FrankenTurbo Statement on Our Published Compressor Maps

[canadianA4B7]

This guys likely number 1 on the local DDR machine! (Joking here but your asking for proof on maps which were admittedly wrong and skewed in an attempt to outperform the next guy) real world use and those who bought and used could actually compare. In order to justify this for yourself I think you need to get yourself a b7 A4 and buy both a S3 k04 and a frankenturbo k04 and compare. If you want the info and aren't willing to accept what those are saying happened as with most things in life your going to have to do it yourself.

There was a vid posted too of an S3 k04 car lined up with the frankenturbo car, the S3 k04 walked away from the frankenturbo turbo. At least 1.5-2 seconds faster in the 1/4 mile. I believe the vid was hosted on photobucket as I'm not able to find it. But I know I myself looked into them then saw P0ison go through the ordeal which lead me to going with the oem S3 k04.

[FlyboyS4]

This guys likely number 1 on the local DDR machine! (Joking here but your asking for proof on maps which were admittedly wrong and skewed in an attempt to outperform the next guy) real world use and those who bought and used could actually compare. In order to justify this for yourself I think you need to get yourself a b7 A4 and buy both a S3 k04 and a frankenturbo k04 and compare. If you want the info and aren't willing to accept what those are saying happened as with most things in life your going to have to do it yourself.

There was a vid posted too of an S3 k04 car lined up with the frankenturbo car, the S3 k04 walked away from the frankenturbo turbo. At least 1.5-2 seconds faster in the 1/4 mile. I believe the vid was hosted on photobucket as I'm not able to find it. But I know I myself looked into them then saw P0ison go through the ordeal which lead me to going with the oem S3 k04.

If they are wrong and skewed then they won't match up with how the turbocharger compressor performs. Has someone demonstrated that the turbocharger performs significantly differently than the map depicts?

It's a simple yes or no question. One answer will end the discussion, the other will lead to follow-on questions to determine if the answer is valid or not.

[canadianA4B7]

Ok yes the turbo was loged by the members who installed. Which is why all of this happened. I don't remeber the member but I believe he posted his logs in his build thread when this all started. Will likely take 6 months to find the info. But yes there were logs done showing the data provided did not meet actual

[FlyboyS4]

Ok yes the turbo was loged by the members who installed. Which is why all of this happened. I don't remeber the member but I believe he posted his logs in his build thread when this all started. Will likely take 6 months to find the info. But yes there were logs done showing the data provided did not meet actual

Is the information in this forum? With an approximate time frame that the hoopla started a little research should turn up that data. If it is in a build thread that will help narrow down where to look.

Edit: I've found the thread where claims about the maps are being made, but there's no data presented in the discussion, nor links to other threads, to address my question.

[canadianA4B7]

Seems like your never going to be satisfied with an answer.

I myself remember seeing the data on my computer, where I have no fucking clue it was like 10 years ago let's say I was sitting on my patio to end your continuous asking as to where the data was seen. My patio on my laptop computer. It's an acerbic if that matters at all too. Likely it was my laptop that skewed the maps I'm assuming will be your next question. Or perhaps the angle of my screen was why the maps appeared skewed. or perhaps they were skewed as Doug from frankenturbo has admitted to.

The horse is dead. If you want more data go buy a b7, buy an S3 k04, and an F23. That way you can do all this yourself to satisfy your needs and questions. If you want something done and you cannot find it yourself there's only one way to solve it. Do it yourself.

[FlyboyS4]

Seems like your never going to be satisfied with an answer.

Not true, I'm interested in learning if there is evidence that shows the turbocharger compressor does not perform as shown by the map.

The fact that none of the answers given thus far can supply the evidence or point where to find it doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist, in fact the inability of anyone to produce the evidence is building a case that no proof exists.

[Biged243]

Then just buy one and have fun. Good luck.

[canadianA4B7]

Then just buy one and have fun. Good luck.

X2, can't wait to see the results.

Other then stating that I read the data myself and moved on I doubt highly It'll be found now, being photobucjets recent shitting of the bed the exact thread will likely not contain the pics anymore. And other then the obvious outright admitting that frankenturbo turbo has done why is this still being questioned? Better yet why do I continue to feed the ddr machine with info? This thread needs to die again. No love for frankenturbo here. But I can guarantee you can make a k04 that performs better then the S3 K04. Pretty easily too.

[FlyboyS4]

Then just buy one and have fun. Good luck.

X2, can't wait to see the results.

Other then stating that I read the data myself and moved on I doubt highly It'll be found now, being photobucjets recent shitting of the bed the exact thread will likely not contain the pics anymore. And other then the obvious outright admitting that frankenturbo turbo has done why is this still being questioned? Better yet why do I continue to feed the ddr machine with info? This thread needs to die again. No love for frankenturbo here. But I can guarantee you can make a k04 that performs better then the S3 K04. Pretty easily too.

My intent has not been to settle the matter but to point out that there is zero evidence to show that the turbo compressor does not perform as illustrated in the map.

I agree that absent any evidence the discussion is not going to go far, but at least you are now aware that you are making unfounded accusations.

[Theiceman]

I think you was 1 of the rare one's .

I a few pictures of there builds. It pretty . 1 that stood out was when they a stack of washers between the motor mount and subframe to elevate the motor to clear the exhaust manifold they was using . Very sad for a so-called professional tune shop to do that type of and charge top dollar for it .

There 3 inch DP was another disaster. But Ive heard the earlier production 1s where .

Once you loose the business and your reputation is very hard to gain it back. The stigma always stays with you.

Reading vce's posts on an I phone is funny. Fortunately I've read enough that I can translate. New guys must be dying


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[Axis]

I doubt anyone had time to compare how the turbo behaved vs the photoshopped maps before they exploded. Time frame is too small between install and explosion.

[tloft4]

My intent has not been to settle the matter but to point out that there is zero evidence to show that the turbo compressor does not perform as illustrated in the map.

I agree that absent any evidence the discussion is not going to go far, but at least you are now aware that you are making unfounded accusations.

You must be on some sort of reverse witch hunt.

The op clearly states his maps are inaccurate due to, at the least, nonstandard conditions. Could his turbo possibly perform at the level his pics state, under the same conditions? Sure.

Did he subject his car to the same standards as other turbo mapped pictures are? Absolutely not. Evidence in post #1.

Every reliable tuner out there will readily admit that "results may vary". But you want to take a graph as fact for something because no one can reproduce otherwise. If they boosted at -100 ft to sea level, and another person in the Rockies shows loss, that's not the same. They blatantly admitted to nonstandard testing, but that isn't good enough for you. Dynos can show massive differences; would you take a dyno that shows 20% less than another on the same car? But you demand real world results for something they admit in post #1.

Exploding turbos aside, if sub standard test conditions aren't enough for you to disagree, there is no point. Stable conditions are the #1 point of comparison. There's no ignoring that.

[vce1232000]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JizzeERcZjg

[aluthman]

My intent has not been to settle the matter but to point out that there is zero evidence to show that the turbo compressor does not perform as illustrated in the map.

I agree that absent any evidence the discussion is not going to go far, but at least you are now aware that you are making unfounded accusations.

So they admit to bullshitting up some compressor maps in photoshop and you're defending them because no one has proven that they didn't blindy guess correctly?

[vce1232000]

So they admit to bullshitting up some compressor maps in photoshop and you're defending them because no one has proven that they didn't blindy guess correctly?

Not only the fudged bull maps. But the quality of the turbo was . Didnt even last a year before they blew up

[FlyboyS4]

The op clearly states his maps are inaccurate due to, at the least, nonstandard conditions.

No, it does not say that, it says the opposite, that the map is accurate and the test data were accurate

[jbain2]

If they are wrong and skewed then they won't match up with how the turbocharger compressor performs. Has someone demonstrated that the turbocharger performs significantly differently than the map depicts?

It's a simple yes or no question. One answer will end the discussion, the other will lead to follow-on questions to determine if the answer is valid or not.

There's no evidence that the turbo performs as the map would have indicated. The burden of proof here should lie with the seller not the consumer. Doug removed the maps because FT couldn't prove them to be an accurate and reproducible map for the FT turbo they were selling.

As a consumer I want to purchase an item based on demonstrated and proven data not that it may accidentally conform to what's being purported just by dumb luck. Marketing and selling under that auspice is disingenuous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tloft4]

No, it does not say that, it says the opposite, that the map is accurate and the test data were accurate

"The testing we did which resulted in that map was not the same type of testing used to create the comparative maps also listed on our site."

I'm sorry reading is so hard for you.

[Ashtonts]

^ Lol

[vce1232000]

I'm sorry reading is so hard for you.

...........................

[FlyboyS4]

"The testing we did which resulted in that map was not the same type of testing used to create the comparative maps also listed on our site."

I'm sorry reading is so hard for you.

You seem to have failed to comprehend the meaning of the sentence you quoted. It is not in contradiction to the statements I have referred to.

[Biged243]

[canadianA4B7]

OMG PUPPIES!!

[tloft4]

When you're a killer and the cops come

Sent from my Pixel using Audizine mobile app

[FlyboyS4]

There seems to be misunderstanding about what testing differently can mean and the implication for results.

It is quite possible to perform tests in different ways, each with different standards, and have both generate valid results. For example, APR sells a turbocharger upgrade and depicts the performance the product delivers by way of a torque and horsepower curve that is generated with their dynamometer. AWE-Tuning sells turbocharger upgrades and presents the performance of the product on 'dyno charts' generated on their dynamometer. Using a chassis dynamometer to conduct tests of products is a common method employed by vendors of aftermarket car parts.

Another vendor, The Turbo Engineers (TTE), sells turbocharger upgrades and often display their product performance as measured by the Insoric RealPower Dyno-System. This is a different test method with different standards, but produces results that are argued by the vendor to be accurate.

By utilizing the less common Insoric device to generate power curves is TTE being deceitful and producing fraudulent results?

I believe that the accuracy of the results are what matter, and in that respect the statement by FT in the first post is that their tests produced accurate test data and accurate results, using a different test method is not important if the results produced were accurate.

Returning to the subject of my question, there does not appear to be any evidence to show that the turbocharger compressor does not perform as illustrated by the map. None of the negative accusations made against FT have a sound basis.

[Biged243]

Then just buy one and have fun. Good luck.

This^ just see for yourself.

[jbain2]

The testing we did which resulted in that map was not the same type of testing used to create the comparative maps also listed on our site. And so while our test data were accurate and truthful, it was a mistake to publish that map in the context of others which were tested using different methods...

It is that the research methods we used do not meet the standard for a publishable compressor map.

I acknowledge that our compressor map needs to be withdrawn.

It seems clear to me that while "testing" was done, the methods were not disclosed and Doug admitted that it was a mistake to publish the map based on the testing methods used.

He also stated that the methods they used don't meet the standard for generating the map they published.

And lastly, he acknowledged that the map should be withdrawn based on the factors that he identified.

I have zero first hand experience with Frankenturbo and was not an active member of the B7 forum when all of this was going on.

I just don't understand why you insist on pushing this issue Jeff? I won't reply from here on out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FlyboyS4]

I just don't understand why you insist on pushing this issue Jeff? I won't reply from here on out.

I don't disagree, removing the maps was the right thing to do. The question about pushing the matter ought to be directed to PreciseD, that's who brought the thread back from the dead.

I'm pointing out the lack of evidence of wrongdoing for those who think for themselves and choose to form conclusions based on facts.

[tloft4]

Someone bumps a thread about a company lying, so blame them. Someone spends every other post defending the lying company so no fault. I can guess who you voted for.

Seems like you have some loose noodles in your noggin

[FlyboyS4]

Someone bumps a thread about a company lying,

That should read, "Someone bumps a thread about about unfounded allegations of a company lying," Nobody has provided any evidence of lying taking place. And yes, blame the guy who bumped the thread up so that it became a current topic of discussion once again.

Someone spends every other post defending the lying company so no fault. I can guess who you voted for.

I'm not defending the company, I'm inquiring about the existence of facts that demonstrate the turbocharger compressor does not perform as illustrated by the compressor map.

People such as yourself, and others, are claiming lies have been made and fraud has taken place, so I'm asking, where's the evidence? Where's the proof that the product does not perform as claimed? The replies given thus far have not contained any evidence, I think you are confusing 'defending' with asking for some factual substantiation of the accusations.

As for continuing to ask the question, yes, I am at fault for pointing out each time that the responses given have not contained facts that support the accusations.

[EvolutionArmory]

That should read, "Someone bumps a thread about about unfounded allegations of a company lying," Nobody has provided any evidence of lying taking place. And yes, blame the guy who bumped the thread up so that it became a current topic of discussion once again.



I'm not defending the company, I'm inquiring about the existence of facts that demonstrate the turbocharger compressor does not perform as illustrated by the compressor map.

People such as yourself, and others, are claiming lies have been made and fraud has taken place, so I'm asking, where's the evidence? Where's the proof that the product does not perform as claimed? The replies given thus far have not contained any evidence, I think you are confusing 'defending' with asking for some factual substantiation of the accusations.

As for continuing to ask the question, yes, I am at fault for pointing out each time that the responses given have not contained facts that support the accusations.

The simple question is, why would a company remove the map if it performed like the map suggests and was an accurate representation of the turbo?

As a small business owner, I tend to double down on the positive aspects of my business and products if the question of quality or performance comes up, not remove things or back peddle. I try not to put myself in situations where I need to do that, period.

The point is, if the map was accurate and a true representation of the turbo, why wouldn't he defend the data? I would if the data was legit.

[EvolutionArmory]

And then there is the "unconventional" way in which they collected their data. They say it was collected differently than other companies do. That's fine, take the time to explain why they did that and why they feel doing it that way it is better. Take JHM's approach to proving the power they are making. Most of the turbo companies produce dyno results. It's a "somewhat standardized" testing method in the industry which produces a number. 300HP is less than 350HP for example. JHM won't publish dyno numbers. When asked why they double down on why they believe it is not the best way to judge power because they believe their testing is more realistic.

Look at Dru. His car does a 12.1 on the track. Ask him what it makes for power on the dyno. He doesn't know. You would think he would want to know the number. Nope. He knows his car is pretty fast though. 😀

[FlyboyS4]

The simple question is, why would a company remove the map if it performed like the map suggests and was an accurate representation of the turbo?

My opinion, the reason I would remove the map in the situation described above is that it provides little to no benefit. The market segment that is the consumer of these turbo's is not making a positive purchase decision based upon the compressor map. These consumers spend a good bit of time on car forums, and the forums also attract detractors who make a point of trying to discredit vendors. As this entire thread illustrates, the consumer base is not significantly concerned by facts and can be swayed to form an opinion on the basis of faulty logic.

The effort to educate the consumer on the topic of compressor maps, methods for their generation, and shortcomings associated with the various methodologies would be considerable and rely on a foundation of knowledge in physical sciences that is probably not existent.

And then there is the "unconventional" way in which they collected their data. They say it was collected differently than other companies do. That's fine, take the time to explain why they did that and why they feel doing it that way it is better. Take JHM's approach to proving the power they are making. Most of the turbo companies produce dyno results. It's a "somewhat standardized" testing method in the industry which produces a number. 300HP is less than 350HP for example. JHM won't publish dyno numbers. When asked why they double down on why they believe it is not the best way to judge power because they believe their testing is more realistic.

Look at Dru. His car does a 12.1 on the track. Ask him what it makes for power on the dyno. He doesn't know. You would think he would want to know the number. Nope. He knows his car is pretty fast though. 😀

This is what I was talking about with respect to educating the consumer. As a business owner if something you present to consumers is confusing them, creates an opportunity for criticism of your business, and is not going to significantly improve their chances of purchasing from you (HP sells these products, not pressure ratio for a given mass airflow rate) do you spend a significant amount of time trying to educate potential consumers on the topic, or do you remove the source of confusion and spend your time on more productive activities?

[EvolutionArmory]

Data collected properly is never a bad thing and as a business owner, you have to cater to a broad audience. You've got less tech savvy customers who want the short answer. X product produces this result. And then you have the more tech savvy customer who want to know exactly why X product produces that result. You can cater to both if your product is what you claim it is.

If the map was accurate, why not leave it up? It provides data for those who understand how to read it and the customer's who don't understand it can either educate themselves on what it means or buy their turbo because of the advertised HP gains or because of a proven track record or word of mouth like almost everyone else.

[FlyboyS4]

Data collected properly is never a bad thing and as a business owner, you have to cater to a broad audience. You've got less tech savvy customers who want the short answer. X product produces this result. And then you have the more tech savvy customer who want to know exactly why X product produces that result. You can cater to both if your product is what you claim it is.

If the map was accurate, why not leave it up? It provides data for those who understand how to read it and the customer's who don't understand it can either educate themselves on what it means or buy their turbo because of the advertised HP gains or because of a proven track record or word of mouth like almost everyone else.

For the most part I'm in agreement with you on the principles. As a practical matter, having collected and presented data to this community for a long time, you can immediately get into a debate over what is 'properly' collected data, with some arguing that absent every imaginable control variable being isolated the results are invalid.

I disagree with the general statement that as a business owner one has to cater to a broad audience, I believe you are better off identifying who your most likely customer is and addressing their needs. In the case of Frankenturbo I don't imagine the prime customer is evaluating the compressor map and eliminating the map puts FT in line with their competitors - most of whom also make various claims without backing them up.

[EvolutionArmory]

I hear you. Some industries can choose to cater to a more sophisticated clientele. My business is high end and custom firearms. My average ticket is a few thousand dollars. Even in that cottage industry my customer base is still pretty wide. Some want to know if the gun shoots a 1 inch group at 25+ yards and leave it alone when I show them the test target. Some customers want to know how far the barrel locks up into the slide to the .001 of an inch to help achieve that result. A good business can cater to both those people's needs and explain it in a way that both customers can understand and still target your prime audience.

I'll use AWE's intercooler for example. There's tons of data about it on their site. End tank design and flow, crazy graphs etc. Way over my head but if I took a day and studied those aspects of building an intercooler, I would find that info helpful. There's also a tab that says with this car, with this tune and with this intercooler, the car made 10 more WHP. That's something I can wrap my head around without having to take an engineering night class. They cater to both audiences and STRONGLY back their data like a reputable company should. You can and should have both.

FYI, I'm enjoying this conversation.

[FlyboyS4]

Yes, the way that the compressor map subject transpired was unfortunate. Given how things went I still think pulling the maps and posting the apology was an adequate ending.

Most of the small vendors have claims that aren't backed up, or if so are done poorly, including AWE. The S-Flo intake comes to mind, for years I asked them for the data they supposedly recorded showing its gains and they never produced it. I don't think that is grounds to call them liars and frauds.

By and large I think the vendors are trying to provide products that work and do business in a honest manner. Performance data, and the methods employed to acquire it, opens things up to a whole new level of scrutiny and opinions of adequacy. If it were BorgWarner or Garrett I'd expect a higher level of performance analysis, when the companies in question are often competing to be the low cost alternative I'm not surprised when the methods used aren't up to the level of rigor that I'd expect an OEM to follow.

[mec]

Flyboi in the b7 section:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FlyboyS4]

Flyboi in the b7 section:

I'm still looking for evidence that the product does not perform as was shown.

[Seerlah]

Just throwing in my two cents, but the FT for the b7 has blown a few motors. That is why FT has a bad taste in their mouths, to my understanding. But when it comes to turbochargers like the KOR, no issue. Not saying because people tuned off a false map, and not saying people didn't. But what I am saying is I rarely take coincidences for face value...like almost never.

Before it was also mentioned about RAI being placed in a similar category. It was a feedback thread I started that has them no longer as advertisers. No rebuttal from them, except them no longer being advertisers almost right after the thread started and the shit storm of other stories started pouring in. It was not what I was execting, to say the least.

Weather forecast of a Sh*t Storm if link pressed (flashback)