based on airflow and fuel consumption on the data logs.

But since we’re asked this question constantly we're fairly conservative, and hence tell our customers that the difference is closer to 6-7%, but as you make more power, and the more your car weighs, the difference increases as well. You must remember, Dyno's regardless of the type are tuning tools, and are in no means meant to tell people how fast their car is. Now which one is more "real world" is a totally different question. I like to explain it like this..... If you drive your car in a situation in which you have no mass and you're in a vacuum, so basically if you do intergalactic racing in space, use a DynoJet. If your car sees gravity, and has an aerodynamic coefficient, and you race on a planet called Earth, then use a Mustang Dyno

Moral to the story. Enough with the comparing one dyno to another when they aren't on the same dyno!

**A4DRIVR** · 02-16-2010 12:04 PM

What fuel pressure are you guys runnning? Those injectors seem extremely small to be making those HP numbers safely. Im running 630's and can't hardly get the car to run rich enough... and will be moving to 1000cc to help resolve this. Im running an 044 pump, and approx. 3 bar at the fuel rail. My programming is a mess right now since I'm still trying to figure out my Maestro software!

**Sales@RAI** · 02-16-2010 12:18 PM

Dan was running out of fuel on the 630ccs also.

**Sales@RAI** · 02-16-2010 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by A4DRIVR

What fuel pressure are you guys runnning? Those injectors seem extremely small to be making those HP numbers safely. Im running 630's and can't hardly get the car to run rich enough... and will be moving to 1000cc to help resolve this. Im running an 044 pump, and approx. 3 bar at the fuel rail. My programming is a mess right now since I'm still trying to figure out my Maestro software!

we run static ~55psi at the rail. You shouldn't need 1000ccs for your setup on a rising rate

**A4 TSCHUSS** · 02-16-2010 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by A4DRIVR

What fuel pressure are you guys runnning? Those injectors seem extremely small to be making those HP numbers safely. Im running 630's and can't hardly get the car to run rich enough... and will be moving to 1000cc to help resolve this. Im running an 044 pump, and approx. 3 bar at the fuel rail. My programming is a mess right now since I'm still trying to figure out my Maestro software!

The B6 A4 uses a static fuel pressure system so it stays at one pressure instead of increasing with boost like the older models and the VWs. It runs 58psi while cruising and idle but drops to 54psi under boost. So to answer your question it runs 4 bar cruising and just under that under boost but it stays at that level no matter what boost you run. A few people have rising rate systems installed though like myself which could help in the case of smaller injectors since the fuel pressure will increase with boost allowing the injector to flow more.

Here is a pressure test video I did while using the stock fuel system

**Doctor** · 02-16-2010 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by A4 TSCHUSS

The B6 A4 uses a static fuel pressure system so it stays at one pressure instead of increasing with boost like the older models and the VWs. It runs 58psi while cruising and idle but drops to 54psi under boost. So to answer your question it runs 4 bar cruising and just under that under boost but it stays at that level no matter what boost you run. A few people have rising rate systems installed though like myself which could help in the case of smaller injectors since the fuel pressure will increase with boost allowing the injector to flow more.

Here is a pressure test video I did while using the stock fuel system

Exactly the same numbers i get from my stock fuel setup on my GReddy Fuel Pressure Electronic Gauge...
(BT TurboNetics GTK450 setup)

**Rejmow** · 04-29-2010 03:34 PM

Definetly subbing this

**7speed** · 09-12-2010 06:05 PM

Updates - 9/12/2010

I finally got around to installing my built AEB head. In the process I was able to locate several cracks in my old AMB head. The install of the head was pretty straight forward. Having a built head is pretty damn amazing. Having the ability to rev to 8000 rpm safely is a dream. There is a noticeable difference. I did find out today that I needed to have my rev limiter bumped up in my software. Below are pics and a log from today.

**Sales@RAI** · 09-12-2010 10:23 PM

Good stuff Sam!

**7speed** · 09-19-2010 12:53 PM

Just a little update

Bolts came loose on the exhaust housing of my turbo, causing the exhaust wheel to grind against the interior of the exhaust housing. Turbo performance was affected. Now I just gotta decide if I want to go the PTE5857 or just repair this GT30R. The problems that are presented by the 5857 are the more forward placement, the need for a new downpipe and filter selection. Pics follow.

**sandspeed** · 09-19-2010 03:44 PM

Well that sucks.

**7speed** · 09-19-2010 06:00 PM

Yeah I do have quite the dilemma. I'm not quite sure that I want to deal with the additional lag that comes with the larger PTE5857.

**A4 TSCHUSS** · 09-19-2010 06:37 PM

As for a downpipe, I went from my gt vband housing 30r to the 5857 with same downpipe. I had to change my downpipe when I went from my 3071r with 5 bolt housing with vband adapter to the gt vband housing 30r since it was shorter and there was like a 1" gap. It looks like you have a 4 bolt housing with vband adapter like I have with my 5857 but not sure how close the turbine housing placing is between the two. I had a little bit of play in my downpipe to make it swap to the new turbo.

Oh, and is it even possible to get the 30r rebuilt with a new turbine wheel? Where would you get that done at?

**7speed** · 09-19-2010 07:31 PM

Yeah I'm no too sure about the rebuild ? I will look into that tomorrow. Depending on the cost of the possible rebuild, it may force my hand into getting the 5857.

**7speed** · 09-20-2010 03:41 PM

Looks like a rebuild will be in the neighborhood of $500.00. I won't be going that route. I think that the seals in the turbo are going bad. At higher boost (26 psi) I get a plume of smoke out the tailpipes then it goes away. Weird.

I did a compression test today as well. All cylinders were between at about 175 +/-.

**a408** · 09-20-2010 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by 7speed

Looks like a rebuild will be in the neighborhood of $500.00. I won't be going that route. I think that the seals in the turbo are going bad. At higher boost (26 psi) I get a plume of smoke out the tailpipes then it goes away. Weird.

I did a compression test today as well. All cylinders were between at about 175 +/-.

so are you going with the DBB or journal bearing pte5857??

**7speed** · 10-19-2010 02:01 PM

Update

Installed my replacement GT3076R and I'm back in the game.

**bananas** · 10-19-2010 02:06 PM

woot!

**Audi Skate Snow** · 10-19-2010 02:14 PM

woot woot x2

**7speed** · 10-19-2010 02:17 PM

Now it's time for a new clutch and finish it off with Maestro software.

**a408** · 10-19-2010 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by 7speed

Now it's time for a new clutch and finish it off with Maestro software.

what clutch?

**7speed** · 10-19-2010 03:37 PM

I think I will be going with the 240mm version of the FX400, I have also been considering an FX850 but there is a huge price difference. How is your car coming along ?

**a408** · 10-19-2010 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by 7speed

I think I will be going with the 240mm version of the FX400, I have also been considering an FX850 but there is a huge price difference. How is your car coming along ?

yeah i want the fx850 too but the price is what's stopping me

my car is coming along great. i have almost all the parts i need in, just need piping for the fmic and its good to go

**7speed** · 10-21-2010 02:20 PM

Scratch that !

**7speed** · 11-10-2010 02:24 PM

Well the FX400 228mm kit was overrated and took a shit on me. Sooooooooo........ I ordered the FX850SS hopefully this will solve my clutch problems. Updates will follow as I attempt to install.

**a408** · 11-10-2010 05:26 PM

cant go wrong with that

**B6Lovin** · 11-10-2010 07:00 PM

i dont understand why you would continue to trust a company that has proven to overrate clutches, not even prorate their product for us after the fact, and that gets terrible reviews from other parts of the car-world...

i'm done with clutch masters... never shoulda given them any of my money before doing research. it's gonna be ACT from here on out.. they seem to be the only trust-worthy clutch company out there that makes a clutch worth a damn.

maybe you should do a little searching before you install that fx850 in case you decide you want to return it....