Another 10sec S4

[jaychen]

Hope he doesn't mind.

Some fast cars coming together for 2K16.

The platform might be over 16years old now, but people are still putting in work.

[Zba]

Must be a VR6 swap ;)

[Dan[FN]6262]

get the 60' down and it'll be damn near 9s. IDK how possible that is being that it is most likely a manual car. wicked fast

[Mark00s4]

whats your set up?

[gahigalaba]

It is a guy's car off the b5 s4 Facebook page. He said his setup is 24v vr6. Built motor. 6466 .82ar. stock rebuilt trans. R200 diff

[Devious27t]

It is a guy's car off the b5 s4 Facebook page. He said his setup is 24v vr6. Built motor. 6466 .82ar. stock rebuilt trans. R200 diff

I believe that would be JDM EJ1 95 on here.

[y3ti]

Full weight?

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

[jaychen]

Full weight. Yes jdm boy

Sent from ...

[marka4]

Ill b in the - 10s club b4 christmas i hope :)

[getslideways]

Glad to hear. Any vids to accompany it for use as visual candy?

Not to take anything away from it, but I was hoping the car being spotlighted here was still utilizing the 2.7t. VR6's can both make and handle power, no doubt about it.

Again, not to take anything away from the car, the build or the owner, its still impressive and good to hear people are still pushing the chassis, even if not pushing the 2.7t.

[NOTORIOUS VR]

Glad to hear. Any vids to accompany it for use as visual candy?

Not to take anything away from it, but I was hoping the car being spotlighted here was still utilizing the 2.7t. VR6's can both make and handle power, no doubt about it.

Again, not to take anything away from the car, the build or the owner, its still impressive and good to hear people are still pushing the chassis, even if not pushing the 2.7t.

If people would actually push the 2.7 by doing it correctly there would be a lot more fast S4's out there. Putting the same parts, time, effort and money into the 2.7T as most do with the VR6 and the results will be quite similar :)

[Dan[FN]6262]

2.7tt > vr6 ... IMO

[Zba]

2.7tt > vr6 ... IMO

Seven main caps > Four main caps

Science

[Devious27t]

2.7tt > vr6 ... IMO

Not sure the performance results to date for each engine in the B5 chassis would support your statement...

[Zba]

2.7tt > vr6 ... IMO

VR room to work > 2.7TT room to work

[Dan[FN]6262]

Not sure the performance results to date for each engine in the B5 chassis would support your statement...

Seven main caps > Four main caps

Science

and? VRs love to snap cranks around 800bhp. at least the 12 & 24v.


sorry for having an opinion that doesn't conform to the circle jerk


guessing none of you have ever rebuilt a VR.

[Zba]

Maybe I should have added IMO so you wouldn't get butt hurt

[Dan[FN]6262]

lmfao! what about my post makes you think there was butthurt involved? I thought it was funny and would be laughed at. You really think I am that invested in someone's opinion on the internet? get over yourself dude.

[NOTORIOUS VR]

Not sure the performance results to date for each engine in the B5 chassis would support your statement...

And how many 2.7T's do you see getting the same treatment of nice intake manifolds, turbo headers, cams, etc, etc like VR6's swaps get?

You simply can't compare a $10k+ VR6 swap/build to a $5k bolt on 2.7T engine, running garbage cast headers or stock manifolds, stock intake manifolds and throttle bodies, small port heads, stock cams, etc, etc, etc.

[Dan[FN]6262]

And the number of main caps mean nothing when there is less than 2 sq inches of surface area connecting the offset rod journals. That's where they break.

[oppositelock]

And the number of main caps mean nothing when there is less than 2 sq inches of surface area connecting the offset rod journals. That's where they break.

I'm a little surprised that the 2.7T cranks don't break where the offset crankpins meet. Not a lot of overlap there either. At least I don't recall reading of one breaking. But maybe crank flex contributes to the main webs breaking in 700+whp builds.

[GURUMAN]

Someone is pushing a v6 since i left ;o)





Doesn't look like an rs4 block



Quit using stupid stock frame chinese turbos if you guys want to go fast...

[audacity]

the b5 chassis could be fast with any motor swapped into. i just don't care about fast b5's the fact they don't have the 2.7 in them seems sort of like a cop out. IMO

[Bordom]

Someone is pushing a v6 since i left ;o)





Doesn't look like an rs4 block



Quit using stupid stock frame chinese turbos if you guys want to go fast...

Where did you find all that?

Everything graciously mispelled by Android

[GURUMAN]

https://www.facebook.com/www.konopek...=page_internal

[Devious27t]

And how many 2.7T's do you see getting the same treatment of nice intake manifolds, turbo headers, cams, etc, etc like VR6's swaps get?

You simply can't compare a $10k+ VR6 swap/build to a $5k bolt on 2.7T engine, running garbage cast headers or stock manifolds, stock intake manifolds and throttle bodies, small port heads, stock cams, etc, etc, etc.

You're making a pretty broad assumption. There have been plenty of mega dollar 2.7L builds over the years. There are tons of 3.0L big turbo builds that are in the 40k+ build price range all in. Other than guruman and phillippe, there haven't been any hugely relevant times put down. Just a bunch of 750whp cars that trap 129mph. The biggest limitation of the 2.7 is the 5v design. The 24v VRs are simply more efficient.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan[FN]6262]

Incorrect. The long intake runner that has to go to the other side of the head for the doofy ass design heats the intake charge air more than the "intake" side, slightly changing the charged air density and AFRs of those cylinders. Not to mention the ridiculous headgasket issues that VRs have.

I loved VRs until I had to tinker with them.

[Devious27t]

Incorrect. The long intake runner that has to go to the other side of the head for the doofy ass design heats the intake charge air more than the "intake" side, slightly changing the charged air density and AFRs of those cylinders. Not to mention the ridiculous headgasket issues that VRs have.

I loved VRs until I had to tinker with them.

That doesn't exist in a B5 implementation. I've dealt with plenty of VRs and head studs have always alleviated that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dan[FN]6262]

How? You re-cast the head so the internal intake runners that go from one side of the head to the other are now external?

I'm not talking about the intake manifold, I'm talking about the actual head casting.

[Devious27t]

How? You re-cast the head so the internal intake runners that go from one side of the head to the other are now external?

I'm not talking about the intake manifold, I'm talking about the actual head casting.

First, off I would love to see your data on this. Feel free to post hard data.

Second, how is that any worse than the head designs on the 2.7? They're great for moderate 500-600hp, but beyond that you're doing a lot of work for very little reward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[getslideways]

...Not to mention the ridiculous headgasket issues that VRs have...

... I've dealt with plenty of VRs and head studs have always alleviated that.

How? You re-cast the head so the internal intake runners that go from one side of the head to the other are now external?

I'm not talking about the intake manifold, I'm talking about the actual head casting.

i think he was talking about headstuds addressing the headgasket problem, not headstuds altering the physical intake and exhaust paths

[Devious27t]

i think he was talking about headstuds addressing the headgasket problem, not headstuds altering the physical intake and exhaust paths

He is making a hugely generalized statement about VR heads that varies from 12v to 24v to r32. I've seen tons of flow test data on bdfs and most of them flow within a couple of CFM of one another across all ports. The r32s are more consistent even. Which is why I would love to see his own personal data in the matter. I have a feeling I will get a regurgitated Google search though.

Fwiw I love the 2.7T, I've worked on them for 15 years and owned one for 10 of the last 15 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[getslideways]

/\ my above comment was meant to be addressed to Dan[FN]6262

I was just quoting the back and forth to provide context and clarity. As i think Dan accidentally misread your statement of "I've dealt with plenty of VRs and head studs have always alleviated that" and accidentally interpreted your "alleviated that" statement to be in reference to the runner/port layout claim and not the headgasket failure claim (which i believe is what you were talking about)

[NOTORIOUS VR]

You're making a pretty broad assumption. There have been plenty of mega dollar 2.7L builds over the years. There are tons of 3.0L big turbo builds that are in the 40k+ build price range all in. Other than guruman and phillippe, there haven't been any hugely relevant times put down. Just a bunch of 750whp cars that trap 129mph. The biggest limitation of the 2.7 is the 5v design. The 24v VRs are simply more efficient.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What kind of nonsense are you talking about now. I stopped listening at VR6's being more efficient.

Like really come on. Horrible port design and general bad head design, bad and LOW flowing head/ports. They were never designed for big power numbers, but they're stout and you can throw a decent amount of boost at them and they will make power that way (like a 2JZ - shit head but lots of aftermarket, R&D, boost and RPM's let them go fast). Power is made in the HEAD. 1.8T's have no problem making big numbers and their heads are virtually identical to the 2.7T's. IF you don't have head flow you need lots of boost and RPM instead.

Also throwing money at something doesn't mean it will be fast. Lots of single turbo builds recently just have basic parts thrown at them. But they keep ignoring many of the key parts to make power and go fast with it.

[Dan[FN]6262]

At least someone in this thread gets it.

[Devious27t]

What kind of nonsense are you talking about now. I stopped listening at VR6's being more efficient.

Like really come on. Horrible port design and general bad head design, bad and LOW flowing head/ports. They were never designed for big power numbers, but they're stout and you can throw a decent amount of boost at them and they will make power that way (like a 2JZ - shit head but lots of aftermarket, R&D, boost and RPM's let them go fast). Power is made in the HEAD. 1.8T's have no problem making big numbers and their heads are virtually identical to the 2.7T's. IF you don't have head flow you need lots of boost and RPM instead.

Also throwing money at something doesn't mean it will be fast. Lots of single turbo builds recently just have basic parts thrown at them. But they keep ignoring many of the key parts to make power and go fast with it.

You didn't listen in the first place, because you have no idea what you're talking about with regard to head designs. 5v per cylinder heads are probably the worst design for big power that you will find in a modern engine. That is why the 2.0T FSI and even TSI long sinced passed the 1.8T in power abilities despite a shorter lifespan. Can you band aid them with tons of boost? Sure, but then you're just cramming 40psi of boost through giant turbos and a straw to make 600whp. You're also hearing what you want to hear. I'm not saying the flow design of the VR is great, I am simply saying it's better than the 5v cars. I should caveat this further by saying that I am specifically referring to 24v engines (not a fan of 12v).

There is one single turbo build on here making good notable progress and his is neither simple, nor cheap. I'm aware of a claimed 1000whp car in Canada, but nothing of note has been shared on it. 1000whp should get him 150s easily in the 1/4 mile. If you can share some results on other cars, I would love to see them. Bringing this back on topic, I believe Ricky's car is in the 550whp range and trapping ~132 in summer DAs? That seems a pretty reasonable spread for an inefficient POS.

[NOTORIOUS VR]

At least someone in this thread gets it.

Don't get me wrong, the VR6 is a great little motor that has been taken quite far because of how strong it is.

But saying a VR6 is efficient is pretty funny all things considered how it was designed from the get go (compromises everywhere) due to packaging. Anyone who has tried to make power with one NA or boosted will know what it's limitations are.

[NOTORIOUS VR]

You didn't listen in the first place, because you have no idea what you're talking about with regard to head designs. 5v per cylinder heads are probably the worst design for big power that you will find in a modern engine.

LOL WUT?

That is why the 2.0T FSI and even TSI long sinced passed the 1.8T in power abilities despite a shorter lifespan.

If you're saying if the above engines had 5V instead of the 4V motors they would make less power, you sir are wrong.

Can you band aid them with tons of boost? Sure, but then you're just cramming 40psi of boost through giant turbos and a straw to make 600whp.

You mean like a VR6? or a 2JZ?

You're also hearing what you want to hear. I'm not saying the flow design of the VR is great, I am simply saying it's better than the 5v cars.

It certainly is not. But you're welcome to believe whatever it is you want to believe. FWIW, a 24V VR head typically flows under 175 CFM even with porting work many don't reach 180 CFM. A stock S4 small port head w/ stock valves out flows this with around 190-195 CFM. Ported 5V heads have seen as high as 265+ CFM

I should caveat this further by saying that I am specifically referring to 24v engines (not a fan of 12v).

I'll give you that the 4V is a big step over the 2V engine.

There is one single turbo build on here making good notable progress and his is neither simple, nor cheap.

I could care less about the builds on here to be honest, and referencing them doesn't help your case since in no way, shape or form is the 2.7T's cylinder head the part that is holding anything/anyone back.

[oppositelock]

Yamaha quietly switched from 5V to 4V heads on their MotoGP bike around 2005. The YZF-R1 followed suit. Kevin Cameron (noted motorcycle tech writer) has written extensively about the problems of the Yamaha 5V head, particularly the long/thin combustion chamber shape it creates, and the long flame propagation times which required excessive spark advance to mitigate.

As I understand it Audi's switch to 4V was driven by direct injection. They needed room for the injector in the combustion chamber. But they may have gained combustion speed and therefore power in the bargain too.

[NOTORIOUS VR]

Yamaha quietly switched from 5V to 4V heads on their MotoGP bike around 2005. The YZF-R1 followed suit. Kevin Cameron (noted motorcycle tech writer) has written extensively about the problems of the Yamaha 5V head, particularly the long/thin combustion chamber shape it creates, and the long flame propagation times which required excessive spark advance to mitigate.

Which I can see being more of an issue maybe with the high RPM's a bike of that type will see.

As I understand it Audi's switch to 4V was driven by direct injection. They needed room for the injector in the combustion chamber.

Mainly yes.

But they may have gained combustion speed and therefore power in the bargain too.

Maybe, maybe not.

Regardless the nonsense about a VR6 head being superior to a 2.7T's 5V head is a load of baloney in every sense of the word.