Corrado VR6 back from stealth 220 bhp & 202 ft/lb

[___Dubstar___ 0]

took my beloved rado to stealth the other week after reading all the rave reviews on here. had schrick vsr manifold and 268 cams fitted then mapped. Very pleased with the results but how do they compare? is my torque curve bigger than yours or should i be feeling a bit inadequate?

 

 

BHP curve = 220.7 @ 6080 the lesser curve is a chipped OBD II golf VR6 which got 188 bhp @5764 - just used for comparison.

 

 

Torque curve = 202.8 @ 3798- the golf got 182@4387

 

[adambob 0]

Dubstar - I've got essentially the same set up as you (Schrick and BMC instead of VSR and Carbonio though) and I got 220bhp and 230lb's of torque.

 

The torque band looked similar to the above though i.e. the intial peak then the stereotypical lag before the 268 cams kick in.

 

I've had a full rebuild approximately 2000 miles ago so I need to take her down to dubsport to see what the current figures are as the ones above are approximately 12 months old.

[___Dubstar___ 0]

Dubstar - I've got essentially the same set up as you (Schrick and BMC instead of VSR and Carbonio though) and I got 220bhp and 230lb's of torque.

 

The torque band looked similar to the above though i.e. the intial peak then the stereotypical lag before the 268 cams kick in.

 

I've had a full rebuild approximately 2000 miles ago so I need to take her down to dubsport to see what the current figures are as the ones above are approximately 12 months old.

i thought my torque was low, any ideas why? the guy at stealth seemed quite happy with the results as was I but you can never have too much torque! plus i hoped for a few more pounds for my £'s. Where are dubsport based? How many miles has yours done?

[Kevin Bacon 5]

202 for the torque is a smidge low. How old is your engine? Older engines tend to lose their 'seal' to a degree (especially the valves), which affects the torque but the power remains respectable, being as power is a figure derived from the wheel torque. I suspect if yours has surpassed 100K, you would benefit from a head rebuild to get the torque up a bit.

 

Unfortunately you have hit the nail on the head, normally aspirated mods on the VR6 does = poor pounds per £.

[adambob 0]

My VR was in the high 90K's when I last had it on the rolling road. She's currently on 110K although a full rebuild (costing me over £2k!!) was completed about 2k miles ago.

 

As per Kev's comment above - the reduced torques levels observed may be due to your engines age / mileage.

 

Dubsport are based in Wigan - I'd turn off the M6 at Coventry before you get there and head to Stealth in all honesty. Geoff at Dubsport is a legend but the other mechanics aren't at the top of their game. Nice lads but too prone to making (potentially dangerous) schoolboy errors i.e. leaving my wheel loose (close to coming off at 80mph on the M6!), leaving my steering wheel loose after 4 wheel realignment etc. They have replaced some of the mechanics though in their defence.

[CorradoVR6-Turbo 0]

Is you car an auto? 50bhp loss is allot!

[eatthis 0]

its more the % thats high 30 % is more than 4wd i wouldnt trust the corrected figures mate

163 bhp at the wheels is ok but not fantastic my 2.8 golf made 178 bhp and 175 lb ft at the wheels with no schrick but did have 268 cams (for sale soon i think if any1s interested)

 

ps the chipped golf figures and graphs look spot on (little point chipping a stock obd2 vr imho) your graphs look fine too

[JoeNose 0]

I've never seen loss figures of less than 30% on Stealth's rollers.

[eatthis 0]

iv been twice the first time i got 153 bhp atw and 198 corrected which was 29% iv always thought that was high

a few weeks back i had mine remapped for the charger i got 255 atw 303 corrected which is 18%

[Joe M 0]

adambob, what rr did you get your results on? Im betting AMD.

___Dubstar___, your figures look bang on for the spec, I had the same setup with a big bore throttle body, kn filter in modded airbox and ss exaust and got 223.5bhp and 200lb/ft (Never had such an exaggerated dip at the schrick changeover though.

[___Dubstar___ 0]

mixed reactions there, but thanks for your comments guys. Not sure what to do now, its not an auto, its done 117k, one previous owner from new, got full vwsh, never had a problem or a splutter in the 5 years ive had it, gets full vw service every year without fail and i only cover 2k a year in it on average. Maybe too much love can kill you (RIP freddy - never a big fan but he must have owned a c?) What could be causing this loss of power. I was on a rolling road a few weeks before and im sure they guy said the loss was very good.

 

heres a copy of some older pre mod rr sheets, can u compare the loss??

 

[GVK 0]

Only thing I can suggest is that maybe the rev limiter was reached during the test @ Stealth ?

 

Reason I say this is that when Jon ran my car there the other Saturday, the first two runs produced 218bhp and 215bhp, however, it showed trans loss at 55bhp.

 

As the power had not dropped off at the limiter, Jon still had his foot in :)

So, the computer starts calculating the power loss whilst car was still 'accelerating' not on the coastdown, giving false power readings.

 

Vince then suggested running it just over 6k so not to hit the limiter, which showed 209bhp @ 6150 and 35-37ish trans loss as per usual. Mine was 171 atw.

 

As you've had a remap, I guess your limiter has been raised,so maybe not relevant in your case?

[adambob 0]

Joe M - Dubsport did the rolling road for me after they fitted the Schrick and 268's. I'm going to get it done again as she feels a lot smoother following the rebuild. I'm hoping for an improvement on the previous figures...

 

I need to scan the plots in and upload them but I'm unable to do it for some reason - It's frustrating particularly because I've been an IT consultant for the past 4 yearrs!!

[___Dubstar___ 0]

Joe M - Dubsport did the rolling road for me after they fitted the Schrick and 268's. I'm going to get it done again as she feels a lot smoother following the rebuild. I'm hoping for an improvement on the previous figures...

 

I need to scan the plots in and upload them but I'm unable to do it for some reason - It's frustrating particularly because I've been an IT consultant for the past 4 yearrs!!

 

shame on you! Just do what i did - take a piccy of them wih your camera phone or digi camera and upload tem via photobucket or similar as a jpeg. i worked that out all on my own and im no IT guru :lol:

[adambob 0]

I'll do just that dubstar! Keeps your eyes peeled over the weekend as I attempt to upload them...

 

Cheers

[GazzaG60 0]

looks ok for the small number of mods. bang for buck sucks plums on any NA car i think.

 

dont treat the rollers as gospel. i think that you wont get the same figure next time or at different places. use the same rollers for each mod change though as they will give you the best idea of power increase but if you are happy it makes no difference.

[Joe M 0]

Heres the plot I had btw for you to compare, torque slightly higher than I thought:

[___Dubstar___ 0]

yet another interesting plot!

[speedtwelve 0]

Just found this thread. Always reckoned the RR figures for my C were a little on the low side as well. It'd been dyno'd by the previous owner using Stealth's RR, and returned 215 bhp @ fly and 203 lbft with spec as listed below in the signature. The car was on 150k miles at this point, however! What bothers me was that when the engine was orginally modded it dyno'd at 240 lbft! This sounds a little optimistic to me, but if true I seem to have lost nearly 40 lbft over the years!

 

The rpm trigger for the VGI has been changed/altered at some point, but the engine is otherwise healthy, having been given a complete rebuild at 70k and top-end rebuild at 120k. Are the Schrick cam lobes likely to have worn significantly with 150k+ miles on them? I hope not at £1k a set... :shock:

[RS VR6 0]

It also depends on the type of dyno used...and the dyno operator.

 

The Mustang, Clayton and the Dynojet...the latter being the more popular will all give different readings. The Dynojet will normally use a 15% correction factor vs. the 25% for the Clayton. I've run my car on both. The Clayton ran super low numbers.

 

Dyno numbers can often be confusing, just due to the fact that people are using different ones to begin with.

 

Here in the states, we just about always quote Wheel Horespower numbers. It makes it a bit less confusing. Like the original post...it has the wheel hp, then the flywheel hp and last the corrected hp. You've already gone through two number corrections from the original wheel hp number.

 

The only dyno that I've heard of that accurately measures BHP is the Maha. It measures the drivetrain loss on deceleration. http://www.advancedmotorsport.com/site/dyno/main.htm

The R32 guys ran the dyno a few times and they say its pretty dead on.

 

If my engine is still in the car on the 20th...I'm going to run the car on a Dynojet.

[BigTartanJudge 0]

The Maha diagnostics rolling road is the one that the Star Performance VAG tuners here in Scotland use for their RR runs etc. See the 4th post back above for the Maha RR plot / printout for Joe M's VR6.

[Mike Edwards 0]

Just a chipped Shrick. AMD rollers.

[Mike Edwards 0]

:oops:

[RS VR6 0]

The Maha diagnostics rolling road is the one that the Star Performance VAG tuners here in Scotland use for their RR runs etc. See the 4th post back above for the Maha RR plot / printout for Joe M's VR6.

 

I really want to run my car on a Maha before and after the cams...but the runs are so expensive. The pre and post runs is about the same cost as the labor to install the cams. :roll:

[CorradoVR6-Turbo 0]

ouch!!