N/A guys, where are you at?

[Tifun 0]

I'm going to go the N/A route again. Just curious what you guys over there on that side of the world are doing to hit the 225whp mark. There has to be more options then what is available over here in the U.S. Please enlighten me with some proven setups, or guide me to some folks who have them. Thanks a batrillion.

-Keith

[vdubjb 0]

I'd say the opposite. More vr6 all all motor tuning and racing going on in the states imho. http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?i ... d=35078705

[dinkus 10]

Plus - it's cheaper to stick a turbo or supercharger on to get that kind of power (and more) than it is to do it NA.

 

And as vdubjb says - most of the guys doing silly things here buy there parts from the states anyway...

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Yeah, pretty much only the states are interested in "all motor" power.

 

We prefer torque and therefore used forced induction.

 

There's that old meaningless "whp" phrase again aswell :lol:

 

The ONLY way to get an engine's TRUE output is to take it out of the car and connect it to a bench dynometer. Power at the wheels, power at the crank, are both 'calculated' and therefore not accurate. Should be treated as a rough idea only.

 

Anyway, so you want 280 "at the fly" from all motor.... hmmm, you've got your work cut out. You'll need revs, and lots of them basically..... so all the usual stuff.....capacity increase, majorly hogged out head and bigger valves, solid lifters, forged low friction pistons, huge throttle, big cams, etc etc..... the more revs you can get out of it, the more power it'll make, but the torque will be cr@p.

[Tifun 0]

Well, I've owned and built many turbo cars, I have only had one built N/A car and I loved it more then any others, sure the boost is nice, and a lot cheaper, I just plain don't want it. I want the feel and sound of N/A. Also the TQ will not be crap, you must not have ridden in a properly tuned and built N/A engine to say that. 225whp is about 250 at the crank. I don't want 300+ hp it defeats the purpose of what I want and is over powering to the chassis, and to say it's not is a lie. I figured that you guys over there would have some old school setups from back in the day. I know I come across some crazy stuff in the German forums, but I have a hard time translating. Also for the comment about the "WHP" everyone over here uses the same system, so when everyone here compares, it is in fact an accurate representation as to the vehicles power, it's like metric to SAE works for some but not others, your guys system seems off to us .

[vdubjb 0]

I stayed all motor because I got a relative deal on my cylinder head and my cams were cheap. I'm making over 30hp more than stock and I am very happy. I dont race the car for money so it's enough to get me into trouble and out of traffic. Read the Ralph Gilles scan I posted. The most powerful all motor AAA/ABVvr6 in the states is making 225whp. Thats with individual throttle bodies and standalone management. Bildon is working on cracking the roadblock that is the cylinder head design.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

225whp is about 250 at the crank.

 

In America it may be so, but over here trans losses average 60hp for the VR6.

 

Also for the comment about the "WHP" everyone over here uses the same system, so when everyone here compares, it is in fact an accurate representation as to the vehicles power, it's like metric to SAE works for some but not others

 

It is good that you stick to the same measurements for consistency, but neither whp or crank power are accurate. How can they be? Brakes, wheels, gearing, gear oil.....far too many factors alter the outcome. As I say, the impractical method of a bench dyno is the only way to be 100% accurate.....why do think F1 motors are benched dynoed? FIAA (and other motorsport) regulations will not accept whp figures.

 

your guys system seems off to us .

 

No, we're just more conservative and truthful of the figures ;-) LOL, only kidding.....

[corozin 0]

Right, now all the forced induction guys have told you how much better their method is, I guess I should try and answer the original question.

 

As you probably know the VR6 is not an easy engine to NA tune cheaply. Assuming you're running the American AAA unit you could feasibly reach 220-225bhp by changing: Free flowing exhaust, 6-2-1 header, Induction kit, big valve head, Enlarged throttle body, 268 cams, Shrick + all the associated remapping. If you get this far you'll probably also want an oil cooler too.

 

In other words you're looking at fitting almost all the commonly available performance bits for VR6, short of blueprinting the engine ground up, as 220-230bhp is about the maximum you'll extract from it without doing that.

 

Of course that lot adds up for a fair sized bill. At that price point you might want to look into the costs of actually having an engine built for the car instead. Starting with an ABV block, and using a lightened crank, valves, race cams and all assembled to tight (blueprint) tolerances, you should be able to extend the rev range of the engine to 8,000-8,500rpm easily.

 

I know these engines have been run in various forms of tune in a number of VW Cup based race cars over the years, and anything from 240bhp-290bhp (with 340ft torque!) is possible depending on the state of tune. Of course nowdays the VW Cup is a controlled formula so they just take weight out of the cars these days instead of putting it under the bonnet, but there was a time where the engines went pretty wild.

 

Your other alternative frankly is to ditch your AAA engine and swap to one of the 2792cc 24v engines. This will be a helluva lot cheaper than any alternative I've described above, and a simple remap should see you up from the stock 204bhp to around 235-245bhp in a single step.

 

Hope this helps at bit.

John

[Tifun 0]

I stayed all motor because I got a relative deal on my cylinder head and my cams were cheap. I'm making over 30hp more than stock and I am very happy. I dont race the car for money so it's enough to get me into trouble and out of traffic. Read the Ralph Gilles scan I posted. The most powerful all motor AAA/ABVvr6 in the states is making 225whp. Thats with individual throttle bodies and standalone management. Bildon is working on cracking the roadblock that is the cylinder head design.

 

Bildon already has cracked it lol. They just don't want to share it. There are quite a few vr6's past the 225 mark, the only problem is heat, they aren't sleeved properly and the engines are getting hot. Bildon offered to build me something in the $10,000 range, but I want to do it myself as I always have, plus it will be faster and cheaper, also they don't like to share their secrets, which I don't blame them lol. Plus they are about 2-3 months on back log due to this coming racing season. We will be covering their racing year in our magazine. http://www.dmsportmag.com IThe engine I want can be done, with time money and the right parts, I just need to finalize my setup before I start buying parts.

[chrishill 0]

sure the boost is nice, and a lot cheaper, I just plain don't want it. I want the feel and sound of N/A. Also the TQ will not be crap, you must not have ridden in a properly tuned and built N/A engine to say that.

 

each to their own I guess, if you have the funds and the time to invest in getting a good N/A setup and you prefer the driving characteristics to those of a turbo or supercharged engine then go for it. I think Kev's comment about the torque being crap was meant as in comparison to a turbo setup, which he has a point with.

 

if it was my money/car I'd be looking at turbos, something small which spools up quickly reducing the turbo-lag is (with additional bits!) still going to get you to your target power and not have an overly dominant on/off boost effect.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

What a nice little debate for a Friday afternoon :lol:

 

I don't recall saying forced induction was better as such, it's just a case of preference on torque delivery. I like it low down, very low down and huge capacity or forced induction is how I like to achieve it.

 

I think Kev's comment about the torque being crap was meant as in comparison to a turbo setup, which he has a point with.

 

Maybe cr@p was too harsh, I meant the torque band would be too high up in the rev band compared to a normal VR, or indeed a force fed one, for my liking. Plus the torque in relation to power would be quite low. Obviously not VTEC 200hp with 140lb/ft low though.

 

The more you derestrict the intake to get more air in, the more you slow down the gas flow, which ulimately affects the torque, but power can increase since it's just an arbitary number reflecting the engine's rate of work. Torque does the moving, Power does the talking (down the pub usually).

 

NA is normally about instant throttle response, which is why BMW and Honda steadfastly refuse to use turbos on the M and Type R cars respectively. There are huge numbers of people who prefer this, there's no wrongs or rights in this game....it's subjective.

 

But look at the figures.... 343hp for the E46 M3, with 276 torque and 200 and 140 as prev' mentioned for the Rhonda. Also examine where in the rev range you're getting those numbers too. If you like revvy, responsive NA motors, then by all means go for it.....just don't expect miracles in the low down pull department, or 50-70 incremental times.

 

And again, BMW's new cracking 4.0 litre V8, a nice and healthy 420hp for your £43K, but a comparitively dissapointing 295lb/ft torque.

 

Where these differences are exhibited on the road is midrange acceleration. The turbo would pull out a huge gap instantly.....but if thraping up a 1/4 foot to floor is your game, then it makes no odds.

 

Ultimately forced induction will make considerably more power and torque, but it has it's throttle response trade offs.

 

Horses for courses.

[corozin 0]

Out of interest Kev I spotted your new Turbo manifold on the bench at Stealth last Friday. Very nice it looks too.

:)

[Kevin Bacon 5]

The intake one or the exhaust? But cheers anyway :lol:

 

Nice to know bits of my car scattered around Vince's workshop are being recognised :-)

[corozin 0]

The modified header pipes with the Garrett turbo attached. I just asked "Qu'est que c'est?" (or something like that) and Vince grassed you up in an instant, haha.

[Kevin Bacon 5]

Ah yeah, that one :lol: Tis a beast for sure and one heavy lump of pig iron!

 

The schimmel inlet manifold would be great for "all motor" high revving. The throttle is mere inches from the head and therefore the pedal response is electric. I did run my VR normally aspirated with the short runner intake and it was mental from 4000rpm. I've driven a few M3s and I can tell you the throttle response of a short intake VR6 dicks all over the M3's....honest!

[Tifun 0]

Just to clear things up on the whole boost comparison, I am not looking for advice of F/I or anything to do with F/I. I fully understand the potential. My second car is an HPA 12v VR-T Jetta(Bora to you guys.) Also I'm wanting to do the engine for short tracks, i.e. top of 3rd, to the top of 4th. I will need to be high up in the RPM's the a majority of the time due to the course configuration being as it has more footage of turns then straights. The 1/4 mile is only used for tuning purposes in my book. As to comparing the VR6 to an engine in the M3, I would say that yes, out of the box the VR6 feels unbeatable, but give it about .5 seconds and those dreams are toast. unfortunately our M3's come with different engines, at least my past e36 did hehehe, with a mere 240 at the crank. There are a ton of variables that should be taken into consideration, and I am very well aware of it. The bad thing is that I haven't gotten anywhere with this. So it's back to the drawing board to try and finish formulating my plan of attack for a purpose built car. Thanks for everyones help. I posted some pics for clicks of my Corrado, the Jetta, and my Old ///M3.

-Keith