GolfGTIforum.co.uk
Model specific boards => Golf mk3 => Topic started by: Richdmt on 14 October 2009, 18:17
-
Anyone have a rough idea what my BHP is likely to be ( i know when new it was 150bhp) the only mods apart from looks is a K&N filter but apart from sounding good dont think that's made much difference. My brother has a BMW 118d m sport (147 BHP and 0-62 in 9.0) and recons he will thrash me, is that likely and what do I need to do to ensure he doesn't apart from get a new car lol
-
Chances are it will be a bit less only way to know for sure is to get it tested on a dyno, but if its running ok and feels ok then buy some petrol instead and enjoy. :smiley:
-
arent mk3 valvers 146bhp standard.. and if its nearly 15 years old and as ragged as mine is id say your looking at around 130 ish..probally even less .... if its running right id expect as least mid 130's
could get it on a dyno... costs tho
and if ya mate thinks his is faster.....race him
-
When members on here have done rolling road meets in the past, most of the cars were putting out at least standard power, even old ones.
Depends on the rollers i suppose.
-
My M reg 16v Gti with only a backbox on it (standard air filter etc..) made 163.6bhp on the Dyno a month or so ago :cool:
-
Some dyno owners turn it up a little though not to dissapoint there paying customers. I personally wouldn't waste my money, if it feels fast and beats cars that I know you should beat then thats good enough for me.
-
There was a group of around 30 cars who ran that day, some produced standard power and others were underpowered.
Therefore, it is 163.6 bhp.... Keep it well serviced and look after it and it won't go down when driving hard, it will loosen up.
-
My M reg 16v Gti with only a backbox on it (standard air filter etc..) made 163.6bhp on the Dyno a month or so ago :cool:
not a bad bit of puff there then mate thats almost vr performance ...pukka
depends on the engine then but to get nearly 20 brake over stoke is a friggin result :smiley:
-
My M reg 16v Gti with only a backbox on it (standard air filter etc..) made 163.6bhp on the Dyno a month or so ago :cool:
not a bad bit of puff there then mate thats almost vr performance ...pukka
depends on the engine then but to get nearly 20 brake over stoke is a friggin result :smiley:
Made exactly the same power at the wheels as my mates VR did. He had an extra 3bhp transmission loss...
-
I wouldnt believe any Dyno that gives 163bhp! Mine has been on 5 different rollers and baring that stupid Storm one (173 bhp!) the rest have been consistantly around the 150 -156 range.
-
I wouldnt believe any Dyno that gives 163bhp! Mine has been on 5 different rollers and baring that stupid Storm one (173 bhp!) the rest have been consistantly around the 150 -156 range.
Hmm, well I might get it put on another localish one and see. Several of the other people have had theirs Dyno'd a few times and the Dyno that I had mine on gave them pretty much the same results...
-
I wouldnt believe any Dyno that gives 163bhp! Mine has been on 5 different rollers and baring that stupid Storm one (173 bhp!) the rest have been consistantly around the 150 -156 range.
Ah yes Storm's very expensive random number generator.
nick
-
I wouldnt believe any Dyno that gives 163bhp! Mine has been on 5 different rollers and baring that stupid Storm one (173 bhp!) the rest have been consistantly around the 150 -156 range.
Hmm, well I might get it put on another localish one and see. Several of the other people have had theirs Dyno'd a few times and the Dyno that I had mine on gave them pretty much the same results...
That says it all Dec! proves that it consistantly gives high results!
having been on JKM's that last 2 times if anything I think that one gives low figures, pretty accurate but on the low side.
-
What so them getting consistant results over a few different ones including the one mine went on proves it's high :S not really..
-
Dec mate it is definitely high! Trust me! There is NO WAY your car is putting out 163 bhp!
Meet me half way and we'll see which is faster! My 154.7 bhp or your "163.6 bhp" :rolleyes:
Stealth and AMD are also notoriously high!
-
It matches my mates standard Low mileage VR6. Would happily meet you halfway if I was still insured to drive it.
-
Why waste your money just to be in receipt of a number. :rolleyes: that won't make your car go any faster. Dynos are only usefull if you are setting the cam timing with a vernier and the ign timing etc. to get maximum power.
-
Why waste your money just to be in receipt of a number. :rolleyes: that won't make your car go any faster. Dynos are only usefull if you are setting the cam timing with a vernier and the ign timing etc. to get maximum power.
Mind had been recently set up so was handy to know if it helped at all, except there was no before reading lol
-
fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight
-
RR results need to be taken with a pinch of salt! I remember I had my mk2 valver tuned up on the rollers at stealth and it did 178bhp. Went back the next weekend as part of a clubgti weekend (and it had only covered an extra 75 miles in that time) and it came out at 167bhp! You can't lose 11bhp in a week - but you certianly gain it on the rollers if your a paying customer :laugh:
-
It matches my mates standard Low mileage VR6. Would happily meet you halfway if I was still insured to drive it.
If it matches the vr then the vr isn't running right.
Anyway everyone on here reckons cars lose bhp with age?
-
It matches my mates standard Low mileage VR6. Would happily meet you halfway if I was still insured to drive it.
If it matches the vr then the vr isn't running right.
Anyway everyone on here reckons cars lose bhp with age?
Ok if you say so... :laugh:
-
It matches my mates standard Low mileage VR6. Would happily meet you halfway if I was still insured to drive it.
If it matches the vr then the vr isn't running right.
Anyway everyone on here reckons cars lose bhp with age?
my Vr made 173 bhp at the wheels (191.4 at the fly) and similar torque and my old valver woudn't have come close although was still fast for what it was....maybe it was that blitschip i fitted... :drool:
-
I'm in two minds about loosing BHP with age.
I mean the pistons and rings etc. wear away slightly allowing for faster movement but then you also loose a bit of compression.
So no idea.
-
It matches my mates standard Low mileage VR6. Would happily meet you halfway if I was still insured to drive it.
If it matches the vr then the vr isn't running right.
Anyway everyone on here reckons cars lose bhp with age?
Ok if you say so... :laugh:
Laurances VR was fooked, all the sensors were gone anyways dec hence why its off the road now. lol.
Your 16v didnt make as much power as the other Vr's that ran :P haha
And that rolling road was made before the dinosaurs and prints onto slate.
Would be better off rolling roading the cars on a rollete wheel. lol
But that said, decs 16v did make good power.
And who cares.....
-
my Vr made 173 bhp at the wheels (191.4 at the fly) and similar torque and my old valver woudn't have come close although was still fast for what it was....maybe it was that blitschip i fitted... :drool:
An 18.4 BHP loss through your gearbox?
Can I have it?
No chance...those figures don't add up. My O2A looses 40-45 BHP through the drivetrain, on an engine making 190+ BHP.
-
An 18.4 BHP loss through your gearbox?
Can I have it?
No chance...those figures don't add up. My O2A looses 40-45 BHP through the drivetrain, on an engine making 190+ BHP.
This man talks sense!!!
-
my Vr made 173 bhp at the wheels (191.4 at the fly) and similar torque and my old valver woudn't have come close although was still fast for what it was....maybe it was that blitschip i fitted... :drool:
An 18.4 BHP loss through your gearbox?
Can I have it?
No chance...those figures don't add up. My O2A looses 40-45 BHP through the drivetrain, on an engine making 190+ BHP.
Well im only going by what the graph says, was done at the rolling road day at Awesome gti in april 08, maybe im misreading the graph, anyone check it out and let me know.??
http://www.awesome-gti.co.uk/rollingroad/rr.gti_050408.html
Mine is the Vr at the bottom of the page, even a video to! :evil:
-
ive heard cars lose bhp over the years but then it all depends on the the conditions the engine was made it and how well its been looked after over the yrs. just out of intrest whats the stanard power for the 8v and the 16v bhp and torque if any one knows!?
-
Well im only going by what the graph says, was done at the rolling road day at Awesome gti in april 08, maybe im misreading the graph, anyone check it out and let me know.??
http://www.awesome-gti.co.uk/rollingroad/rr.gti_050408.html
Mine is the Vr at the bottom of the page, even a video to! :evil:
Ahh...Awesome's Dyno...that explains a lot.
Lottery numbers I'm afraid...both on power and power at the wheels.
A Mk3 O2A will loose at least 30 BHP even on an optimistic Dyno...I loose 40-45 easily on every Dyno I've ever used (MAHA, Dyno Dynamics, Sun)
You are reading the graph correctly...but the read-outs are pointless except to see who's numbers are biggest on the day.
Where are the measured variables? Ambient temperature? Barometric Pressure?
Where are the coastdown losses?
You have a chart with good numbers...but totally uncomparable to any other dyno sadly.
A good 2.8 VR6 (slightly tweaked) will make 180-190 BHP with about 150-155 ATW, in my experience, on a reliable dyno.
My car made 151 BHP standard...Lupo GTI made 125 BHP standard, S3 208 BHP standard...my GTI now makes 196 BHP on the same dyno, with about 150 BHP of it actually at the wheels.
-
ive heard cars lose bhp over the years but then it all depends on the the conditions the engine was made it and how well its been looked after over the yrs. just out of intrest whats the stanard power for the 8v and the 16v bhp and torque if any one knows!?
Do a search and you never know there may be one or two comments on this subject. :grin: :grin: :grin:
-
wow sorry being new forgot tosearch bhp difference is quite big dam
-
Sorry its just that its the most asked question in the mk3 section, the answer is 115 for the 8v and 146 or 150 for the 16v depending who you ask. :laugh:
-
Vr6 175-185bhp before you supercharge it.
No brainer.
-
cant wait till im old enought to be able insure a vr6 have always loved that sound...
-
ive heard cars lose bhp over the years but then it all depends on the the conditions the engine was made it and how well its been looked after over the yrs. just out of intrest whats the stanard power for the 8v and the 16v bhp and torque if any one knows!?
http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=121567.new#new
-
Well im only going by what the graph says, was done at the rolling road day at Awesome gti in april 08, maybe im misreading the graph, anyone check it out and let me know.??
http://www.awesome-gti.co.uk/rollingroad/rr.gti_050408.html
Mine is the Vr at the bottom of the page, even a video to! :evil:
Ahh...Awesome's Dyno...that explains a lot.
Lottery numbers I'm afraid...both on power and power at the wheels.
A Mk3 O2A will loose at least 30 BHP even on an optimistic Dyno...I loose 40-45 easily on every Dyno I've ever used (MAHA, Dyno Dynamics, Sun)
You are reading the graph correctly...but the read-outs are pointless except to see who's numbers are biggest on the day.
Where are the measured variables? Ambient temperature? Barometric Pressure?
Where are the coastdown losses?
You have a chart with good numbers...but totally uncomparable to any other dyno sadly.
A good 2.8 VR6 (slightly tweaked) will make 180-190 BHP with about 150-155 ATW, in my experience, on a reliable dyno.
My car made 151 BHP standard...Lupo GTI made 125 BHP standard, S3 208 BHP standard...my GTI now makes 196 BHP on the same dyno, with about 150 BHP of it actually at the wheels.
Ok.....but my only queary with that is that people like hurdy who attended that day were getting power figures very close to what they expected and had achieved on other rolling roads...why would mine be any different..?
-
Ok.....but my only queary with that is that people like hurdy who attended that day were getting power figures very close to what they expected and had achieved on other rolling roads...why would mine be any different..?
I've seen re-mapped VR6s with cams not make much over 190 genuine BHP...so to hear about 190+ genuine with a cheap chip seems odd to me...but, dyno lottery and all...
Maybe other people who got the figures they were expecting had only used optimistic dynos previously?
Maybe you have a superb VR6...
Regardless, the early 190+ BHP is possible...but 173 BHP @ wheels is not, based on the 100s I've dyno'd, and seen dynod, over the last 16 years.
I have a friend who has a 2.9 VR6 that makes 175ish at the wheels...and it's a high compression 2.9, lightened and balanced, Blydenstein one-off Big Valve Head (+3mm in, + 2mm ex, lightweight lifters, titanium retainers etc), Schrick 268 cams, Schrick VSR manifold, big TB and bespoke mapping...and it makes nearly 230 at the flywheel...and will stick with 911s from standstill to about 140 MPH. I know as I built much of the engine, and was driving the 911 that couldn't shake him off!
Mid 170s BHP at the wheels takes £1000s to achieve - like £3000 t0 £4000, and a complete engine re-work.
-
Ok.....but my only queary with that is that people like hurdy who attended that day were getting power figures very close to what they expected and had achieved on other rolling roads...why would mine be any different..?
I've seen re-mapped VR6s with cams not make much over 190 genuine BHP...so to hear about 190+ genuine with a cheap chip seems odd to me...but, dyno lottery and all...
Maybe other people who got the figures they were expecting had only used optimistic dynos previously?
Maybe you have a superb VR6...
Regardless, the early 190+ BHP is possible...but 173 BHP @ wheels is not, based on the 100s I've dyno'd, and seen dynod, over the last 16 years.
I have a friend who has a 2.9 VR6 that makes 175ish at the wheels...and it's a high compression 2.9, lightened and balanced, Blydenstein one-off Big Valve Head (+3mm in, + 2mm ex, lightweight lifters, titanium retainers etc), Schrick 268 cams, Schrick VSR manifold, big TB and bespoke mapping...and it makes nearly 230 at the flywheel...and will stick with 911s from standstill to about 140 MPH. I know as I built much of the engine, and was driving the 911 that couldn't shake him off!
Mid 170s BHP at the wheels takes £1000s to achieve - like £3000 t0 £4000, and a complete engine re-work.
My vr wasn't chipped, just standard ecu, was abit suprised about the power at the wheels but not the power at the flywheel as people on vr6oc said that they regularly saw 185bhp+ on standard obd2's and i had a few mods so was expecting 190+.
Ohwell maybe it was a special vr as it couldn't be lost by my ex bro inlaws 300bhp r32 skyline.... :evil:
-
cant wait till im old enought to be able insure a vr6 have always loved that sound...
Edit Required! :evil:
cant wait till im rich enough to afford the petrol to run a vr6. Have always loved that sound...
:drool:
-
185bhp is easily achievable out of a 2.8vr6. The 2.9vr6 is 190bhp with a very small capacity increase.
-
185bhp is easily achievable out of a 2.8vr6. The 2.9vr6 is 190bhp with a very small capacity increase.
Not just a capacity increase...
The inlet manifold if different - bigger plenumn, better design.
The TB is a better design, with a bigger casting opening for the same size throttle plate...
The ECU mapping is different.
...and it's a bit bigger in capacity.
You get gains by putting C VR6 TB and inlet manifold onto a G VR6...but not the full power gain.
185BHP on a 2.8 IS achievable...but it takes work.
Modified Corrado TB & inlet manifold, modified airbox and K&N panel filter, with a re-map to suit will see 185+ genuine out of a 2.8 VR6.
190+ from a standard 2.8 VR6 is fiction, sorry.
Regardless of what the dyno says.
...and getting 170+ ATW (genuine, not made-up) is going to cost you £4000+ every day of the week...
-
185bhp is easily achievable out of a 2.8vr6. The 2.9vr6 is 190bhp with a very small capacity increase.
Not just a capacity increase...
The inlet manifold if different - bigger plenumn, better design.
The TB is a better design, with a bigger casting opening for the same size throttle plate...
The ECU mapping is different.
...and it's a bit bigger in capacity.
You get gains by putting C VR6 TB and inlet manifold onto a G VR6...but not the full power gain.
185BHP on a 2.8 IS achievable...but it takes work.
Modified Corrado TB & inlet manifold, modified airbox and K&N panel filter, with a re-map to suit will see 185+ genuine out of a 2.8 VR6.
190+ from a standard 2.8 VR6 is fiction, sorry.
Regardless of what the dyno says.
...and getting 170+ ATW (genuine, not made-up) is going to cost you £4000+ every day of the week...
So vw achieved an extra 14bhp with inlet manifold and throttle body mods, and a better map?
The cc difference is only 69.
I've always wanted to know the difference between the engines, no-one has been able to answer that before...
I think the corrado has also got a better exhaust than the golf, if i remember right from working on both.
-
So vw achieved an extra 14bhp with inlet manifold and throttle body mods, and a better map?
The cc difference is only 69.
I've always wanted to know the difference between the engines, no-one has been able to answer that before...
I think the corrado has also got a better exhaust than the golf, if i remember right from working on both.
Yeah, C VR6 TB is a much straighter shape, and at a lesser angle to the Inlet Manifold, with less by way of 'ramps' to improve air-flow at low speed but to obstruct flow at high airflows.
The inlet manifold has a far larger plenumn - turn them both over and have a look!
Quite a difference!
I seem to recall the ECU runs slightly more timing advance on a C VR6 too...and presumably a bit more fuel.
Interesting that VW had to re-engineer the engine to get 190BHP out of it...whereas many people believe their 2.8 makes more power standard!
-
Thats hardly re-engineering the engine is it?
The main block and head are pretty much the same, as you said they have just tweaked the tb/manifold.
Thats a pretty good gain in real terms for that sort of work.
Just proves that a 2.8 can be tuned easily.
Out of interest, how much have spent on your 16v to get it to 190bhp+?
Is it likely to be reliable in the long term? :tongue:
-
Thats hardly re-engineering the engine is it?
I would call a different bore, piston size, inlet manifold, TB and ECU differently engineered.
It's hardly bolt-ons from the Ripspeed catalogue, now is it?
The main block and head are pretty much the same, as you said they have just tweaked the tb/manifold.
The head casting is the same...the block is not.
The 2.9 has a different bore.
They may may be 'pretty much the same'...but are fendamentally different, in that the 2.9 has a larger bore.
The TB and manifold isn't a 'tweak' as such. It's a different design completely.
Bigger plenumn on the inlet manifold upper (lower is the same) and a completely different TB casting (although the plate size is the same).
Thats a pretty good gain in real terms for that sort of work.
Just proves that a 2.8 can be tuned easily.
In my experience of tuning them, a 2.8 with a re-map and C VR6 TB and upper inlet manifold will give C VR6 power - around late 180s-190 BHP.
Chip a C VR6 and you gain a few more, above that though.
Port the C VR6 TB and you can pick up another couple of genuine BHP, same with a modified airbos with decent filter - NOT an induction kit!
The Golf TB is terrible and not possible to port out...just fit a C VR6 one.
The 2.8/2.9 can be tuned to 195ish BHP easily with OEM parts, modified OEM parts or basic bolt-ons...but after that, it's expensive and difficult.
Adding 10BHP to a 2.8 is easy...and cheap.
The next 20 BHP will cost you £4000.
The 20 BHP after that, probably another £4000-£6000.
Out of interest, how much have spent on your 16v to get it to 190bhp+?
I have no idea...I dare not add it up.
8 years worth of work...and around £3000 to get to the headline figures...another £4000 making it capable of using it every day and handle properly. Probably more if I really did into it. It's hard to put a price on custom made parts.
Is it likely to be reliable in the long term? :tongue:
Utterly...
Rev limit is only the same as the early ABFs anyway (give or take a 100 RPM or so) at 7300, and with a considerably lightened set of internals, it'll spin at that all day on good oil. (Synta Gold).
Nothing magical about getting the power either...just fitting the best parts you test and fing to work.
2.0 ABF, lightweight flywheel, Blysenstein Big Valve Head (1/2mm larger valves), titanium retainers, lightweight lifters, re-worked and re-profiled TB, match ported inlet manifold, match ported and opened up downpipe and exhaust manifold, 100 cell high flow Cat, Supersprint exhaust, Schrick 268 in/std ex cams, bespoke re-map. 196 BHP on the dyno it made 151 BHP on when I bought it, with around 160 lb-ft of torque.
CDA gearbox ratios with low FD, Quaife diff, 312 front brakes (Black Diamond discs, mintex M1155 pads), Koni coilovers, Eibach ARBs, Poly bushes, aggressive geometry settings. Standard Anni wheels.
-
Yes its not bolt ons, but hardly a complete redesign of the engine is it?
What i was saying was the 2.9 does make a good increase in power over the 2.8, but its a very similar engine, infact almost the same.
The difference in capacity of both engines is so small, its arguable if it really makes alot of difference anyway.
When i had my 2.8, it had a k&n, full jetex system, and a remap, and it made 190bhp, thats without inlet manifold/tb mods. I can't say how accurate the rollers were, it was a very long time ago.
I'll hand it to you, you do have considerable knowledge, and talk very realistically about tuning your 16v.
Infact it goes to prove the ongoing argument on here. To get a 16v up to 190bhp+ it will need alot of money and work, to get a vr6 up to that, it won't take alot at all.
I think you were missing my original point, which was for such a small increase of capacity and a different manifold/tb and ecu, 14bhp is a quite good increase.
-
Yes its not bolt ons, but hardly a complete redesign of the engine is it?
I'd argue that whilst it may not be a complete redesign - Incidentally, I never said it was - it's a re-design none the less, as suitable bigger bore pistons didn't exist in 1992, nor did the bigger volume inlet manifold, nor the different TB.
I suppose it depends on what you think of as a redesign.
Was the ABF a redesign of a KR, as the heads are interchangable, despite the ABF having better exhaust ports/flows?
Or a new design?
I'd say new design.
What i was saying was the 2.9 does make a good increase in power over the 2.8, but its a very similar engine, infact almost the same.
Yes...both VR6s.
But different.
AAA vs ABV have enough differences for VW to give them a bespoke identifier....and more than just a turbo trim change as on some of the 1.8Ts.
The difference in capacity of both engines is so small, its arguable if it really makes alot of difference anyway.
I agree...
A little more torque capability on the 2.9 perhaps?
When i had my 2.8, it had a k&n, full jetex system, and a remap, and it made 190bhp, thats without inlet manifold/tb mods. I can't say how accurate the rollers were, it was a very long time ago.
Fair enough...I doubt the exhaust made any difference...and the re-map probably 6-8 BHP...so possible...on a slightly optimistic dyno, I'd agree.
I'll hand it to you, you do have considerable knowledge, and talk very realistically about tuning your 16v.
Infact it goes to prove the ongoing argument on here. To get a 16v up to 190bhp+ it will need alot of money and work, to get a vr6 up to that, it won't take alot at all.
So true...a 190+ BHP ABF will cost significantly more than a 190+ BHP AAA or ABV....and have less torque.
However, it will always handle sigificantly better in a similar car, and have lower gearing to offset the lesser torque...so performance in a straight line is similar...and through the corners the 16v is simply better (same set-up).
You can't defy physics...
A point to note:
Getting a VR6 to 210+ BHP from 190+ BHP is very expensive.
Getting a 16v to 210ish BHP from 190+ BHP is less so, assuming you have gone the 'normal' route to 190BHP.
The VR6 will always have more torque...
The 16v always lighter and carry it's mass in a 'better' place.
Horses for courses...
I think you were missing my original point, which was for such a small increase of capacity and a different manifold/tb and ecu, 14bhp is a quite good increase.
Yup, I agree.
Compound effects I guess. Lots of little gains working together.
-
Yes its not bolt ons, but hardly a complete redesign of the engine is it?
I'd argue that whilst it may not be a complete redesign - Incidentally, I never said it was - it's a re-design none the less, as suitable bigger bore pistons didn't exist in 1992, nor did the bigger volume inlet manifold, nor the different TB.
I suppose it depends on what you think of as a redesign.
Was the ABF a redesign of a KR, as the heads are interchangable, despite the ABF having better exhaust ports/flows?
Or a new design?
I'd say new design.
What i was saying was the 2.9 does make a good increase in power over the 2.8, but its a very similar engine, infact almost the same.
Yes...both VR6s.
But different.
AAA vs ABV have enough differences for VW to give them a bespoke identifier....and more than just a turbo trim change as on some of the 1.8Ts.
The difference in capacity of both engines is so small, its arguable if it really makes alot of difference anyway.
I agree...
A little more torque capability on the 2.9 perhaps?
When i had my 2.8, it had a k&n, full jetex system, and a remap, and it made 190bhp, thats without inlet manifold/tb mods. I can't say how accurate the rollers were, it was a very long time ago.
Fair enough...I doubt the exhaust made any difference...and the re-map probably 6-8 BHP...so possible...on a slightly optimistic dyno, I'd agree.
I'll hand it to you, you do have considerable knowledge, and talk very realistically about tuning your 16v.
Infact it goes to prove the ongoing argument on here. To get a 16v up to 190bhp+ it will need alot of money and work, to get a vr6 up to that, it won't take alot at all.
So true...a 190+ BHP ABF will cost significantly more than a 190+ BHP AAA or ABV....and have less torque.
However, it will always handle sigificantly better in a similar car, and have lower gearing to offset the lesser torque...so performance in a straight line is similar...and through the corners the 16v is simply better (same set-up).
You can't defy physics...
A point to note:
Getting a VR6 to 210+ BHP from 190+ BHP is very expensive.
Getting a 16v to 210ish BHP from 190+ BHP is less so, assuming you have gone the 'normal' route to 190BHP.
The VR6 will always have more torque...
The 16v always lighter and carry it's mass in a 'better' place.
Horses for courses...
I think you were missing my original point, which was for such a small increase of capacity and a different manifold/tb and ecu, 14bhp is a quite good increase.
Yup, I agree.
Compound effects I guess. Lots of little gains working together.
I would have to disagree about getting a vr6 to 210bhp being more expensive than getting a 16v to a similar power, i would estimate that to get my old vr to that figure i'd have needed cams-£400, remap-£250 and maybe a second hand shrick manifold-£1000.
Now if i was to spend £3000 it could be running 260-280 after being charged.
To get a valver anywhere past 200bhp it would need to be turbo'd/charged and that would be alot more than the equivillant money spent on a vr.
-
Agree with the above.
The only way you'll get a 16v over 200bhp is with forced induction.
You won't need to do that on a vr.
Also another point to ess_three, changing the exhaust on my old golf more than likely made a difference.
The standard golf system isn't very good, i would say the jetex system was definately more free flowing, more like the corrado system i would say.
-
I would have to disagree about getting a vr6 to 210bhp being more expensive than getting a 16v to a similar power, i would estimate that to get my old vr to that figure i'd have needed cams-£400, remap-£250 and maybe a second hand shrick manifold-£1000.
Now if i was to spend £3000 it could be running 260-280 after being charged.
To get a valver anywhere past 200bhp it would need to be turbo'd/charged and that would be alot more than the equivillant money spent on a vr.
What I said was:
So true...a 190+ BHP ABF will cost significantly more than a 190+ BHP AAA or ABV....and have less torque.
A point to note:
Getting a VR6 to 210+ BHP from 190+ BHP is very expensive.
Getting a 16v to 210ish BHP from 190+ BHP is less so, assuming you have gone the 'normal' route to 190BHP.
So getting your VR6 to 190ish is cheaper than getting a 16v to the same figure.
But, assuming you already have the cams changed in order to get your 16v to make 190+ BHP (which you will, along with headwork, if you want proper, genuine figures not dyno bullsh!t) then getting the next 20ish from the 16v is cheaper than getting 20ish BHP from a VR6 sitting at 190 BHP.
16v from 190ish BHP to 210 = ITBs and suitable ECU (MS is cheap and will do...Bike TBs can be used...so from £500 to £1500.
VR6 from 190ish BHP to 210 = Cams, headwork, Schrick manifold (doesn't add much power, but lots of torque)? Re-worked TB and a re-map. £2500-£3000.
Assuming you stay NA on them both.
Of course you can Supercharge/turbocharge...but that gets expensive if you do it properly...not just dodge it.
To get a valver anywhere past 200bhp it would need to be turbo'd/charged and that would be alot more than the equivillant money spent on a vr.
Nonesense.
I'm at 196ish with an unconventional cam set-up.
I can vreak 200 with 268/258 but it won't pass the MOT emissions test....so I don't run it.
I even run a Cat.
So, 200 BHP before ITBs, on a standard compression bottom end...215-220 on ITBs when mapped correctly.
Go for high compression pistons and you are up around 230 BHP and add a steel crank and 8000+ rev limit and you are up over 240 BHP.
All NA...
It'll be more expensive than going FI for sure...but it can be done.
Several 16vs over on Club GTI are running 230+ BHP reliably...
-
Agree with the above.
The only way you'll get a 16v over 200bhp is with forced induction.
Is this internet expertism, or actual testing?
Mine makes 196 BHP on 268in/std ex cams...
Go 268/268 and I break 200 BHP...but it doesn't idle well due to the 16v plenum. This has been proved on re-mapped Digifant 3.2 and Megasquirt...and I have the experience and dyno charts to show for it.
Go ITBs and it will...and make more...say 210-215 BHP.
Also another point to ess_three, changing the exhaust on my old golf more than likely made a difference.
More than likely?
Did you dyno before and after?
I did....on a 16v making 190+ BHP and the std exhaust vs Milltek vs Supersprint added...NOTHING.
not a single BHP...the standard exhaust is just fine for under 200 BHP.
All this 'performance exhaust' crap is just that...you don't get a gain.
The standard golf system isn't very good, i would say the jetex system was definately more free flowing, more like the corrado system i would say.
You would say.
Or you can prove?
As I say, I went std, to Milltek to the alleged best flowing - Supersprint - and found nothing.
If a gain was there to be found, I'd have picked up something...no matter how little.
Interestingly, some Club GTI members have found a Jetex 2.5" system adds no power, but looses torque over their 2.25" system...
-
Is this internet expertism, or actual testing?
Internet expert here mate :grin:
More than likely?
Did you dyno before and after?
I did....on a 16v making 190+ BHP and the std exhaust vs Milltek vs Supersprint added...NOTHING.
not a single BHP...the standard exhaust is just fine for under 200 BHP.
All this 'performance exhaust' crap is just that...you don't get a gain.
The car certainly felt more responsive after fitting, but no figures to back it up.
You would say.
Or you can prove?
As I say, I went std, to Milltek to the alleged best flowing - Supersprint - and found nothing.
If a gain was there to be found, I'd have picked up something...no matter how little.
Interestingly, some Club GTI members have found a Jetex 2.5" system adds no power, but looses torque over their 2.25" system...
Like i said, just going on how the car felt to drive.
Mine makes 196 BHP on 268in/std ex cams...
Go 268/268 and I break 200 BHP...but it doesn't idle well due to the 16v plenum. This has been proved on re-mapped Digifant 3.2 and Megasquirt...and I have the experience and dyno charts to show for it.
Go ITBs and it will...and make more...say 210-215 BHP.
You do spout alot of figures :tongue:
But as for getting your car over 200bhp, i say 'prove it' :wink:
-
Several 16vs over on Club GTI are running 230+ BHP reliably...
Is that actually proven? or internet experts at work again? :tongue:
-
So getting your VR6 to 190ish is cheaper than getting a 16v to the same figure.
But, assuming you already have the cams changed in order to get your 16v to make 190+ BHP (which you will, along with headwork, if you want proper, genuine figures not dyno bullsh!t) then getting the next 20ish from the 16v is cheaper than getting 20ish BHP from a VR6 sitting at 190 BHP.
16v from 190ish BHP to 210 = ITBs and suitable ECU (MS is cheap and will do...Bike TBs can be used...so from £500 to £1500.
VR6 from 190ish BHP to 210 = Cams, headwork, Schrick manifold (doesn't add much power, but lots of torque)? Re-worked TB and a re-map. £2500-£3000.
Assuming you stay NA on them both.
Even if the figures you quote are correct (any proof :tongue:) about tuning both engines from 190bhp, and the vr is more expensive to tune, you already stated that you spent £7000+ getting your car to 190bhp.
So surely if you wanted 200bhp+ out of either engine, and were starting from standard setup, then the vr would actually be cheaper to tune?
-
Several 16vs over on Club GTI are running 230+ BHP reliably...
Is that actually proven? or internet experts at work again? :tongue:
Go and ask them.
-
You do spout alot of figures :tongue:
But as for getting your car over 200bhp, i say 'prove it' :wink:
I have. And no wink needed.
Mine makes 200 BHP with the pair of Schrick 268 cams fitted...but is miserably bad at idle due to the pulsing in the plenumn upsetting the MAP sensor in the ECU.
I have dyno's it on two different dynos, with two different ECUs attempting to find and cure the problem...hence how I know it's the manifold causing the problem.
Do away with the manifold (ITBs) and you can run 200 BHP AND pass the MOT.Plus whatever gain you can get my running bigger injectors and getting more air in...
As I say, I have the dyno plots...which is proof, is it not?
196 BHP with 268/std cams...and a gain of 5 ish BHP from running the 268 ex cam (but sadly a drop of around 10 lb-ft of torque pretty much everywhere due to not having the intercam verniers fitted)...so 200-201 BHP with 268/268.
The sprouting of figures comes from experience (70+ dyno plots and counting) not from believing bullsh!t on the interweb.
Personally, I couldn't give a toss what you believe...if you want to believe that you can magically gain 20-30 BHP easily, then go for it.
Just be prepared to be dissapointed if you ever actually try.
-
Even if the figures you quote are correct (any proof :tongue:) about tuning both engines from 190bhp, and the vr is more expensive to tune, you already stated that you spent £7000+ getting your car to 190bhp.
So surely if you wanted 200bhp+ out of either engine, and were starting from standard setup, then the vr would actually be cheaper to tune?
Can you read?
I said around £3000. Do it again now, once you filter out all the bullsh!t parts that so called internet axperts told me would add power, and didn't...you could do it cheaper.
It's easy once you know what to buy. Hard (and expensive) when you start from scratch.
Of course a VR would be cheaper to get to 200 BHP.
I didn't say it wasn't.
I said once you start aiming for 210+ the VR6 gets horribly expensive, and on the 16v, to go from 190ish to 210ish is relatively easy, as you have already done much of the groundwork getting to a genuine 190.
-
Go and ask them.
Is that proof then? :grin:
The sprouting of figures comes from experience (70+ dyno plots and counting) not from believing bullsh!t on the interweb.
I don't doubt that, i've read up on your work on clubgti. It is infact extremely interesting. However you do also spout alot of figures about vr's, have you personally done lots of dyno's on them too?
Personally, I couldn't give a toss what you believe
There's no need to be rude. I was trying to be nice :rolleyes:
Can you read?I said around £3000
Actually, yes i can. You said quote "around £3000 to get to the headline figures...another £4000 making it capable of using it every day and handle properly. Probably more if I really did into it. It's hard to put a price on custom made parts.".
Now to me that suggests that you spent the extra not just on handling, but to get it running 'right'. Maybe i just read it the wrong way.
If you want to throw insults, then i suggest you also go and learn how to spell properly :wink:
Of course a VR would be cheaper to get to 200 BHP.
I didn't say it wasn't.
I said once you start aiming for 210+ the VR6 gets horribly expensive, and on the 16v, to go from 190ish to 210ish is relatively easy, as you have already done much of the groundwork getting to a genuine 190.
Go and re-read what i posted.
I was suggesting that from the stock, the vr would be cheaper to tune overall.
As you suggest, the vr is cheaper to tune first stage, then more expensive for a second stage, but what about in total? which is cheaper?
-
Is that proof then? :grin:
From certain people, with dyno plots...yes, I'd say so.
I don't doubt that, i've read up on your work on clubgti. It is infact extremely interesting. However you do also spout alot of figures about vr's, have you personally done lots of dyno's on them too?
Yup, as I said, I built a 220+ engine, along with a mate...and have tuned a good few 2.8s and a couple of 2.9s...hence the figures for TBs and manifolds.
There's no need to be rude. I was trying to be nice :rolleyes:
I'm not being rude...I'm being honest.
I personally don't care.
But people should not just believe the crap tuners tell them using hopless dyno figures to sell crap.
Actually, yes i can. You said quote "around £3000 to get to the headline figures...another £4000 making it capable of using it every day and handle properly. Probably more if I really did into it. It's hard to put a price on custom made parts.".
Now to me that suggests that you spent the extra not just on handling, but to get it running 'right'. Maybe i just read it the wrong way.
I perhaps should have made myself clearer.
The engine is spot on...
The A to B gains come from gearing, handling and braking - along with the further £4000+.
If you want to throw insults, then i suggest you also go and learn how to spell properly :wink:
I'm not throwing insults...it's all there to be read...just some people don't bother reading before sprouting rubbish.
I'm also not great at spelling. I can live with that.
-
Interesting thread. :rolleyes:
-
From certain people, with dyno plots...yes, I'd say so.
What are people getting out of vr's in comparison?
Yup, as I said, I built a 220+ engine, along with a mate...and have tuned a good few 2.8s and a couple of 2.9s...hence the figures for TBs and manifolds.
As i said, i've read about your work, and it is indeed impressive.
I'm not being rude...I'm being honest.
I personally don't care.
But people should not just believe the crap tuners tell them using hopless dyno figures to sell crap.
Fair point. Alot of tuning companies do talk crap.
You obviously are very knowledgeable, but you do sometimes appear arrogant, and that's not a nice trait.
I perhaps should have made myself clearer.
The engine is spot on...
The A to B gains come from gearing, handling and braking - along with the further £4000+.
Yes, i think you weren't very clear on it.
I'm not throwing insults...it's all there to be read...just some people don't bother reading before sprouting rubbish.
I did read everything you wrote, some of it wasn't clear, and generally i don't spout rubbish :grin:
I'm also not great at spelling. I can live with that
That's just as well :tongue:
"As you suggest, the vr is cheaper to tune first stage, then more expensive for a second stage, but what about in total? which is cheaper?"
So which is cheaper?
-
Interesting thread. :rolleyes:
+1
Ess_Three is an interesting person to talk to.
-
Interesting thread. :rolleyes:
Yes very interesting. I wish I had this information to hand before I started modifications to my track car, could have saved a few quid and a bit of wasted time.
Ess-threes info appears to be pretty much spot on and gained from personal experience and much trial and error.
I know when I followed his advice on suspension and geometry set up it made a huge differance in handling.
I just wish I could justify the expense to get mine to 200 bhp plus.
Winter mods will be to fit the polished and ported head, match port the manifolds, and fit the lightened and balanced flywheel.
Still cant work out which cams to fit yet - too much conflicting information at the moment.
Paul
-
I would have to disagree about getting a vr6 to 210bhp being more expensive than getting a 16v to a similar power, i would estimate that to get my old vr to that figure i'd have needed cams-£400, remap-£250 and maybe a second hand shrick manifold-£1000.
Now if i was to spend £3000 it could be running 260-280 after being charged.
To get a valver anywhere past 200bhp it would need to be turbo'd/charged and that would be alot more than the equivillant money spent on a vr.
What I said was:
So true...a 190+ BHP ABF will cost significantly more than a 190+ BHP AAA or ABV....and have less torque.
A point to note:
Getting a VR6 to 210+ BHP from 190+ BHP is very expensive.
Getting a 16v to 210ish BHP from 190+ BHP is less so, assuming you have gone the 'normal' route to 190BHP.
So getting your VR6 to 190ish is cheaper than getting a 16v to the same figure.
But, assuming you already have the cams changed in order to get your 16v to make 190+ BHP (which you will, along with headwork, if you want proper, genuine figures not dyno bullsh!t) then getting the next 20ish from the 16v is cheaper than getting 20ish BHP from a VR6 sitting at 190 BHP.
16v from 190ish BHP to 210 = ITBs and suitable ECU (MS is cheap and will do...Bike TBs can be used...so from £500 to £1500.
VR6 from 190ish BHP to 210 = Cams, headwork, Schrick manifold (doesn't add much power, but lots of torque)? Re-worked TB and a re-map. £2500-£3000.
Assuming you stay NA on them both.
Of course you can Supercharge/turbocharge...but that gets expensive if you do it properly...not just dodge it.
To get a valver anywhere past 200bhp it would need to be turbo'd/charged and that would be alot more than the equivillant money spent on a vr.
Nonesense.
I'm at 196ish with an unconventional cam set-up.
I can vreak 200 with 268/258 but it won't pass the MOT emissions test....so I don't run it.
I even run a Cat.
So, 200 BHP before ITBs, on a standard compression bottom end...215-220 on ITBs when mapped correctly.
Go for high compression pistons and you are up around 230 BHP and add a steel crank and 8000+ rev limit and you are up over 240 BHP.
All NA...
It'll be more expensive than going FI for sure...but it can be done.
Several 16vs over on Club GTI are running 230+ BHP reliably...
I get what you were saying..... and what i was sayiing was that it wouldn't be that expensive to get from 190-210+.
You say that to get over 200bhp you could go with ITB's and m-squirt and that would cost £1000-1500, well if i had spent the same amount on my 190bhp vr then im sure i could have broken the 210bhp barrier. Will never get the chance now to find out thoughsince i no longer have my vr.
Got another question for you though Ess three, since doing all that work on your valver have you ever had it up against a civic type r..? love the idea of an ABF showing a v-tec a clean pair of heels! :cool:
-
There is ALOT of good information in this thread!
-
As i said, i've read about your work, and it is indeed impressive.
I'm genuinely pleased someone finds it useful. I don't tune to impress anyone, merely as I enjoy it...and I don't make any money out of it...so occasionally I may get a tad heated around some bullsh!t product that claims to give 'x' and does nothing of the sort.
I'f I could stop somebody wasting money believing some of the crap I did years ago,...I'd be happy.
Fair point. Alot of tuning companies do talk crap.
You obviously are very knowledgeable, but you do sometimes appear arrogant, and that's not a nice trait.
I don't mean to.
I'm used to just telling it as I see it...and having to quickly type replies whilst 'pretending' to be working, doesn't help!
I'm not going to wrap people up in cotton wool...or massage their egos...which some of the more fragile may see as arrogant. I don't mean to be. Just the way I am, and too long in the tooth now to change. Sorry.
So which is cheaper?
It depends on where you want to go?
To 190 BHP with no other factors considered, the VR6.
At between 200 and 210, NA, the VR6 gets expensive...
Over 200 (say 215 BHP ish), NA, possibly the 16v...
But if you look at the 'tuning' as a whole package of fastest from A to B rather than pure pub-talk numbers, then you have to consider handling too...and a 210 BHP VR6 will cost more to get it to match a 210 BHP 16v cross country from A to B.
I genuinely don't think there is an A or B answer. Too many factors.
-
I get what you were saying..... and what i was sayiing was that it wouldn't be that expensive to get from 190-210+.
I think it is though...on a 2.8 VR6, getting from the point you will be at with the basics, 2.9 TB/manifold, modified airbox & filter and re-chip (190+) to 210+ will involve cams and headwork at the very least.
Fitting cams - with gaskets, new lifters (preferably lightweight ones if you are revving higher), preferably lightweight retainers (Ti if possible), a light flywheel and ahead capable of actually flowing the air the cams can give you...will cost.
Hell, you can spend £1500 on the head alone.
You know that a VR6 (AAA or ABV) has the same size TB butterfly as an ABF right?
So on a VR6, you are trying to feed a 2.8 engine with a TB that's holding a 2.0 back at 200ish BHP...so how's it going to fare on a 2.8/2.9?
You need to start paying close attention to getting air into a VR6 at over 200 BHP...and the standard cams/head don't cut it, if you stick NA.
Go FI, and you don't have the same concerns...but do get new ones around heat and keeping the head gasket sealing.
You say that to get over 200bhp you could go with ITB's and m-squirt and that would cost £1000-1500, well if i had spent the same amount on my 190bhp vr then im sure i could have broken the 210bhp barrier. Will never get the chance now to find out thoughsince i no longer have my vr.
You could...if you bought a new set of Jenveys, and a pre-built MS.
Or you can build the MS yourself for £100, make a plug and play loom with an old ECU and some wire (say £50) and fit bike ITBs on a custom manifold for £200-300.
Around £500 fitted and running, plus Dyno time to map it all up.
Got another question for you though Ess three, since doing all that work on your valver have you ever had it up against a civic type r..? love the idea of an ABF showing a v-tec a clean pair of heels! :cool:
I can give them a fright, depending on the shape of CTR.
The Mk3 isn't light...then again, neither is the CTR...and they are low-ish geared too.
I can't say if i'd be quicker or not in all cases...as I've bot paid too much attention.
How does a CTR do against a Mk1 S3/TT?
I can pull away from then...out accelerate, out-handle and out-brake them (standard).
So many factors to consider though...driver skill being the biggest.
At a guess, A JDM EK9 type, no chance.
The van looking things that came later, hold it's own.
The current heavier ones, probably keep them behind.
Although much will be down to my gearing being lower.
-
01 to 06 Civic Type R is 1204kg and 197bhp, later car is 1267kg and 198bhp.
Parkers say the Golf mk3 16v is 1090kg, could be interesting then.
-
01 to 06 Civic Type R is 1204kg and 197bhp, later car is 1267kg and 198bhp.
Parkers say the Golf mk3 16v is 1090kg, could be interesting then.
I'm sure my 5 door 16v is over well over 1100KG...1180Kg rings a bell.
With Mk4 Recaros and other weighty added (heavy ARBs, bigger brakes, strut braces, etc, etc) easily around 1200Kg.
Assuming that's close...then similar power to weight as the CTR.
They rev higher, but have a tad less torque.
It will come down to gearing, grip and the size of the driver's conkers, I suspect.