Zimbu's more go to my 3.Slow thread (B6 A4 3.0 V6 mods and tuning)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So while most of my threads have been about my 1.8t, most of you may not know that I also picked up a 2003 6 speed 3.0 A4 about a year and a half ago. I had gotten it with the intent of just keeping it stock as a reliable daily driver. Well, as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions lol...

While I did keep it stock for over a year, the fact that my 1.8t is dead in the water at the moment (dropped exhaust valve) means that I've had to turn my performance lust to my 3.0 instead.

So I'll be keeping a running tab on what I've done and what I will do, with the hopes of at least being able to let those of you with the V6 to make some informed decisions as to what you might choose to do to your cars to get a little more out of them.

On thing to note is that I've done the math and I think the 3.0 is a lot better tuning value than most think. If we assume

Stock HP: 220 HP
CAI or Zingo mod: 5-10 HP (free for the Zingo mod and the CAI can be made for $50-$75)
Ran-up additive: 5 HP ($45)
Uni 93 flash: 10-15 HP ($400)
2.5 in Downpipes and 2.25 in catback w x-pipe: 15-20 HP ($280 in components)

This makes for a realistic total of 250-260 HP for about $725 if you DIY the downpipes and $1200 if you buy the JHM ones. Adding a x-pipe catback will also net some gains, but it'll set you back another $500-750.

Still, you're not going to see those numbers on a 1.8t without a $1650 Frankenturbo upgrade package. Just something for you all to think about.

MODS TO DATE
-Zingo/Zimbu airbox mod
-RSR Ran-Up ceramic oil additive
-Unitronic 93 Octane flash
-2.5 in catless downpipes
-2.25 in exhaust with X type crossover
-playing with different fuel varieties (i.e. 94 octane + methanol, toluene, xylene) and Lemmi/Unisettings

MODS PLANNED
-JHM lighweight flywheel *really good expanation of the benefits here:* http://www.uucmotorwerks.com/flywheel/how_a_lightweight_flywheel_works.htm

-B6 S4 type brakes
-maybe some long tube headers if I have the time and money

ZINGO AIRBOX MOD

Basically, this involves sealing up some openings in the airbox with the intent of better airflow at speed to the engine. I also pulled the Hemholz resonator and fabricated a plug to go into the intake tract that leaves a smooth uninterrupted path for the air to travel through.

I didn't do any before or after logging, so I only have subjective impressions. Nothing huge, but for the price you can't go wrong. Power delivery felt a little more linear and it seemed to pick up a little bit when at highway speeds.

ZIMBU AIRBOX MOD

After experimenting with a CAI setup, I found that while it gave a little more on the very top, the losses at lower RPMs (likely a function of decreased intake air velocity through the larger CAI intake) offset the gains.

However, I did find that running a duct from the foglight to the stock airbox in addition to the stock snorkel provided noticable top end gains from 4000 RPM upwards without sacrificing any bottom end power.

RSR Ran-Up

I decided to test this one out after I saw the write up on Moto-IQ http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/ID/2669/Tested-RS-Rs-Ran-Up-Oil-Treatment-Power-in-a-Bottle.aspx

Basically, it's a ceramic additive comprised of ceramic balls about 1/10 of a micron. It appears to function by way of reducing internal friction as well as sealing micro scratches in places like the cylinder walls. You may also want to try Liqui Moly Ceratec.

At $45 or so per container, it's not cheap as an additive (although the ceratec is half the price) but in my mind it was totally worth it. Consistent with other reports, my engine ran smoother, revs freer for things like rev-matching, and the engine did seem to pick up a modest HP gain (prob about 5-7 HP). Most importantly, I saw a consistent empirical MPG improvement of about 5-7%.

I think this last point is the most important. Not only was it an objective measure (taken at cruise on long stretches on flat highway), but it logically follows that for mileage to increase, there has to be an improvement in engine efficiency, either through friction reduction, cylinder sealing or both. As well, it would be logical to assume that increased efficiency = more HP/Tq.

I did the math and with a 5-7 % increase in fuel economy, even at $45 per bottle, the stuff pays for itself within 5000-7500 Kilometers. So IMO, adding it to your oil is a no brainer, especially considering the way the car felt afterwards. If Ceratec does the same thing, then you could actually come out ahead at a 5000-7500 km oil change interval.

Unitronic 93 Octane flash

****NOTE: I will add to this section with some more details and logs that I took****

So I'll begin by saying I know a lot of you have been swearing by the JHM flash and I would say you probably have good reason to. It seems like JHM did put a lot of work into it and I imagine it is probably the superior flash between the two.

That said, my budget for mods on this car is pretty tight. The Uni 91 octane flash is $350 and the 93 flash I paid $400 (Can $) for. If I were to get the JHM flash, I would be looking at $500 + $80 USD for a total of about $680 Canadian. As it stands, I managed to piece together the materials for a complete 2.5 in downpipe setup for $280. So in my case and budget: Uni 93 flash + 2.5 in downpipes > JHM flash alone.

As for my impressions of the tune, totally worth it. As others have mentioned, you likely won't pick up a ton of peak power, but that is most likely a function of the restrictive exhaust setup. Where you do make noticeable gains is in the midrange and other transient responses.

Overall I would describe it as the car feeling punchier and more nimble. I find that maneuvers like hitting the throttle to get into a space in traffic are much easier. Given that most of our driving is done at part throttle or using transient throttle applications, this type of reflash makes a substantial real world driving difference.

I should also add that it does feel like a 10-15 HP gain. Which may not seem like much, but when it comes to modding these engines, it's really about additive gains, not big one time power adders like a turbo car.

Where I think this mod will shine is when I add the 2.5 in downpipes. The combination of lower end response and torque from the flash between 3000-5000 RPM and the 5000-7200 RPM gain from the downpipes will be a sweet combo IMO.

2.5 in downpipes

As I just stated, I think this mod will compliment the Uni flash very nicely. With any luck I will have these done and on the car this weekend and will report back with some before and after logs.

NOVEMBER 10, 2014 EDIT

Well, after a combined 20 some hours fitting, checking, cutting welding, finding out I fitted it wrong, inventing new swear words and re-welding I did up my downpipes and all I can say is HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!

Pulling the cats totally, totally changes how this car feels. I noticed that even with the tune, I made gains in midrange HP/Tq, but it still felt like after about 5000 RPM it just kind of petered out. Well no more, this engine would be happy to bang off the rev limiter now.

Also, throttle response is immensely improved as well, in fact, I found that when I rev matched for my downshifts I actually overshot the RPM on account of how easily and freely it reved.

Unfortunately, we've had a major dump of snow here and the roads are clogged with slow traffic so I haven't got a chance to make a pass through 1-2 and part of 3, however I will get a recording of it as soon as I can. (I do have a shot of 1st gear 2500-6500 RPM that I'll post as soon as I can get it downloaded.

If I had to describe how the engine feels, the words "It's a gem of an engine" comes to mind. For the first time I've actually found myself just wanting to get in it and bomb around town just to have some fun. Now, ask yourself "how many 3.0 drivers actually find the car to be fun:....


SUMMARY

All said, I would call this project a success so far. For around $750-$800 ($1500 if you go all out by replacing the entire exhaust), you can have a car that can hang w modded 1.8t's as well as having the instant torque and a crisp, linear powerband.

One thing I should add: if you're gonna change the downpipes out, you should seriously consider just buying them from JHM. While I did manage to make them for half the price, it was an intensely aggravating and a lot of hours. Plus, JHM's pipes are stainless steel whereas mine were aluminized steel. I would actually think that if I had made my downpipes out of stainless, I would probably be looking at $500-600 in materials alone.

So while there seemed to be a lot of complaining about what JHM charges for their downpipes, take it from me the $700 is actually a hell of a good price for something that will totally change your vehicle.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AFPs0n0w34

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Here are some timing logs I took

Stock ECU on 94 octane
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/stocktimingcurve_zpse4a4099d.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/stocktimingcurve_zpse4a4099d.jpg.html)

Stock ECU with 3 deg advance via lemmi with (E10 94 octane + 10% methanol and 5% toluene)
***NOTE: while peak timing is the same as the stage 2 Uni flash, it is much more erratic in actually holding that timing****
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/stockECUw3degadvancemethtoluene_zps9b22b43b.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/stockECUw3degadvancemethtoluene_zps9b22b43b.jpg.ht ml)

Uni stage 2 w no additional lemmi timing advance (E10 94 octane + 10% methanol and 5% toluene)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/unistage2timingwnoadvanceaddedon94andmethtoluene_z ps66ad0da4.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/unistage2timingwnoadvanceaddedon94andmethtoluene_z ps66ad0da4.jpg.html)

Uni stage 2 w 3 degrees advance via Lemmi (E10 94 octane + 10% methanol and 5% toluene)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/unistage2w3degadvanceconsolodateddatapic_zps2dc960 12.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/unistage2w3degadvanceconsolodateddatapic_zps2dc960 12.jpg.html)

Here's a recent one, 94 octane, 2.5 in downpipes, Uni tune, 1.5 deg timing added via Lemmi, CAI intake -15C ambient temps Jan 8, 2015
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/durametriclogjan8201515degtimingadded94octane-15cambient_zps37c0cd47.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/durametriclogjan8201515degtimingadded94octane-15cambient_zps37c0cd47.jpg.html)

Same data set, just with a little more included low RPM points
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/durametriclogwaddeddatajan8201515degtimingadded94o ctane-15cambient_zpsf6def3f0.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/durametriclogwaddeddatajan8201515degtimingadded94o ctane-15cambient_zpsf6def3f0.jpg.html)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

And as promised boys and girls, Here's a run though the gears with the Unitronics 93 octane tune and the 2.5 in catless downpipes 6 speed as well as a run with the DP/Tune combo with my CAI

Way faster than when I first started I'd say [up]

actually, I synched the DP/Tune and the stock videos. The DP/Tuned one was at 140 km/hr while the stock one was at 120 km/hr. I can only imagine the gap would have widened quite a bit from there as you can see that the tuned version is still pulling hard when I let off at 140 km/hr

I also clocked them independently with a stopwatch and there's a 1.0-1.4 second difference between the three at 20-100 km/hr (6.80 CAI/DP/Tune vs 7.20 DP/Tune vs 8.20 Stock)

Bone stock 3.0 6 speed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbhCpluwmr8&feature=youtu.be

2.5 in DP and 93 octane Uni tune

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1a-R0Ul1k0&feature=youtu.be

2.5 in DP, 93 Uni tune and Cold Air Intake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=781Eks9MJK0&feature=youtu.be

And for another point of reference, here's footage of a 3.2 FSI A4


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXN9IQK34ck

what's worth noting is the 20-150 time. Mine clocked in at about 14.5 sec and the FSI was about 13.2 sec. Now while the FSI has a faster ET from 20-150, it also has either a 6 speed auto or DSG which shifts seamlessly. So factor in the time lost on the two shifts that I needed to make on my manual trans and the times become quite similar.

Anyway, I realize that the actual time lost on the shits is kind of speculative. However, a stock 3.2 FSI does provide a reference point with known 0-60 and 1/4 mile times to compare.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So, I got a chance to do some more tinkering over the holidays and today I decided that I wanted to make a CAI for my car.

Now, let me get this out of the way: "blah blah blah stock Audi airbox is magic blah blah blah, millions of dollars and hundreds of engineers, blah blah blah your car will explode and kittens will die..."

I know all about the dogma surrounding the stock airbox and I don't buy it. I've proven that a properly built CAI on a 1.8t works better than the stock airbox and I have no reason to believe that the 3.0 is any different.

Here's the simple facts behind the design of the stock airbox. All the money and man-hours spent designing that airbox has resulted in the best possible design within the parameters and constraints that Audi imposed on them. Factors like space, noise, cost, etc... drive the design, not optimal performance.

Now, the stock airbox has a few good design features. Namely, isolation from the engine heat and forced airflow from the leading edge of the hood. So I designed some heat shielding as well as keeping the intake duct. My reasoning is that the air blowing through it and onto the filter would displace any hot air that might get past the heat shielding. As well, I made sure to leave a good 6 inches of straight piping in front of the MAF sensor to ensure that I'm getting accurate readings.

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/CAI4_zps12e38936.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/CAI4_zps12e38936.jpg.html)

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/CAI2_zpscf5bb510.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/CAI2_zpscf5bb510.jpg.html)

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/CAI6_zps3acebc00.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/CAI6_zps3acebc00.jpg.html)

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/CAI1_zps2dbaec8a.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/CAI1_zps2dbaec8a.jpg.html)

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/CAI5_zpsf18c7130.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/CAI5_zpsf18c7130.jpg.html)
I was quite happy with the end result. My driving impressions are that it makes noticibly more torque from 2500-4000 RPM. Didn't notice much on the top end, but I would take the extra torque any day. It's super useful in day to day driving.

So, my verdict is: do it, you'll be glad you did [up]

[SJorge3442]

keep the updates coming! I will be updating my downpipes this winter (removing the cat) but I will be keeping the same size downpipe. I figure it will be easier than creating a new DP by myself. After that is done, I will be getting a tune. Thats where I will probably call it quits on my mods for this engine. I like where you're going adn I need to pull some timing graphs to compare my stock tune to your Uni tune.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

You may want to consider doing a new 2.5 in downpipe setup.

My concern about gutting the cats is that a) the cat inlet is under 2 in IIRC and b) when you gut the cat, you get an open chamber which allows for expansion of the exhaust pulse before necking it down again. This results in a positive pulse being sent back up the exhaust, which negates a good portion of the scavenging effect created by the elimination of the cat internals.

(just look up 2 stroke engine tuning principals to see what I'm talking about)

EDIT:
Looking over your post, it looks like what you're doing is replacing the cat with a straight section of stock diameter piping. If that's the case, then forget what I said above.

[jakenels]

Subscribed! Keep us posted, I like where this is heading.

[19jdog]

yea + 2

maybe there is hope for us 3.0 guys with out breaking the bank...[wrench]

[Seerlah]

Didn't know you dropped an exhaust valve head. Nor you picked up a B6. What brand valve?

[xhackerekx]

I pay for unitronic flash on waterfest 2014 $250 .

[seal66]

Nice man. I have a 03 avant 3.0L
Jhm catless piggies, and thermal r&d exhaust. Gonna make her 2.5" all the way out soon. I am split on tunes but gonna grab the jhm one soon

[meisladrs]

definitely checkin back for updates

[19jdog]

http://img.pandawhale.com/88611-beating-dead-horse-gif-South-P-ZqEc.gif
This topic may have been discussed before but it is still entertaining and maybe we will learn something new.[emoji106]

[jaydeff]

Nice thread. Do you plan to dyno your car once you have everything spec'd out? I don't think a fully supported NA 3.0 dyno sheet exists yet it'd be interesting to see how much power is actually gained.

[Bische]

Looks like the ignition timing needs some massaging, all over the place [:)]

[Seerlah]

http://img.pandawhale.com/88611-beating-dead-horse-gif-South-P-ZqEc.gif

I haven't seen people play with meth and lemmi on the 3.0. Or maybe I just missed it [confused]

[SJorge3442]

You may want to consider doing a new 2.5 in downpipe setup.

My concern about gutting the cats is that a) the cat inlet is under 2 in IIRC and b) when you gut the cat, you get an open chamber which allows for expansion of the exhaust pulse before necking it down again. This results in a positive pulse being sent back up the exhaust, which negates a good portion of the scavenging effect created by the elimination of the cat internals.

(just look up 2 stroke engine tuning principals to see what I'm talking about)

EDIT:
Looking over your post, it looks like what you're doing is replacing the cat with a straight section of stock diameter piping. If that's the case, then forget what I said above.

Yeah, going to replace the cat with a straight pipe portion, not gutting it. I'd just be afraid of making sure the flanges would fit on the car if I just replaced the whole pipe with bigger piping. If its easy enough, I'll have my cousin just use a larger pipe. Hes the one doing the cutting and welding.

[DiertyEuroSpec]

http://img.pandawhale.com/88611-beating-dead-horse-gif-South-P-ZqEc.gif

WTF?? Wow with all the mindless shit you post you put this up in here? Ohhhkay [facepalm]

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Well, after a combined 20 some hours fitting, checking, cutting welding, finding out I fitted it wrong, inventing new swear words and re-welding I did up my downpipes and all I can say is HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!!!

Pulling the cats totally, totally changes how this car feels. I noticed that even with the tune, I made gains in midrange HP/Tq, but it still felt like after about 5000 RPM it just kind of petered out. Well no more, this engine would be happy to bang off the rev limiter now.

Also, throttle response is immensely improved as well, in fact, I found that when I rev matched for my downshifts I actually overshot the RPM on account of how easily and freely it reved.

Unfortunately, we've had a major dump of snow here and the roads are clogged with slow traffic so I haven't got a chance to make a pass through 1-2 and part of 3, however I will get a recording of it as soon as I can. (I do have a shot of 1st gear 2500-6500 RPM that I'll post as soon as I can get it downloaded.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

SUMMARY

All said, I would call this project a smashing success. For around $750-$800, you can have a car that can hang w modded 1.8t's as well as having the instant torque and a crisp, linear powerband.

One thing I should add: if you're gonna change the downpipes out, you should seriously consider just buying them from JHM. While I did manage to make them for half the price, it was an intensely aggravating and a lot of hours. Plus, JHM's pipes are stainless steel whereas mine were aluminized steel. I would actually think that if I had made my downpipes out of stainless, I would probably be looking at $500-600 in materials alone.

So while there seemed to be a lot of complaining about what JHM charges for their downpipes, take it from me the $700 is actually a hell of a good price for something that will totally change your vehicle.

[Lornnn]

Good stuff, with the cats gone is the in-cabin exhaust smell tolerable?

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Yep

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Posted video to the 1st gear pull in post #1

[DiertyEuroSpec]

Impressive..Very comparable to my old FWD VR6 Jetta w/bolt-ons...Which is great considering the driveline loss of the Audi

[SJorge3442]

That looks like its revving much faster than my 3.0. This really makes me want to get my DPs taken care of sooner than later. I think I will wait until H20 next year and get the Uni tune. $250 is an awesome price and Im sure its worth it.

[seal66]

Moves better than mine it think. Of course alt plays a huge role

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Oh for sure, I happened to see my altitude correction and it was -6.9 IIRC. However I know the difference becomes drastic really fast. I grew up in Calgary which is at 3500 ft and am now in Edmonton which is 2,200 ft and I notice the difference in power when I go to visit my folks. Funny I saw your post when I did as I actually have in my hands a bottle of gatorade which was opened and resealed in Calgary and the sides were actually pulled in on account of the pressure differential. what's the elevation in your neck of the woods?

Also, I see that you have the JHM catless downpipes but I don't see a JHM tune listed. Do you have one or waiting to do it later. Also, do you have a tip or 6 speed. If you have a tip, a TCU tune will be a huge help alongside a tune.

[seal66]

Oh for sure, I happened to see my altitude correction and it was -6.9 IIRC. However I know the difference becomes drastic really fast. I grew up in Calgary which is at 3500 ft and am now in Edmonton which is 2,200 ft and I notice the difference in power when I go to visit my folks. Funny I saw your post when I did as I actually have in my hands a bottle of gatorade which was opened and resealed in Calgary and the sides were actually pulled in on account of the pressure differential. what's the elevation in your neck of the woods?

Also, I see that you have the JHM catless downpipes but I don't see a JHM tune listed. Do you have one or waiting to do it later. Also, do you have a tip or 6 speed. If you have a tip, a TCU tune will be a huge help alongside a tune.
Ya so you see the alt changes for sure man.

I am in Denver, Colorado so I sit around 55-5800ft. I do run a tune(custom one)but I'll be swapping over to jhm tune at the end of the year. My avant is a 6sp.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Also. to those of you who don't really have the cash for any major mods, I highly, highly advise you to do the Zingo airbox mod and toss a bottle of RSR Ran Up or Lubro-Moly Ceratec in when you next change your oil. Or you could even do it now, I think the Ceratec runs about $20-$25 as opposed to the Ran-Up which is $45 (although I definitely noticed an improvement with the Ran-Up.

Honestly, it makes a noticeable difference and the milage gain basically pays for the additive.

Also, you may consider adding a little timing via Lemmiwinks, 1.5-3 degrees probably won't do much harm if you're running 94 Octane.

Links to both

http://www.liqui-moly.de/liquimoly/produktdb.nsf/id/en_3721.html?OpenDocument&land=GB&voilalang=e&voiladb=web.nsf

http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/ID/2669/Tested-RS-Rs-Ran-Up-Oil-Treatment-Power-in-a-Bottle.aspx

http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/impp-1012-rs-r-ran-up-engine-oil-additive/

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Ya so you see the alt changes for sure man.

I am in Denver, Colorado so I sit around 55-5800ft. I do run a tune(custom one)but I'll be swapping over to jhm tune at the end of the year. My avant is a 6sp.

any details, logs of the custom tune, also who did it?

[seal66]

any details, logs of the custom tune, also who did it?
Nothing exciting at all man. It was just to code out the o2 sensors from being catless.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I haven't seen people play with meth and lemmi on the 3.0. Or maybe I just missed it [confused]

I've been debating that one Seerlah. Although initially I think the money is better spent on the tune+downpipes, once you have those taken care of, I think there may be some benefit to a W/M system.

[seanentrust]

good thread! im picking up a 3.0 6spd this week and it will just be my daily road trip car so im not looking to do anything crazy but I like what you've done!

[ZimbutheMonkey]

good thread! im picking up a 3.0 6spd this week and it will just be my daily road trip car so im not looking to do anything crazy but I like what you've done!

Thanks [:)] and in your case, if you're going to be putting a lot of miles on it (as I do as well on my car) I would at least toss some Ceratec or Ran Up in the oil. Like I said, the mileage gains pay for themselves.

I also have a feeling that on an older vehicle, the fact that it seals little imperfections in the cylinders that have developed over time, so you also get better cylinder sealing in addition to the friction reducing properties.

Same goes for the tune, I've found that on 2 lane highways, these cars are a little short on passing power. Now, that may be a bit different as you're at sea level, but I fould the extra torque and response quite valuable.

[Charles.waite]

I'm highly skeptical that it is possible for an oil additive can increase engine efficiency 5-7%. Like in the "I don't actually believe it" sense.

Not calling you out at all, just expressing skepticism.

[deyrag]

With the millions of $$$ that car companies put into R&D to meet CAFE standards, anything that would increase fuel mileage by 5% would already be in every new car you buy.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I'm highly skeptical that it is possible for an oil additive can increase engine efficiency 5-7%. Like in the "I don't actually believe it" sense.

Not calling you out at all, just expressing skepticism.

Hey, nothing wrong w skepticism as long it doesn't prejudice your ultimate findings of fact. However, when I was testing, I took considerable effort to eliminate as many variables as I could.

All testing was done on the same 80 km stretch of flat highway, cruise control on, no appreciable winds, ambient temps around 5-10 C the same, same tires at same PSI, same fuel grade from the same company, and I reset my mileage counter if I had to make any passing maneuvers which would have skewed the results. As well, this was done over a period of a few weeks, so it's not like I just cherry picked my results.

So yeah, I don't know what else to say. A consistent 5-7% difference in mileage with those variables accounted for is kinda hard to deny. I knew any discussion of an additive will always prompt a chorus of naysayers. However, unless anyone can point out a fatal flaw in my methodology I'd say the results speak for themselves.

And hey, if all else fails, toss a bottle in and see for yourself. At $25-45 for a 5000 mile timespan, there's absolutely no reason why anyone can't try and provide a counterpoint to my findings.

Also, here's an interesting link http://www.docstoc.com/docs/28074664/HALLAM-PERFORMANCE-DYNO-SHOOT-OUT-LIQUI-MOLY-CERA-TEC-and-SYNTHOIL-5W-40 I can't seem to download it without joining the site, but here's a screen pic for your viewing pleasure

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/ceratec_zps430ac437.png (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/ceratec_zps430ac437.png.html)


With the millions of $$$ that car companies put into R&D to meet CAFE standards, anything that would increase fuel mileage by 5% would already be in every new car you buy.

I disagree, for one, it doesn't provide a permanent effect, so there's really no incentive on the part of automakers to include something that may ultimately result in a consumer experiencing a decrease in mileage after their first oil change.

Second, in anticipation of the inevitable "well oil companies spend $$$ in R&D, why don't they use it in their oil." my answer is as follows: It is a well known phenomenon that companies with an established market share operate on a "if it ain't broke don't fix it" mentality.

This mentality actually makes a lot of sense if you consider it. The bulk of consumers are loyal to a particular brand, not because of it's inherently superior qualities, but because they are a) familiar with the name b) the product does what it's supposed to, and c) it's similarly priced relative to the competition. Past experience with the product performing satisfactorily means that they will continue to purchase it.

Now, while there may be people who will make a switch, they tend to comprise a small portion of the market overall and present an even smaller chance at a market share gain, as their purchasing power is evenly distributed among all competitors (hence why they're switch consumers)

As well, most consumers can't be bothered to actually put in the time and effort to research and evaluate better alternatives. I would submit that this holds especially true for a product whose price is under $50 and only varies in price point by about +/- $20. As well, consider the fact that additives to a product also cost the manufacturer money, and it doesn't take much of a cost hike before consumers will start considering other similar products. Again this is especially relevant when you are considering that even $1-2 per gallon is a 5-10% increase for a gallon of oil priced between $25-45.

Also, most consumers can't be bothered to actually make the effort to try something new. As a perfect example, how many people who read this thread and have a negative OR positive opinion on the matter will actually go and try some Ceratec or Ran-Up to either conform or disprove my findings? I will wager few to none. Now, also ask yourself this; if people who actually have an opinion (negative OR positive) on the matter won't risk $25-45 to see for themselves, how many people who are neutral will make the effort and pay a cost to try it out? Not very many...

So to summarize my argument to this point. I submit that market share for items with a nominal cost is largely a function of familiarity with a brand name that they know will do the job satisfactorily and it priced about the same as other competing products, as well, most consumers can't be bothered to a) take the time to research alternatives and b) can't be bothered to pay any extra to evaluate a competitors product.

HOWEVER, what will cost an oil company dearly is any instance of their product causing damage, even if it's only a miniscule percentage. It's trite to say that people who are dissatisfied with a product (especially one which may have caused $1000's in engine damage) are FAR, FAR more likely to plaster their opinion all over the internet. It's also trite to say that when consumers have a choice of dozens of similarily priced alternatives which perform roughly the same, that it only takes a few documented failures to result in a substantial loss of market share which is almost impossible to gain back as people have no reason to take a perceived risk by changing back to their original oil when they have multiple, same cost alternatives.

In conclusion, it's my position that large companies who have an established market share have little incentive to depart from what works. Buyers who have bought into a company brand will continue to purchase that brand as long as it performs the same as the competition and it priced the same as the competition. Where a company does stand to take huge losses is if a departure from the norm (i.e. ceramic additives) causes even a miniscule numbers of engine failures or even engine issues.

Now, I'm not suggesting that I think ceramic additives are likely to result in engine issues or failures. However, I would submit that the possible risk (no matter how small) of adding them, likely outweighs the possible gains in market share from having a more efficient product.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Again, deleted as a result of one of the most well written, thoughtful and heartfelt apologies I've ever had the pleasure of receiving. Spike, you're a stand-up mensch

[wampir]

Show some 60-120 movie ....

[imnuts]

I wouldn't be surprised at ~250 HP at the crank, but I would doubt 250 HP at the wheels. From the mods listed, a 15% gain isn't that unreasonable, and I'm sure owners of V8 Mustangs have gotten more (percentage wise) from tuning, catless exhaust, and a changed up intake.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I wouldn't be surprised at ~250 HP at the crank, but I would doubt 250 HP at the wheels. From the mods listed, a 15% gain isn't that unreasonable, and I'm sure owners of V8 Mustangs have gotten more (percentage wise) from tuning, catless exhaust, and a changed up intake.

That's kinda my logic, I figure 250 CHP is within reason given the modifications. However, numbers aside, the real takeaway from this is that for around $1200 (or less if you DIY the downpipes) you can make these cars into a reliable daily driver that's actually fun to drive.

[Charles.waite]

Yea but you still have a 3.slow. You get zero scene points and all the cool kids will laugh at you while they constantly wrench on their 1.8ts.

[;)]

[DiertyEuroSpec]

Yea but you still have a 3.slow. You get zero scene points and all the cool kids will laugh at you while they constantly wrench on their 1.8ts.

[;)]

Hahaha soo regrettably true [az]

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Yea but you still have a 3.slow. You get zero scene points and all the cool kids will laugh at you while they constantly wrench on their 1.8ts.

[;)]

Lol, whatever, I'll grow an ironic beard, toss on a pair of Chuck Taylors, put on some skinny jeans and tell them between sips of my Pabst Blue Ribbon that 1.8t's are soooo 2012 and that I'm thinking of modding a W12 when 3.0's get too mainstream [;)]



(before changing out of my hipster clothes and sneaking into a garage to secretly wrench on my 1.8T [:p])

[rollerton]

you can make these cars into a reliable daily driver that's actually fun to drive.

Awesome how this can only be said of the N/A motors. [up] 3.0 Qualifies...but just barely!!!

[ZimbutheMonkey]

posted a 1-3 gear pull with the tuned and catless setup vs a stock setup in post #3

[texasboy21]

I think it would be interesting to compare some CAPS/FATS times (time it takes to go from3000 - 6500 RPMs in third gear) between your 3.0 and a 'big injector' 1.8T. I have a 5 speed, so the gearing isnt the same as the 3rd gear in the 6 speeds, but I can post some times to compare. [drive]

[ZimbutheMonkey]

yeah I agree, maybe let me know what RPM/speed range gets you in the meat of your powerband with your 01A and I can see what the equivalent is on my 01E and we can go from there [up]

[texasboy21]

yeah I agree, maybe let me know what RPM/speed range gets you in the meat of your powerband with your 01A and I can see what the equivalent is on my 01E and we can go from there [up]

Get the car in 3rd gear around 1000-1500RPMs and floor it until fuel cutoff at 7200.

The issue will be 1. different gearing and 2. small differences between the exact RPM's time stamps. The B5 A4 and S4 guys both have excel documents that compensate for this, link below.

http://www.modifieda4.com/web/caps/calculate.php?type=b518

Solid database:

http://www.modifieda4.com/web/caps/b518-new.html

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So I wanted to add a quick update to this thread.

Up to this point I've been running the car with no intake manifold changeover system (it had been taken out when I bought the car as it was broken).

However, once I was made aware of how much low end power you loose without the changeover system, I ponied up the $500 to buy a new one from ECS.

While I haven't taken any video footage or logs yet, I can still say that it makes a SUBSTANTIAL difference on the low end. The car has way more torque during 'normal' driving conditions (2000-4000 RPM) and during part throttle transitions.

For those of you who don't have a functioning changeover system, I highly recommend getting a new changeover mechanism. [up]

[SJorge3442]

^ You could have bought a used one for like $10-$40.

Now you're going to need to spend another ~$100 on the GruvenParts billet aluminum linkage arms, because your plastic ones will break.
I wish I could find one that cheap. I've been searching for about a year.

It's good to know this is a worthwhile part. OP where you running without the cylinder in the car, or did you just have it slid into in there.

[imnuts]

^ You could have bought a used one for like $10-$40.

Now you're going to need to spend another ~$100 on the GruvenParts billet aluminum linkage arms, because your plastic ones will break.

My plastic arms and changeover system are fine after 190k miles...

Sent from my Moto X

[SJorge3442]

My plastic arms and changeover system are fine after 190k miles...

Sent from my Moto X
I never really understood what causes the arms to break. I just cruise around at 3k all the time so I don't have to worry about my changeover lol.

[imnuts]

I never really understood what causes the arms to break. I just cruise around at 3k all the time so I don't have to worry about my changeover lol.

My guess, and it's only a guess, is that they break under actuation. If one was hard on the throttle and the actuators moved the runners, then the car shifts just after they cycle, causing a quick open/close, it may put more stress on the arms and let them break. Another situation would be if the runners bind up under actuation and cause an abrupt stop of the arms partially actuated.

Sent from my Moto X

[Chard_bb6]

How would I know if my "changeover system" was still functional?

[imnuts]

How would I know if my "changeover system" was still functional?

There is a change in the tone of my engine when it makes the switch. The only real way to tell would probably be to take off the intake manifold and inspect it though.

Sent from my Moto X

[SJorge3442]

How would I know if my "changeover system" was still functional?
If you undo the two torx bolts holding the actuator on, you should be able to slide the unit out of the manifold. If it's broken, you will see it.

[Boost_creep]

Could you elaborate a little more on this lemmiwinks, and how to attain it?

I've tuned all my previous cars and wouldn't mind squeezing a bit more out of my new daily :)

[AudiTLC]

interesting thread since I have a 3.0 but I'm running the tiptronic.

The metal Gruven Parts changeover is new to me, something to look into. Nice recommend, thanks!

The only thing I would care about is improving the under 80mph performance - meaning real-world street use improvements.
I'm interested because it seems like you are looking at that too.

I used to have a 1.8T 5spd, but much prefer the sound and power of the 3.0. In S mode, it's pretty snappy around town.
I think it slots in nicely between the V8 and 1.8T. Much better mpgs than the V8, much more torque than the 1.8T

As a daily, I think the 3.0 is the best B6 out of the box.

I don't see it as very easy to mod. V motor doesn't leave much space,
and i'm always wary that larger exhaust will kill my low end torque. I'm skeptical it'll do much for the effort and money.
(I have to keep my cats - CALIF)

do the 4.2 and 3.0 run the same tip trans?
The only thing that really appeals to me is a 4.2 or diesel swap, but then you would have the same nightmare that is the 4.2 V8 servicing protocol

I agree there is a cumalative effect from a lot of small changes but you can only determine from the dyno if you want to claim numbers.

but some new info in here Ive never read before so I hope you continue to mod away! :) Happy holidays!

[texasboy21]

Could you elaborate a little more on this lemmiwinks, and how to attain it?

I've tuned all my previous cars and wouldn't mind squeezing a bit more out of my new daily :)

Lemmi is far from a true of 'tuning' software.

http://www.vaglinks.com/OBDII/EdyJun_Lemmiwinks_for_Dummies.pdf

Link to download in the first post:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?1618056-Lemmiwinks-The-guide

[imnuts]

It activates at ~3500 RPM, so if you open the hood and somebody revs the engine (not on a cold engine), you will see them work.

Pretty sure it is higher than that, like 4500-5000 RPM.

Sent from my Moto X

[ZimbutheMonkey]

NOTE THIS WAS POSTED IN MY UPDATE #3 SLOT AS WELL

So, I got a chance to do some more tinkering over the holidays and today I decided that I wanted to make a CAI for my car.

Now, let me get this out of the way: "blah blah blah stock Audi airbox is magic blah blah blah, millions of dollars and hundreds of engineers, blah blah blah your car will explode and kittens will die..."

I know all about the dogma surrounding the stock airbox and I don't buy it. I've proven that a properly built CAI on a 1.8t works better than the stock airbox and I have no reason to believe that the 3.0 is any different.

Here's the simple facts behind the design of the stock airbox. All the money and man-hours spent designing that airbox has resulted in the best possible design within the parameters and constraints that Audi imposed on them. Factors like space, noise, cost, etc... drive the design, not optimal performance.

Now, the stock airbox has a few good design features. Namely, isolation from the engine heat and airflow from behind the leading edge of the hood (albeit 4-5 inches and behind a radiator). So I designed some heat shielding as well as keeping the intake duct. My reasoning is that the air blowing through it and onto the filter would displace any hot air that might get past the heat shielding. As well, I made sure to leave a good 6 inches of straight piping in front of the MAF sensor to ensure that I'm getting accurate readings.

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/CAI4_zps12e38936.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/CAI4_zps12e38936.jpg.html)

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/CAI2_zpscf5bb510.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/CAI2_zpscf5bb510.jpg.html)

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/CAI6_zps3acebc00.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/CAI6_zps3acebc00.jpg.html)

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/CAI1_zps2dbaec8a.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/CAI1_zps2dbaec8a.jpg.html)

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/CAI5_zpsf18c7130.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/CAI5_zpsf18c7130.jpg.html)
I was quite happy with the end result. My driving impressions are that it makes noticibly more torque from 2500-4000 RPM. Didn't notice much on the top end, but I would take the extra torque any day. It's super useful in day to day driving.

So, my verdict is: do it, you'll be glad you did [up]

[texasboy21]

I know all about the dogma surrounding the stock airbox and I don't buy it. I've proven that a properly built CAI on a 1.8t works better than the stock airbox and I have no reason to believe that the 3.0 is any different.

Here's the simple facts behind the design of the stock airbox. All the money and man-hours spent designing that airbox has resulted in the best possible design within the parameters and constraints that Audi imposed on them. Factors like space, noise, cost, etc... drive the design, not optimal performance.

Now, the stock airbox has a few good design features. Namely, isolation from the engine heat and forced airflow from the leading edge of the hood. So I designed some heat shielding as well as keeping the intake duct. My reasoning is that the air blowing through it and onto the filter would displace any hot air that might get past the heat shielding. As well, I made sure to leave a good 6 inches of straight piping in front of the MAF sensor to ensure that I'm getting accurate readings.

So, my verdict is: do it, you'll be glad you did [up]

Any evidence to support the claims that your intake works as well or better than stock? Lets see some before and after logs of the AITs, MAF, timing, etc.? [wrench]

[SJorge3442]

what the part number on the changeover system?

[SJorge3442]

Never mind. Found it . Called shokane. They want $265 for a used unit. Now I'm trying to justify if it's worth it. I know it is, but I've lived without it for so long.

[Audi 4 Life]

I'm sorry but that is the dumbest mod anyone can do. no matter what you or your ass dyno say a HAI will never be better than the stock (real CAI) system. The ONLY thing you can do is buy K&N.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I'm sorry but that is the dumbest mod anyone can do. no matter what you or your ass dyno say a HAI will never be better than the stock (real CAI) system. The ONLY thing you can do is buy K&N.

Sigh, did they learn you to read at the home...?

You explain to me how my setup is a hot air intake when there is a 3 mm thick metal barrier, with DEI thermal reflective material between the filter and the engine, along with the stock snorkel which is blowing outside air into the partitioned air filter area...

It kinda boggles my mind how so many people here blindly buy into the notion that the stock airbox simply cannot be improved on.

1) If you actually look at the stock intake snorkel location, it's not at the leading edge of the hood. In fact, it's about 4-5 inches back and draws air that has to pass though a heat exchanger first (the A/C rad IIRC). So you're actually getting turbulent air (b/c it's blocked by the rad) which has picked up radiated heat as it passes through the A/C radiator assembly.

2) the incoming air into the stock airbox has to make a sharp 90 deg bend to get into the airbox, then make another 90 deg bend before passing through the panel air filter into the intake tube.

3) there are 2 sections of accordion type tubing (which does not make for smooth laminar flow) in the stock airbox. the first being in the intake snorkel and the second just after the MAF sensor.

Now can someone explain to me how that is somehow more efficient than drawing through a cone filter in a partitioned area being fed by the same snorkel that supplies the stock airbox, which then passes into an internally smooth 90 degree radius bend and then takes a straight shot into the engine through the same diameter, smooth walled silicone tubing (which BTW, is thicker and more heat resistant than the thin walled plastic accordion tubing which is used in the stock intake system?).

I'm sorry, but when I look at the facts laid out here, there is no logical reason for me to believe that the stock airbox flows better than what I have made....

If I was to blindly accept these types of arguments, I'd still be buying $60/gal G-12 coolant, because remember, anything other than that was supposed to wreck my coolant system right? Or maybe never changing my transmission fluid when I had a 5HP-19 transmission because VW said that it was 'lifetime' fluid. Or better yet, not changing my timing belt on my AEB 1.8T until 105,000 miles because that was the factory recommended interval. [rolleyes]

In other words, don't blindly believe that everything the manufacturer makes or recommends is the right/best way of doing things.

[SJorge3442]

I mean I'm all for improvement. You should get baseline numbers and compare the after. Otherwise any improvements can't be calculated

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I mean I'm all for improvement. You should get baseline numbers and compare the after. Otherwise any improvements can't be calculated

And I may very well do so once I get another 'dumb' VCDS dongle to replace the one that the crackheads stole when my car got broken into [:p]

The one issue I have with straight MAF readings though is that I don't know how well they correlate to torque values. As I stated earlier, I didn't notice much of any improvement in terms of absolute top end HP. Where the improvement seemed to manifest was in midrange torque and throttle response.

So if anyone has any input as to how to accurately measure engine VE, which I understand to be associated with torque values (as opposed to just straight MAF values) I'm all ears.


Never mind. Found it . Called shokane. They want $265 for a used unit. Now I'm trying to justify if it's worth it. I know it is, but I've lived without it for so long.

Oh, and if you can get a changeover mechanism for $265, DO IT! As I said earlier, it makes a very noticeable difference. Perhaps even more so than an ECU flash IMO.

[AudiA4_20T]

dude. Toss a 2.7T block in there with the 2.7T turbos (keep the 3.0 heads and engine harness) and make some power

[ZimbutheMonkey]

dude. Toss a 2.7T block in there with the 2.7T turbos (keep the 3.0 heads and engine harness) and make some power

Lol, oh, it's been considered, trust me. Kinda sucks though at the moment as I'm living 3 1/2 hours away from my garage facilities at my folk's place. Oh yeah, and I'm also just sorting out my solo legal practice and have another $60,000 in student loans to pay off [:(]

So, probably no 2.7T swaps in the near future [:p]

That said, I'm kinda having fun seeing what I can get out of this engine. I haven't really done a whole lot of N/A tuning before, so it's been interesting to get to know all the ins and outs of how to get power out of them. Definitely different than forced induction tuning. Way, way more incremental and additive. All that being said, I think these 3.0 engines actually have some potential. Sure they're never gonna make the power that you can with a turbo engine, but my impressions with mine is that they can certainly be made fun to drive tho [drive]

Also, on a bit of a different note, I was under the impression that the 3.0 heads weren't really compatible with the 2.7T block. I know Polishdupa was trying to adapt them, but IIRC the camshaft system was giving him some serious issues.

Still though, it would be great if you could get the 20 deg variable cam phasing of the 3.0 intake cams working on a 2.7T engine. I'm sure it would be a win win in terms of spool and power gains.

[AudiA4_20T]

Lol, oh, it's been considered, trust me. Kinda sucks though at the moment as I'm living 3 1/2 hours away from my garage facilities at my folk's place. Oh yeah, and I'm also just sorting out my solo legal practice and have another $60,000 in student loans to pay off [:(]

So, probably no 2.7T swaps in the near future [:p]

That said, I'm kinda having fun seeing what I can get out of this engine. I haven't really done a whole lot of N/A tuning before, so it's been interesting to get to know all the ins and outs of how to get power out of them. Definitely different than forced induction tuning. Way, way more incremental and additive. All that being said, I think these 3.0 engines actually have some potential. Sure they're never gonna make the power that you can with a turbo engine, but my impressions with mine is that they can certainly be made fun to drive tho [drive]

Also, on a bit of a different note, I was under the impression that the 3.0 heads weren't really compatible with the 2.7T block. I know Polishdupa was trying to adapt them, but IIRC the camshaft system was giving him some serious issues.

Still though, it would be great if you could get the 20 deg variable cam phasing of the 3.0 intake cams working on a 2.7T engine. I'm sure it would be a win win in terms of spool and power gains.

Not true, he got scared off because someone told him the 3.0 heads are unreliable which is dumb. Agreed with you on spool & power gains.

Anyways I hear you on shop space, $$, etc. I had to pay someone to do an oil change and have to take public transportation down to where my car is. FML

[SJorge3442]

And I may very well do so once I get another 'dumb' VCDS dongle to replace the one that the crackheads stole when my car got broken into [:p]

The one issue I have with straight MAF readings though is that I don't know how well they correlate to torque values. As I stated earlier, I didn't notice much of any improvement in terms of absolute top end HP. Where the improvement seemed to manifest was in midrange torque and throttle response.

So if anyone has any input as to how to accurately measure engine VE, which I understand to be associated with torque values (as opposed to just straight MAF values) I'm all ears.



Oh, and if you can get a changeover mechanism for $265, DO IT! As I said earlier, it makes a very noticeable difference. Perhaps even more so than an ECU flash IMO.
I ended up getting one for $100! It sitting in a box at home. I need to wait for the intake manifold gaskets so i can pull the manifold to do the job and solve other issues.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

No need for new intake gaskets to install the changeover mechanism as far as i know. From what I can see, the 3.0 intake manifold uses an o-ring type gasket which should be re-useable. All I did was undo the intake manifold bolts, undid the accordion hose that comes off the MAF (I have already pulled the Hemholz resonator off tho) and tilted the manifold up. That gave enough clearance to pop the new changeover mechanism in.

[SJorge3442]

No need for new intake gaskets to install the changeover mechanism as far as i know. From what I can see, the 3.0 intake manifold uses an o-ring type gasket which should be re-useable. All I did was undo the intake manifold bolts, undid the accordion hose that comes off the MAF (I have already pulled the Hemholz resonator off tho) and tilted the manifold up. That gave enough clearance to pop the new changeover mechanism in.
Im fighting two lean codes so I wanna swap the gasket to ensure everything is kosher under there any way. Hopefully i can get the codes solved.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Im fighting two lean codes so I wanna swap the gasket to ensure everything is kosher under there any way. Hopefully i can get the codes solved.

Gotcha, in fact I probably should have done that myself, I just didn't think about it at the time. Oh well, I've been considering getting some JHM intake spacers as I want to put some of that DEI gold thermal wrap on the entire intake tract and underside of the manifold, so maybe I'll do it then.

[Spike00513]

Im fighting two lean codes so I wanna swap the gasket to ensure everything is kosher under there any way. Hopefully i can get the codes solved.

Why not spray around the base of it with something like carburetor cleaner, to see if it changes the idle, thus indicating a leak there?


Gotcha, in fact I probably should have done that myself, I just didn't think about it at the time. Oh well, I've been considering getting some JHM intake spacers as I want to put some of that DEI gold thermal wrap on the entire intake tract and underside of the manifold, so maybe I'll do it then.

JimmyBones found something better than the DEI

[ZimbutheMonkey]

JimmyBones found something better than the DEI

Got a link by chance?

[imnuts]

I'm sorry but that is the dumbest mod anyone can do. no matter what you or your ass dyno say a HAI will never be better than the stock (real CAI) system. The ONLY thing you can do is buy K&N.

The intake will be better when the car is moving, and either a little worse or even when not moving. I think the intake temps will rise faster if one is sitting not moving, but not significantly. The reason behind this thought is that the stock air box has to heat up before the air inside it can, where this just has to have the heat emanate around the shield, which is easier to do. It'd still be nice to see some logging of intake v. outside temperatures while moving and when idle to compare to stock.


1) If you actually look at the stock intake snorkel location, it's not at the leading edge of the hood. In fact, it's about 4-5 inches back and draws air that has to pass though a heat exchanger first (the A/C rad IIRC). So you're actually getting turbulent air (b/c it's blocked by the rad) which has picked up radiated heat as it passes through the A/C radiator assembly.

No it doesn't. While the intake pipe doesn't come from the very leading edge of the car, it doesn't pull air from behind the A/C evaporator or radiator. It comes from right next to them, and I'd imagine that the heat transfer between the two is fairly negligible. I also doubt that you get much heat from the bumper or grill of the car. I've taken the intake piping out several times and I look in at the front portion that screws to the radiator support to ensure that it is lined up properly every time, and I'm not looking through the radiator.


2) the incoming air into the stock airbox has to make a sharp 90 deg bend to get into the airbox, then make another 90 deg bend before passing through the panel air filter into the intake tube.

Your intake setup still has the two bends. I think most of your power gains will come from the fact that you removed the flexible piping from Audi and replaced it with flexible tubing that has a smooth interior.


Now can someone explain to me how that is somehow more efficient than drawing through a cone filter in a partitioned area being fed by the same snorkel that supplies the stock airbox, which then passes into an internally smooth 90 degree radius bend and then takes a straight shot into the engine through the same diameter, smooth walled silicone tubing (which BTW, is thicker and more heat resistant than the thin walled plastic accordion tubing which is used in the stock intake system?).

While I think your system is an improvement, I think that one could get a little more out of the intake, but it would require a lot more fab work. Just replacing the flex piping Audi used and putting in smooth piping would probably get you about the same changes and allow you to still use the stock filter.


If I was to blindly accept these types of arguments, I'd still be buying $60/gal G-12 coolant, because remember, anything other than that was supposed to wreck my coolant system right? Or maybe never changing my transmission fluid when I had a 5HP-19 transmission because VW said that it was 'lifetime' fluid. Or better yet, not changing my timing belt on my AEB 1.8T until 105,000 miles because that was the factory recommended interval. [rolleyes]

I don't think VW/Audi sell G12 anymore, and most other places probably don't either. I think they've all moved to G13 or G12+/++ by now. And the reason you don't run other coolants is that most people wouldn't think to fully flush the old coolant out. You can't mix the G12/13 coolants with the green stuff. The G12/13 coolants are also better for the car cooling system as they have additives that prevent mineral buildup in the cooling system. Also, VW/Audi revised the factory recommended interval for timing belt changes for all 1.8T's AFAIK, and it is now something like 60k or 80k miles as the new interval.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So here's an interesting set of dyno plots. It was from A-FourLO's thread where he dynoed the stock airbox vs an open aluminium tube. Seems that the open tube picked up about 4-5 WHP and WTQ across the RPM band. http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/464570-My-A4-3-0-V6-6-speed-DYNO-amp-progress-thread/page11

Unfortunately, no one really seemed to pick up on it. Rather than actually trying to rebut the evidence that was in front of them, the naysayers in this thread just devolved into ripping on him for making his AWD car into a FWD...


This is the dyno plot of the stock airbox vs the open intake tube. Green is the stock Airbox


http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/cubanob247/IMAG0983-1.jpg
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/cubanob247/IMAG0985-1.jpg
http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/bb295/cubanob247/IMAG0984-1.jpg

[AudiTLC]

Don't waste your time trying to win internet arguments. It's pointless.
Just do some work on your 3.0 and keep your thread alive with updates.

good luck and stay positive!

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Don't waste your time trying to win internet arguments. It's pointless.
Just do some work on your 3.0 and keep your thread alive with updates.

good luck and stay positive!

Lol, true that

What I do try to do however, is to consolidate as much hard and/or relevant data that I can. While it won't sway those who have already formed their opinions, it at least allows individuals searching for good information to make their own informed opinions.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So just a quick update on the CAI. Remember how I had said that there didn't seem to be any real top end gains? Well that may have changed. I did some research and found out that gauze type cone filters get exponentially more restrictive once they trap a certain amount of gunk. Well the filter I had used was an old one that had almost been totally clogged. While I cleaned it out with a K&N recharger kit, it was still kinda dirty.

So I picked up a new cheap $25 Vibrant cone filter, installed it and yeah, noticeable difference. The car now has a very very linear powerband that pulls nice and hard to 7200 RPM. It's kinda neat actually, with everything working right, I can actually feel myself get pushed back into my seat all the way through 2nd now [drive]

I gotta admit, this little 3.0 is starting to grow on me [:)] I can see why a cadre of devoted supporters continues to try and develop this engine despite it being 10 years old and only made for 3 years.

[Spike00513]

I can see why a cadre of devoted supporters continues to try and develop this engine despite it being 10 years old and only made for 3 years.

^?

[ZimbutheMonkey]

^?

Lol, what's to question...

The 3.0 is actually a great little engine once you uncork it. Sure, it can't make as much power as a 1.8t. But speaking as someone who has had 6 different 1.8t setups (K03, K04-15, K04 hybrid, GT2860, T04e 60-1 and a Comp 5556), I can safely say that $1200-1500 worth of mods makes for a 3.0 that can hang with a lightly modded Hybrid K04 1.8t.

[SJorge3442]

Lol, what's to question...

The 3.0 is actually a great little engine once you uncork it. Sure, it can't make as much power as a 1.8t. But speaking as someone who has had 6 different 1.8t setups (K03, K04-15, K04 hybrid, GT2860, T04e 60-1 and a Comp 5556), I can safely say that $1200-1500 worth of mods makes for a 3.0 that can hang with a lightly modded Hybrid K04 1.8t.
This is what jhm has been preaching since they unleashed their tune

[thaifoodninja]

This is what jhm has been preaching since they unleashed their tune

oh and boy is it worth it ;)

[SJorge3442]

oh and boy is it worth it ;)

You guys are a bad influence! Looks like I will probably be spending some of my tax return on a tune. [race]

[customa4]

They got some good guys over there as well. I spoke with Drew from JHM on Friday and instead of him just trying to force me to buy something he actually suggested trying a couple different things before I take the extreme route. I was having a hard time shifting and he said it sounded like an adjustment problem, which I suspected but wanted to hear it from someone else. Sure enough I adjusted the shifter and it's doing better now. [up] for JHM.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

**Added a 20-150 km/hr pull with the new CAI and a 0-160+ km/hr pull from a 3.2 FSI A4 as a comparison in the summary section on pg 1**

[SJorge3442]

This thing sounds really healthy when you're doing those pulls

[texasboy21]

The 3.0 sounds great!

Post a log with a WOT 3rd gear run.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Deleted as a result of one of the most well written, thoughtful and heartfelt apologies I've ever had the pleasure of receiving. Spike, you're a stand-up mensch [up]

[ZimbutheMonkey]

The 3.0 sounds great!

Post a log with a WOT 3rd gear run.


This thing sounds really healthy when you're doing those pulls

And thanks very much fellas [up] I'll try and get a decent 3rd gear pull when I get a chance to.

Also, on a good note for those on a budget, that exhaust note is what the 2.5 in downpipes sound like on an otherwise stock exhaust (i.e. resonators onward).

[seal66]

I really need to change my tune out. Your car moves a lot better than my 3L

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I really need to change my tune out. Your car moves a lot better than my 3L

Are you running a stock tune on your 3.0 or are you running a USP tune?

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So, I finally had a chance to do some logging with my new CAI setup and here are the before and after plots. The difference is fairly pronounced I'd say. The CAI setup flows about 7-10 g/sec more, which is a 4-6% increase. If we assume that to be a 4-6% increase in power, that would mean it's good for about 9-13 CHP (4-6% of the stock rating of 220 CHP).

Between A4LO's dyno gains posted on page 2 of this thread and my pre-post CAI MAF readings, I think this makes a pretty solid case for a CAI being a worthwhile mod on these engines.

Also bear in mind a few things when looking at these plots.

1) The Pre-CAI is based on 500 data points collected over a month or so. So the readings above 160 g/sec are pretty much outliers. However, I'm including them just to err on the conservative side of my analysis.

2) The Pre-CAI readings are with the Zingo mod.

3) The Post CAI data was collected in ambient temps of about -4C to +8C. If I was to log in lower temps, the max readings may even be higher.

Pre CAI
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/preCAIMAFreadings_zpsf0cf8bc2.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/preCAIMAFreadings_zpsf0cf8bc2.jpg.html)

Post CAI
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/mafreadingsafterCAI_zps2de0e578.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/mafreadingsafterCAI_zps2de0e578.jpg.html)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Also, I think I may have an idea for a bit of a different approach to building the remainder of my exhaust system.

I think I'm going to see about incorporating some venturi transitions into my exhaust. Basically, what I think I'll do is use a pair of shallow transition (9 degree angle) cones to increase the exhaust velocity before going into the crossover pipe.

It's not going to be a massive neck down, just going from 2.5 inches to 2.25 inches. It's partially driven by cost considerations as I have a bunch of 2.25 in mandrel bends kicking around.

However my theory is that while the neck down will decrease high end flow slightly, increasing the exhaust velocity before the X pipe will aid in mid range torque production.

Basically, it's a bit of a trade off. However, since the stock engine cams, head, intake manifold etc... are set up for mid range power. I think it's best to try and maximize those gains rather than try and maximize top end power. Put otherwise, best to base your power adders around your engine's best volumetric efficiency areas in the powerband.

Thoughts from the peanut gallery?

[imnuts]

Your graphs above show that you actually have less air flow in the mid-range, and more erratic air flow post CAI installation. I realize that you don't have as many data points for the post setup, but just looking at the basic graph, you only improved your performance on the very top end, maybe the last 10-15% of the RPM range, and it looks like it is break even or worse over the other 85-90% of the range. I'd also be interested to see how the intake temperatures fluctuate with the new setup compared to the stock box, as that is where a lot of intakes fail from my reading.

[texasboy21]

Higher intake temps = less timing advance

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Your graphs above show that you actually have less air flow in the mid-range, and more erratic air flow post CAI installation. I realize that you don't have as many data points for the post setup, but just looking at the basic graph, you only improved your performance on the very top end, maybe the last 10-15% of the RPM range, and it looks like it is break even or worse over the other 85-90% of the range. I'd also be interested to see how the intake temperatures fluctuate with the new setup compared to the stock box, as that is where a lot of intakes fail from my reading.

I would say the more erratic curve likely stems from the fact that my post CAI logs were all taken as part of urban driving. As a result they're all 1st and 2nd gear pulls, and many of the data points along the midrange come from short pulls which needed to be aborted due to traffic. Whereas most if not all of my pre-CAI logs were taken on the highway where I could get a clean run through the gears.

As you indicated as well, I have more than 3 times the data points for the pre-CAI pulls. I can assure you that once I get some time out on the highways you'd see a much smoother MAF curve.

As for midrange losses, I haven't noticed any, and from the data I presented, there's no way of telling what the midrange looks like between the two as there is only one variable being analyzed (g/sec).

What I mean by that is while there is more fluctuation in from the regression line in the post CAI chart, that doesn't indicate a relative loss. Only that the readings are fluctuating. In other words, it could be that when you scale in RPM, the entire post CAI curve could be higher in the midrange.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from what I put up is the consistency of the MAF readings and the upper end of the readings.

I'll try and re-do them later to include RPM data.


Regarding the air temps, it depends on how the car is moving. When I'm stopped in traffic the intake temps will rise fairly quickly. That's because there is no outside air coming into the filter however area by way of the intake snorkel I left attached.

However, once I start moving they drop fairly quickly (within 10-20 sec) and keep dropping depending on how long i stay moving. There's a quick initial drop-off to about 10C above ambient (that 10 20 sec period) and then a slower drop off over a minute or two until I'm only a couple degrees C above ambient.

So long story short, as long as you're not in rush hour traffic, the air being drawn in is just as cool as anything the stock airbox would be drawing in. Which makes sense given that the CAI filter is being fed by the same snorkel as the stock airbox would be using.

I've also wrapped the entire CAI in heat reflective tape which helps the recovery time significantly. In fact, I can let the car idle for long stretches of time now (10-20 min) and the intake is still cool to the touch. So that has to be making a difference.

One thing I do plan on doing when I get the chance is making a better partition between the intake and exhaust manifold. While it does reflect some heat away, it doesn't form enough of a seal to keep the intake from drawing hot air at idle.

[seal66]

Are you running a stock tune on your 3.0 or are you running a USP tune?

Actually a saw tune. Jhm tune is going to be going on soon

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[ZimbutheMonkey]

saw tune?

Unless that's an acronym for stock, do you have any details on your particular tune?

[imnuts]

So pretty much what you're saying is that the one graph you posted above is completely useless and can't be used for any comparison from pre/post intake modifications? I guess the next question would be, why post it at all then? The data in it is completely irrelevant, you could have just made up numbers and it would be just as useful for comparison purposes.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So pretty much what you're saying is that the one graph you posted above is completely useless and can't be used for any comparison from pre/post intake modifications? I guess the next question would be, why post it at all then? The data in it is completely irrelevant, you could have just made up numbers and it would be just as useful for comparison purposes.

Oh lord.... just get over it man, seriously.... [down]

I'm getting kind of irritated that I've actually taken the time to write out some detailed responses to your points.

I should also add that my responses point out BOTH the advantages and areas of improvement for improving on my setup. However, all I've gotten for my efforts to engage you in a constructive discussion have been garbage posts like the one above.

Now, before you get all righteously indignant and defensive, what makes responses like the one above garbage is the fact that all it does is blindly defends your position without adding any evidence or reasoning of any sort to back it up. The reality of it is, when people resort to these types of responses in a debate, it only makes them look like they're grasping at straws in the face of mounting evidence and more persuasive reasoning to the contrary. So you may want to think about how people view that if you're trying to defend a position.

If you honestly feel that a stock airbox is better, then build a CAI like mine, test it back to back with the stock airbox and prove me wrong.

Now, in the interest of keeping things productive for this community, I'm willing to let this slide if you want to get back on board with some constructive feedback.

However, if all you want to do is stubbornly stick to your position without adding ANY evidence of your own to back it up or any compelling reasoning, then do us all a favor and move along, got it?

[Spike00513]

saw tune?

Unless that's an acronym for stock, do you have any details on your particular tune?

Sprint Auto Works

[imnuts]

I said absolutely nothing about your intake, just your data that you posted. I have no idea how well it works compared to the stock intake, nor does anyone else. The data that you posted is statistically and practically useless. How can you convince anyone that it is better or worse than what they have now? The data was not taken in anything close to resembling the same conditions. I didn't realize that I needed to backup my statement that you're data is worthless. Do I think that the stock intake can be made better? Sure I do, but I can't tell if what you've put together is better or not. You want constructive feedback, give useful data.

If you can't take criticism over your presentation, I greatly hope that you are never in any position to back any scientific research and provide similarly arrived at information. If I presented information like yours in college, my professors would have laughed hysterically while failing me. If you want me to take your intake and modifications seriously, provide data gathered under similar conditions (same gear, similar weather conditions, same stretch of road) that you collected the pre-change data. The less stuff that is different, the more likely you'll show that your changes are an improvement. You're trying to claim significance with less than half as many data points and collected in what seems like vastly different driving conditions.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So I thought I'd rip off one of my own posts I made in another thread to explain what I'm trying to do with my exhaust from the downpipes back.

I'm hoping to get my catback portion done around the middle of next month. As indicated, I'm going to use 2.25 in piping from the downpipe back as I have the bends for it already.

However, I think that necking it down may not end up being a bad thing. I'm going to use a gradual cone taper (rather than a stepped transition) right before it goes into the X pipe portion. What I hope to gain from the cone is a venturi effect which in theory, increase the exhaust gas pulse velocity going into the X pipe.

What I'm hoping will happen is that increasing the velocity through a neck down will do is gain me some torque in the middle of the powerband. If you think about it, X pipes work best when the exhaust gas pulses are moving fast enough to hug the side wall as they pass through, therefore creating a proper vacuum in their wake to aid in scavenging. X pipes don't really do much when the exhaust pulses are moving slowly and get deflected into the other bank's exhaust stream. Here's a video detailing what I mean


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2crCWF5cmLk

This may sound a bit counter intuitive as you would expect that the X pipe would work by deflecting the pulse across. You would also expect that the pulse would want to move across, but that's not the case. The reason is that when a fluid moves through a passage, the resistance where it contacts the passage is infinite (this is called a 'boundary layer') and then lessens as you move toward the center of the passage.

So when a pulse moves through an X pipe, the resistance at the boundary layer causes it to stick to the side of the X and move through the same side. When this happens, you get that low pressure region behind the pulse which increases your volumetric efficiency by way of increased scavenging.

Sooooooo, what that means to me is that necking down the piping just a hair will get those exhaust pulses creating a useable vacuum through the X pipe faster than it would with no neck down. I realize that by doing this, I will sacrifice some top end. However, since the engine isn't cammed and doesn't have head work, I feel that I am better off aiming for peak scavenging in the midrange as it will maximize my gains.

Lol, hope this makes sense. It's a lot to try and cram into one post.

[Jake@JHM]

Actually a saw tune. Jhm tune is going to be going on soon

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Right on [up]

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Logs from Feb 18, 2015. Taken from 75%-100% load. So the logs are indicative of tip in to full throttle. Ambient temps registered on my dash: +5C to +7C

Logs taken in 1-2 gear and in moderate-heavy stop and go urban traffic.

MAF readings EDIT: I had missed some data from yesterday, in the new graph, you can see that my readings were hitting up to 168 g/sec, so it's breathing nice and strong. Now I'm really curious to see how high it will read once things cool off in the next day or two [up].
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/Feb18MAFreadings_zpsbfaf1833.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/Feb18MAFreadings_zpsbfaf1833.jpg.html)

Timing
Good indicator of what is going on in the combustion chamber. Doesn't appear to be any pull, so obviously my A/F ratios and intake temps aren't causing any issues.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/Feb18timinglogs_zps97ef2e71.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/Feb18timinglogs_zps97ef2e71.jpg.html)

Intake temps
Important to note that according to the average regression line, under load the temps are +13C to +17C. That's only 4C variation on average and an average of only 8C to 12C above ambient if we go with the more conservative estimate of ambient being +5C)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/Feb18intaketemps_zpsd6cda571.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/Feb18intaketemps_zpsd6cda571.jpg.html)

A/F ratios
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/Feb18AirFuelratios_zps5fa953bb.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/Feb18AirFuelratios_zps5fa953bb.jpg.html)

Overall, I'm pretty darn happy with what I'm seeing. Good narrow average intake temp variation and minimal average increases over ambient, strong and stable MAF numbers, good A/F ratios and healthy timing curves [up]

[Lornnn]

I said absolutely nothing about your intake, just your data that you posted. I have no idea how well it works compared to the stock intake, nor does anyone else. The data that you posted is statistically and practically useless. How can you convince anyone that it is better or worse than what they have now? The data was not taken in anything close to resembling the same conditions. I didn't realize that I needed to backup my statement that you're data is worthless. Do I think that the stock intake can be made better? Sure I do, but I can't tell if what you've put together is better or not. You want constructive feedback, give useful data.

If you can't take criticism over your presentation, I greatly hope that you are never in any position to back any scientific research and provide similarly arrived at information. If I presented information like yours in college, my professors would have laughed hysterically while failing me. If you want me to take your intake and modifications seriously, provide data gathered under similar conditions (same gear, similar weather conditions, same stretch of road) that you collected the pre-change data. The less stuff that is different, the more likely you'll show that your changes are an improvement. You're trying to claim significance with less than half as many data points and collected in what seems like vastly different driving conditions.

Not sure why you're giving Zimbu a hard time about all this - and his intake in particular - when you're using a hacked/glued/plugged airbox and intake elbow... ?

[imnuts]

I don't get it, someone posts no data for the latest performance craze, and everyone is all over them asking for data to prove whatever they're selling. Someone posts irrelevant data to prove something that may work, and no one cares. I'd rather have nothing over useless data, at least nothing is misleading when you have nothing.

Sent from my Moto X

[Lornnn]

I don't get it, someone posts no data for the latest performance craze, and everyone is all over them asking for data to prove whatever they're selling. Someone posts irrelevant data to prove something that may work, and no one cares. I'd rather have nothing over useless data, at least nothing is misleading when you have nothing.

Sent from my Moto X

If Zimbu had a $500 price tag and an Order Now link for a CAI kit with unsupported claims like "increased and improved throttle response, increases in low end torque, and increases top end power" I can see how your skepticism would be warranted. But he doesn't, so what is your beef? He's wrenching on his car, experimenting, posting his findings and you're acting like the guy owes you something. Your unproductive (it doesn't need to be supportive) heckling makes no sense coming from someone who 1) modded their airbox and intake elbow based off of ??? (read the last post for why this isn't a good idea) and also bought a $500 tune with no data and a misleading (DP's & cat-back sold separately, "these 2.5" downpipes are the key") sales pitch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd6SFqRGQow

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I don't get it, someone posts no data for the latest performance craze, and everyone is all over them asking for data to prove whatever they're selling. Someone posts irrelevant data to prove something that may work, and no one cares. I'd rather have nothing over useless data, at least nothing is misleading when you have nothing.

Sent from my Moto X

Ummm, not sure I follow 'ya there laddie.

The reasons that I'm posting data is for exactly the reasons you pointed out in your post. Someone comes along with an idea, part etc... claims gains, doesn't post anything to back it up, forum argument ensues with NEITHER party bringing any evidence to the table and at the end of the day, the Audi community gains nothing.

The whole reason I started this thread was because virtually no one has bothered to post any objective data on what bolt on mods do for the 3.0. What I'm attempting to do is actually give people an idea as to what can be done with this engine and what to expect if they spend their hard earned cash on mods such as a tune or exhaust.

I feel that what i've put together on this thread is actually quite informative and objective and I've taken as many steps as I've can to make sure that the results are as unbiased as possible.

At the end of the day, data is just that, data. I've drawn my conclusions from it and my intent is to give other forum members enough info to draw their own conclusions. I'm not selling anything, so I have no reason to misrepresent or mislead anyone. In fact, to do so would effectively destroy what I've set out to do in this thread, which is advance this community.

In regards your conclusions, they are what they are. I'm not going to loose any sleep if our interpretations of what I've presented are different. Quite frankly, peer review of experiment results and the ability of a claim to withstand scrutiny are cornerstones of the experimental method and as you have noted, are often lacking on the forums.

I will say that dredging though logs, graphing the results, writing them up all neat and tidy is a very time consuming process, but one that I am willing to do for the betterment of the platform. All I ask for my time and effort in preparing and presenting this data is that critiques and counterpoints have some thought put into them and/or are accompanied by some objective evidence to back them up. I've seen way too many a perfectly good thread completely wasted by unfounded bickering (not singling you out by the way, it happens all over). However, I've made a conscious effort to take all measures necessary to keep that happening here.

So there you have it, the data is what it is. It's your own prerogative as to how you want to interpret it. All I ask of you or anyone else who comments on my results is that the comments be well reasoned, informed and bring something to the table by doing so [up]

PS: my last set of results are all set against RPM now if that helps better inform your questions on the matter [drive]


Cheers

[ZimbutheMonkey]

If Zimbu had a $500 price tag and an Order Now link for a CAI kit with unsupported claims like "increased and improved throttle response, increases in low end torque, and increases top end power" I can see how your skepticism would be warranted. But he doesn't, so what is your beef? He's wrenching on his car, experimenting, posting his findings and you're acting like the guy owes you something. Your unproductive (it doesn't need to be supportive) heckling makes no sense coming from someone who 1) modded their airbox and intake elbow based off of ??? (read the last post for why this isn't a good idea) and also bought a $500 tune with no data and a misleading (DP's & cat-back sold separately, "these 2.5" downpipes are the key") sales pitch.]

Both you and imnuts raise a good point about the lack of good supporting data for many aftermarket products.

You would think that someone investing the time and assume the financial risk of producing and selling a product would back it up with clear and unequivocal data that it does what is claimed.

However, I find that most supporting data is sketchy at best.

I guess for me, my education as a Psych major (huge emphasis on experimental design) and as a Lawyer (logical, evidence based reasoning) has had the effect of drilling into me, the need to support my claims with something more than speculation. Picking out flaws in marketing is second nature to me and it's kind of frustrating when I see designs and ideas that may work, but are supported with no data or clearly flawed and biased data. The reason it frustrates me is that I would like to know if I can take something as fact and build on it. But if the supporting evidence isn't there, I essentially have to start at square one with my own investigation at best, or that I get led down the wrong path, wasting my time and money at worst.

Anyway, it's good to know that there are forum members who have made it known that they want evidence to back a claim up when it comes to aftermarket products.

Vendors, you hearing this....?

[SJorge3442]

I've been following since you started posting this and I'm excited to see what you are able to squeeze out of the motor. My only problem with the so called CAI, is the fact that in the summer time, the engine bay has to be HOT. I was pulling some logs the other day to check the health of my car and even with it being 15 degrees F in Philly, after cruising around the side streets for a few minutes, intake temps were up to 60 degrees. I never really checked intake temps cruising around the city during the summer time, but I have no problem believing they are above 100F. Just the fact that the stock intake pulls from the outside of the engine compartment, SHOULD help drop temps a ton, compared to a CAI.

Now, its cold right now, so the results from the CAI you built are going to favor the temps now, more so than in the summer. I have no idea how hot it gets up in your part of Canada, but here in SE PA, we see plenty of 90+F days. A CAI on an NA engine will largely effect the amount of timing that the ECU will pull. Now, I wouldnt be opposed to running a CAI in the winter time and throwing the stock intake back on in the summer. Just curious, but are you running the JHM intake spacers?

[Spike00513]

My noob-self is reading, and trying to understand (I will eventually). I don't even know what ignition/timing advance is, so yeah.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like even with modifications, improvements are marginal. MPG, power, and so on. With time and parts cost invested, aren't you hungrier for something more? Who cares if it can hang with a stage 2 1.8T - life isn't defined by whether you can hang with a slow inefficient 1.8T...

What about smething with crazy torque, new, fast, efficient, and so on? 2.0 chain-driven TDI swap? 3.0T? Doesn't even have to be a VAG motor. What about converting it into an EV?
What about the possibilities. I mean, the B6 is a very front-heavy car, and I'm not sure if that's good. I can already easily feel the easier turn-in response from swapping to manual because it's lighter - imagine having electric motors in the trunk. Or wherever.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVkJjt_Peg0

[ZimbutheMonkey]

My noob-self is reading, and trying to understand (I will eventually). I don't even know what ignition/timing advance is, so yeah.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like even with modifications, improvements are marginal. MPG, power, and so on. With time and parts cost invested, aren't you hungrier for something more? Who cares if it can hang with a stage 2 1.8T - life isn't defined by whether you can hang with a slow inefficient 1.8T...

What about smething with crazy torque, new, fast, efficient, and so on? 2.0 chain-driven TDI swap? 3.0T? Doesn't even have to be a VAG motor. What about converting it into an EV?
What about the possibilities. I mean, the B6 is a very front-heavy car, and I'm not sure if that's good. I can already easily feel the easier turn-in response from swapping to manual because it's lighter - imagine having electric motors in the trunk. Or wherever.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVkJjt_Peg0

In response to this and your PM, I do agree that N/A engines don't have nearly the easy power potential that a turbo has.

My other car is a 1.8t passat that I spent 5 years modding. In it's last incarnation it was a built motor running a Comp turbo 5556 which flows a little more than a GT3076. Given how hard I thrashed that engine, it stood up well. Unfortunately, after 2+ years it popped a valve keeper and dropped an exhaust valve into the #3 cylinder.

I do plan on resurrecting her, but I'm not gonna half ass it, so I'll need to shell out a good $5000+ in parts to do it right.

The reason I've turned my attention to the 3.0 platform is for two reasons.

1) I spent the last 4 years either in law school or as an articling student making 40k a year. I got called to the Alberta bar in Dec and between starting my own firm, student loans and living costs, I don't have a ton of disposable income (yet.... [;)]). However, I do have the means to fabricate bolt on parts for my 3.0 and I can do it on my budget. So for the time being I felt why not focus on improving what is and will be my daily driver.

2) During my time building my 1.8t, I researched the shit out of forced induction tuning and I'm at a point where I thought "why not try my hand at N/A tuning and mods"? It's been fun actually, learning how to tune N/A engines. I've gotten pretty deep into the fluid dynamics end of things (not in terms of the bare mathematics, but conceptually). So I'm quite content to be learning a new set of concepts [:)]


Anyway, back to your original point Spike. While I agree that the 3.0 is never going to me a power monster without any forced induction, I do feel that the 3.0 has potential. I know from my own experience so far that what the mods I've done have had a dramatic effect on the car, and i want to see just how much I get out of it without getting into internals. So things like a proper X pipe catback, lightweight flywheel, lightweight crank pulley, maybe some long tube headers and intake manifold insulating, maybe water/meth etc... will make for more gains to come.

I do maintain that for what you would pay for a basic Frankenturbo kit (good for 250-260 CHP w/o other bolt ons) you can get the same level of performance with a tune, downpipes, and an ebay China made exhaust. Not bad for a daily driver I figure [drive]

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I've been following since you started posting this and I'm excited to see what you are able to squeeze out of the motor. My only problem with the so called CAI, is the fact that in the summer time, the engine bay has to be HOT. I was pulling some logs the other day to check the health of my car and even with it being 15 degrees F in Philly, after cruising around the side streets for a few minutes, intake temps were up to 60 degrees. I never really checked intake temps cruising around the city during the summer time, but I have no problem believing they are above 100F. Just the fact that the stock intake pulls from the outside of the engine compartment, SHOULD help drop temps a ton, compared to a CAI.

Now, its cold right now, so the results from the CAI you built are going to favor the temps now, more so than in the summer. I have no idea how hot it gets up in your part of Canada, but here in SE PA, we see plenty of 90+F days. A CAI on an NA engine will largely effect the amount of timing that the ECU will pull. Now, I wouldnt be opposed to running a CAI in the winter time and throwing the stock intake back on in the summer. Just curious, but are you running the JHM intake spacers?

I agree, the charge heating may be more pronounced in hotter temps with my CAI. However, I think that I can mitigate a lot of that if I build a sealed partition between the engine and intake. Right now I have a partition that covers about 80% of the opening, but it's still allowing the intake to draw hot air while the car idles. However, if the space is sealed off properly, then the intake will draw from air outside the engine bay as it's the path of least resistance at that point.

Also, no, I don't have the JHM spacers at this point. I'll get to it in springtime when the outside temps start rising. I also plan on thermally insulating the intake manifold as well as blocking off the coolant flow to the throttle body.

[jaydeff]

There's a lot of debate over whether intake spacers actually do anything beneficial. FlyboyS4 has done a few tests and has writeups here (http://www.myaudis4.com/phenolic-spacers/) and here (http://www.myaudis4.com/ecs-tuning-intake-manifold-gasket/). Personally, I wouldn't waste $100 on them.

[Spike00513]

FWIW, European 3.0s have better looking split-tube exhaust manifolds that collect into one at the end. Just like the S4. You can find them on eBay.
US ones are ugly cast-iron ones without any separation.

Have you any plans for that area? You say long-tube headers. Will you make your own? I wonder if you'd gain from the Euro version OEM exhaust manis..

It does seem to make for a nice DD. Budget is also why I've not delved into serious builds. Maybe one day, with enough disposable income.

[Audi 4 Life]

There's a lot of debate over whether intake spacers actually do anything beneficial. FlyboyS4 has done a few tests and has writeups here (http://www.myaudis4.com/phenolic-spacers/) and here (http://www.myaudis4.com/ecs-tuning-intake-manifold-gasket/). Personally, I wouldn't waste $100 on them.

First off thats not even the same car so compassion means absolutely NOTHING. Yea the block is similar but thats where similarities end, one is cast iron other is aluminum one is twin turbo one is not, The intake manifolds are not anywhere near the same. NA modding all the small significant mods are important. And intake spacers are one of those significant smalll things that make a difference, especially on 3.0 and 4.2 NA platforms. From personal experience, not some other guys testing on a totally different platform, I own them and could feel intake temperatures drastic change just by placing my hand on the manifold. Under normal conditions the manifold is too hot to touch, with spacers even on a hot summer day you can safely place your palm on the manifold without getting burned. Also they change the length of the runners giving more torque and HP albeit small amount but still more than stock. Taken from the JHM site....
"They help bring your intake temps down by insulating the intake manifold from the heat coming from the cylinder heads due to combustion. Thus creating a cooler and denser intake charge which helps add more tq and hp, gear after gear! They also add a little more torque down low due to the slightly longer runner created by the spacer"

[Charles.waite]

First off thats not even the same car so compassion means absolutely NOTHING. Yea the block is similar but thats where similarities end, one is cast iron other is aluminum one is twin turbo one is not, The intake manifolds are not anywhere near the same. NA modding all the small significant mods are important. And intake spacers are one of those significant smalll things that make a difference, especially on 3.0 and 4.2 NA platforms. From personal experience, not some other guys testing on a totally different platform, I own them and could feel intake temperatures drastic change just by placing my hand on the manifold. Under normal conditions the manifold is too hot to touch, with spacers even on a hot summer day you can safely place your palm on the manifold without getting burned. Also they change the length of the runners giving more torque and HP albeit small amount but still more than stock. Taken from the JHM site....
"They help bring your intake temps down by insulating the intake manifold from the heat coming from the cylinder heads due to combustion. Thus creating a cooler and denser intake charge which helps add more tq and hp, gear after gear! They also add a little more torque down low due to the slightly longer runner created by the spacer"

Actually the comparison/results are completely comparable. The air still goes through metal intake pipes. And the block still transfers heat to those pipes the same exact way.

The results are directly comparable.

The whole phenolic spacer thing was really popular with the g35 crowd back when I had one. The results were roughly the same there too.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

There's a lot of debate over whether intake spacers actually do anything beneficial. FlyboyS4 has done a few tests and has writeups here (http://www.myaudis4.com/phenolic-spacers/) and here (http://www.myaudis4.com/ecs-tuning-intake-manifold-gasket/). Personally, I wouldn't waste $100 on them.

Excellently done write-ups [up]

Just to stir the pot a bit, I'm wondering if there's a difference when used on a N/A vs F/I setup. It may be possible that they have a greater effect on an N/A motor owing to the fact that there is no turbo to heat the incoming air. Thing is, with a F/I setup, there is still heat coming from the turbos owing to the fact that comperssion heats air. If your intercooler setup is not up to par, then there is an enormous amount of thermal energy coming from the air INSIDE the manifold.

N/A engines wouldn't suffer from this issue if they have an intake system that is drawing in relatively cool air (stock airbox or well designed CAI, take your pick). As such, I would think that the bulk of the thermal load on the manifold would come from

1) direct heat transfer through the manifold mating surfaces and

2) radiant heat coming hp from the inside of the engine valley.


Addressing the radiant heat isn't too much of an issue as you can always apply a reflective thermal barrier. So assuming that your intake air is cool, you've indulated the manifold surface, that really only leaves two sources

1) The manifold mating surfaces connecting to the engine and

2) the Throttle body which has a constant flow of 90-100C coolant running through it


I plan on bypassing/blocking the coolant hoses to the throttle body no matter what. So if that leaves the manifold mating flanges as the only major heat contributor, there may be some advantage to phenolic spacers.


Again, it comes down to what I've fast been learning is the way to squeeze power out of an N/A engine. A lot of small things which add up to a sum greater than the parts.


Thoughts?

[ZimbutheMonkey]

FWIW, European 3.0s have better looking split-tube exhaust manifolds that collect into one at the end. Just like the S4. You can find them on eBay.
US ones are ugly cast-iron ones without any separation.

Have you any plans for that area? You say long-tube headers. Will you make your own? I wonder if you'd gain from the Euro version OEM exhaust manis..

It does seem to make for a nice DD. Budget is also why I've not delved into serious builds. Maybe one day, with enough disposable income.

Yeah, I've been on the lookout for those manifolds and they seem to be rare as hen's teeth. Only made for the 2001-2002 model year and I still haven't been able to track a set down that's even for sale. But you're absolutely right, the internally split exhaust chambers would be a good addition to a free flowing exhaust set-up as the pulses would be separated until they hit the downpipe. At that point the fact that they're pointed straight down the pipe would definitely gain you a few more ponies over the open cast varieties as far as I'm concerned.

[Lornnn]

Taken from the JHM site....
"They help bring your intake temps down by insulating the intake manifold from the heat coming from the cylinder heads due to combustion. Thus creating a cooler and denser intake charge which helps add more tq and hp, gear after gear! They also add a little more torque down low due to the slightly longer runner created by the spacer"

Baseless, unsupported, hyped claims that you justify by using your hand thermometer. How accurate is that temperature within $100?

[Audi 4 Life]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know something has dropped significant temperature if it's too hot to touch and then can easily lay your hand on it in the peak of summer after spirited driving which where I live in high dessert is pretty hot. There is tons of evidence on the spacers already since the 4.2 guys have been running them for a long time. Also unlike most people think which has also been proven that after repeated pulls and testing from guys who go to the strip the intake manifold remained cool to prevent loss of power from heat soak. It's not really to gain power they are more to prevent power loss. At least that's what information I gathered from reading threads on here.

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/275851-Temp-readings-from-under-your-hood..Then-before-and-after-with-intake-spacers?highlight=

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Here are the combined graphs from yesterday and today, seem to be getting consistent results

MAF
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/Feb18and19consolodatedMAFjpg_zpsf488a7ad.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/Feb18and19consolodatedMAFjpg_zpsf488a7ad.jpg.html)

IAT
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/Feb18and19consolodatedIAT_zps0e88ac17.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/Feb18and19consolodatedIAT_zps0e88ac17.jpg.html)

Timing
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/Feb18and19consolodatedtiming_zps2e0f1a6d.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/Feb18and19consolodatedtiming_zps2e0f1a6d.jpg.html)

A/F
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/Feb18and19consolodatedAirFuel_zps97443173.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/Feb18and19consolodatedAirFuel_zps97443173.jpg.html )

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I also took some IAT over time logs. Ambient temps were about +7C to +8C. major unit on the Y axis are minutes:seconds.

***NOTE***, I know there are no RPM values, but I can confirm that I checked the RPM when the temps were spiking and the car WAS idling. When they drop, it's when I start moving again.

So you can see just how fast they drop even in stop and go traffic. About 45 seconds to drop +18 degrees and it does so consistently. Also bear in mind that I'm only moving about 30 MPH, on a freeway, the intake temps would be just about ambient constantly during prolonged exposure to 50 MPH+ wind into the intake snorkel.

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/Templogfeb191_zpsb0b4a47c.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/Templogfeb191_zpsb0b4a47c.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/Templogfeb192_zpsa100d344.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/Templogfeb192_zpsa100d344.jpg.html)

[SJorge3442]

Actually the comparison/results are completely comparable. The air still goes through metal intake pipes. And the block still transfers heat to those pipes the same exact way.

The results are directly comparable.

The whole phenolic spacer thing was really popular with the g35 crowd back when I had one. The results were roughly the same there too.

Both the b6 3.0 and 4.2 have plastic intake manifolds. This is the main reason why I cannot understand the point in the spacers. If I had a metal intake like the 2.7, then it would make more sense.

Zimbu, can you do some logging where you plot both timing and IAT against RPMS? I'd be interested in seeing the timing and how IAT's effect it as the engine bay warms up. If you can do a drive (10-15 minutes) at proper operating temps and post that graph, I can do the same with my car. Granted, you have a tune and dont, so I'd expect you to see more timing than I my car, but who knows! Still would be interesting to see.

[Charles.waite]

Both the b6 3.0 and 4.2 have plastic intake manifolds. This is the main reason why I cannot understand the point in the spacers. If I had a metal intake like the 2.7, then it would make more sense.

Zimbu, can you do some logging where you plot both timing and IAT against RPMS? I'd be interested in seeing the timing and how IAT's effect it as the engine bay warms up. If you can do a drive (10-15 minutes) at proper operating temps and post that graph, I can do the same with my car. Granted, you have a tune and dont, so I'd expect you to see more timing than I my car, but who knows! Still would be interesting to see.

Oh they're plastic? Well then yea, the spacer makes basically no sense then.

[Charles.waite]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know something has dropped significant temperature if it's too hot to touch and then can easily lay your hand on it in the peak of summer after spirited driving which where I live in high dessert is pretty hot. There is tons of evidence on the spacers already since the 4.2 guys have been running them for a long time. Also unlike most people think which has also been proven that after repeated pulls and testing from guys who go to the strip the intake manifold remained cool to prevent loss of power from heat soak. It's not really to gain power they are more to prevent power loss. At least that's what information I gathered from reading threads on here.

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/275851-Temp-readings-from-under-your-hood..Then-before-and-after-with-intake-spacers?highlight=

See this is where your lack of knowledge of thermodynamics lets you down. It doesn't take a rocket scientist, absolutely, but it does take a fairly basic understanding of science.

[jaydeff]

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know something has dropped significant temperature if it's too hot to touch and then can easily lay your hand on it in the peak of summer after spirited driving which where I live in high dessert is pretty hot. There is tons of evidence on the spacers already since the 4.2 guys have been running them for a long time. Also unlike most people think which has also been proven that after repeated pulls and testing from guys who go to the strip the intake manifold remained cool to prevent loss of power from heat soak. It's not really to gain power they are more to prevent power loss. At least that's what information I gathered from reading threads on here.

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/275851-Temp-readings-from-under-your-hood..Then-before-and-after-with-intake-spacers?highlight=

I gotta agree with Lornnn. My intake manifold has never been too hot to touch even after very hard driving during the middle of the summer; at the worst it's a little past being warm. Hand thermometer anecdotal evidence won't convince me to spend $100, and I have yet to see real data showing there are benefits, even from those selling spacers. Even if the manifold is marginally cooler, does it really affect the air that passes through it? Measuring surface temperatures in the engine bay doesn't say anything about the actual air temperatures which are what matters. FlyboyS4 actually attempted to read the actual air temperature and he found no reduction in air temperature with the spacers installed.

This thread is focused on maximizing 3.0 performance, though, so if people want to prove there are some real benefits for the 3.0 then I'll be glad to see it and maybe even consider buying spacers[up]


Zimbu, what are you using to make those logs? VCDS and Excel? I haven't messed with VCDS logging but I want to take a few logs possibly with and without my tune just for fun.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Both the b6 3.0 and 4.2 have plastic intake manifolds. This is the main reason why I cannot understand the point in the spacers. If I had a metal intake like the 2.7, then it would make more sense.

Zimbu, can you do some logging where you plot both timing and IAT against RPMS? I'd be interested in seeing the timing and how IAT's effect it as the engine bay warms up. If you can do a drive (10-15 minutes) at proper operating temps and post that graph, I can do the same with my car. Granted, you have a tune and dont, so I'd expect you to see more timing than I my car, but who knows! Still would be interesting to see.

1) I'm pretty sure that my intake is aluminium.


2) Regarding your logging question, it wouldn't do a ton of good as the timing curves are different for pre operating coolant temps (sub 90C) vs operating temps (90+C). Then, once the engine starts shedding heat via the rad I would expect that the underhood temps would stabilize and remain relatively constant.

You would also have to factor in how much time is spent moving and at what speed as that will vary the underhood temps. Finally, you would need a thermal probe to measure the underhood temps tp make sure that you were comparing apples to apples.

As such, that's the reason I just take the aggregate of my timing once the engine has warmed up. The average you get that way should be the best indicator of what your engine is doing for timing.

That said, if you want to post some of your logs as a comparison, it's always helpful to compare [up]

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Zimbu, what are you using to make those logs? VCDS and Excel? I haven't messed with VCDS logging but I want to take a few logs possibly with and without my tune just for fun.

Torque with a bluetooth adapter. However VCDS gives you better control over more parameters so use it if have it.

Also, by all means post your pre and post tune logs [drive]

As indicated, I want this thread to provide community members as much good info as I can. So for anyone who is thinking of doing some logging, I invite you to post your results here.

[SJorge3442]

1) I'm pretty sure that my intake is aluminium.


2) Regarding your logging question, it wouldn't do a ton of good as the timing curves are different for pre operating coolant temps (sub 90C) vs operating temps (90+C). Then, once the engine starts shedding heat via the rad I would expect that the underhood temps would stabilize and remain relatively constant.

You would also have to factor in how much time is spent moving and at what speed as that will vary the underhood temps. Finally, you would need a thermal probe to measure the underhood temps tp make sure that you were comparing apples to apples.

As such, that's the reason I just take the aggregate of my timing once the engine has warmed up. The average you get that way should be the best indicator of what your engine is doing for timing.

That said, if you want to post some of your logs as a comparison, it's always helpful to compare [up]

Thats a good point about averaging the timing, but the only thing is, timing is going to change depending on load, IATs, fuel delivery, humidity. Before I get my JHM tune in the coming months, I plan to put together a list of logs so taht I can compare things. Since our MAF measures our intake temps, I think using some highway pulls will be sufficient. That way fresh air is always flowing. Also, your intake looks like aluminum, but its not. Once you remove it you will learn its molded plastic.

[imnuts]

The IAT graphs that you posted show what looks like a lot of fluctuation in intake temps while driving. I need to try out VCDS logging as Torque isn't fast enough to get good data during a pull for me. However, my IATs as recorded in Torque are VERY flat when graphed with respect to engine RPM. The only time that they start to rise is at idle, and potentially 2-4°F when under load, but usually not. That is in all ambient temperature environments AFAIK. It is much less pronounced right now with the cold wave that came through compared to the summer, but it is similar. Summer months, the IATs will start creeping up faster for me and come down slower. My intake is stock minus removing the intake silencer from the passenger side wheel well and removing the intake silencer. I also have the snow filter installed.

Ambient temps last night when I was driving home and hitting some traffic lights was -11°C to -10°C and my intake temps were -9°C jumping up about as high as -6°C if I was stopped for about a minute. I think having a sealed compartment with the only potential air source being at the leading edge of the hood helps to keep IATs very consistent. One does lose some top end flow most likely, but I rarely get over 3-4k RPMs, so top end power is pretty useless for my day to day driving. If I get a good log with VCDS, I'll try to get a 3rd gear pull and log the IAT, RPM, and MAF on my setup (from above) and see how it compares. Granted, temps are a little cooler here, but it will be interesting.

According to Torque, I was getting 147.5 g/sec at ~5500 RPMs last night, which is higher than your earlier graphs, but that may be due to temperature. I went from ~2500-6000 RPMs, but Torque only got from 3000-5500 as it is too slow to respond to all the monitors and record everything. Hopefully VCDS is better and I can get more accurate numbers.

As for why I complained about the first MAF graphs, if someone wasn't reading the posts and just went right to the pictures, the data is misleading when it is from different gears and different driving conditions. In that aspect, you can't really make a comparison. To get a good idea of how the changes effect the car, you want as few differences between test scenarios as possible (only one is best, but that is impossible in the real world).

EDIT: And, got some logs, much better with VCDS, though it is really a two person job logging with VCDS and a cable/laptop. Exterior temps were -9°C to -8°C (16-18°F) according to the DIS. The "high" initial IATs are due to my car only being off ~1.5-2 hrs and the heat from the engine/coolant radiating through the engine bay. Coolant temps were probably ~100-125°F when I set off.

MAF readings in a 3rd gear run, plotted with MAF readings v. RPMs. Max reading was 166 g/s at 6000 RPMs.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-vPTqcuPDV4s/VOfFv0YdW0I/AAAAAAAAzQs/O3fRDFh4Ruk/w1203-h875-no/MAF%2Bv%2BRPM.png

MAF readings from the entire trip, plotted v. time (drive start to drive end). Notice that temps stay fairly consistent once I start driving around.
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-uwtUUCvx4f4/VOfFv_wzdLI/AAAAAAAAzQo/9iwNCQbLZx8/w1201-h875-no/IAT%2Bv%2BTime.png

MAF readings based on engine RPM A decent amount of flucuation, but the above plot shows that temps remain fairly consistent after the car has been moving for a while.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-24XVmyx0CeU/VOfFv7Mu4ZI/AAAAAAAAzQw/SBkbLI77j2o/w1202-h875-no/IAT%2Bv%2BRPM.png

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Did a run through 1-2 today, here's what it looks like with all the data in sequence
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/1-2gearpullfeb20ambienttemps-3C_zps5e6d8e1c.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/1-2gearpullfeb20ambienttemps-3C_zps5e6d8e1c.jpg.html)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Imnuts, awesome, thanks for the data, keep it coming [up][:)]

Also, quick question, what's your elevation? I'm at about 1600 ft if memory serves correctly. Can't remember exactly, but it works out to about 1 PSI below sea level, so about 7% down on O2 per volume vis a vis sea level.

Also, did you get some timing numbers out of that drive?

PS: I'll comment more on it in a bit, just wanted to thank you for posting it.

[Spike00513]

Both the b6 3.0 and 4.2 have plastic intake manifolds.


1) I'm pretty sure that my intake is aluminium.

The 3.0L V6 intake manifold is plastic.
The 4.2L V8 B6 S4 IM, is metal, probably aluminum.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Aaaannnddd finally, a 3rd gear highway pull yay!!!! -6C ambient according to my dash, so at least we know what the intake temps will be like if the car is actually moving. But yeah, I'm pretty happy with what I see here. Now I just need to uncork the rest of that stock exhaust system [:p]

Good Lord, I never imagined that this is the way I would be spending my Friday nights tho....

Couple notes:

1) The dip in the MAF readings was likely caused by me downshfting and getting on the power again. I habitually double clutch, which probably causes a temporary shift in the manifold crossover system and it takes a second to sort itself out and get flowing properly. Also, with 173 g/sec peak flow at a hair under 7000 RPM it's good to see that it doesn't choke out at all, just keeps climbing with the revs.

2) I'm really happy with the timing curve though. I added 1.5 deg timing to the Unitronics file which already has advanced the timing from stock. I wonder if I could get away with 3 degrees advance without getting timing pull....

3) I checked and each of these data points were 1 sec apart. If you look at the revs, you'll see that with the exception of one or two data points, the car picks up around 300 RPM per point. While it did slow down a hair once it hit 6000 RPM, it was still pulling almost as hard right up to 160 km/hr

4) As a thought, now that I know my intake can deliver ambient temps at freeway speeds, I couldn't help but wonder what kind of difference a water/meth injection system and some extra timing could make......

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/3rdgearpull-6ambientfeb20_zpsd805e8df.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/3rdgearpull-6ambientfeb20_zpsd805e8df.jpg.html)

Also captured a 1-2 gear pull. I don't expect it to be dramatically different w the CAI from a measurement standpoint. However, subjectively, it feels like the engine has a very, very linear powerband now. It just keeps pulling until it hits the rev limiter, it doesn't die off at all.[drive]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Rzig-fFsc

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Finally, I'd be curious to see how much excess material there is between the engine exhaust port and the port on a stock exhaust manifold. I'm willing to bet that there's a few more ponies to be made by pulling the stock exhaust manifolds and port matching them to the engine.

Kind of a PITA, but then again, if I have my downpipes off, maybe it would be worth it to port match the exhaust manifold too.

Can they be removed with the engine in place? If so, is it a horrid job that only a masochist would want to do...? [:p]

[Spike00513]

F
Kind of a PITA, but then again, if I have my downpipes off, maybe it would be worth it to port match the exhaust manifold too.

Can they be removed with the engine in place? If so, is it a horrid job that only a masochist would want to do...? [:p]

Yes they can. I haven't done it, but the manual says they can, and it looks possible, especially on a manual car.
Everything on this car is masochistic and horrid.

[SJorge3442]

How are you editing your tune yourself?

[imnuts]

Also, quick question, what's your elevation? I'm at about 1600 ft if memory serves correctly. Can't remember exactly, but it works out to about 1 PSI below sea level, so about 7% down on O2 per volume vis a vis sea level.

Also, did you get some timing numbers out of that drive?

I'm at ~450' above sea level, and yes, I did get timing with the other readings. Here are two more graphs, one is similar to what was already posted, just with a few more WOT data points from a shorter 3rd gear run (only to ~5k RPMs) and timing from the combined set of data as well. Also, if I use a 2nd order polynomial trendline and calculate the air flow at higher RPMs, I should be getting ~180 g/s at 7000 RPMs.

Timing
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-xVRLHxvwdtg/VOiGeKucpbI/AAAAAAAAzRE/iTrGGSzDLQk/w1206-h875-no/Timing%2Bv%2BRPM.PNG

MAF
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-q3L7aPPdVLI/VOiGeNyVfHI/AAAAAAAAzRI/hGRvDKRKAKw/w1201-h875-no/MAF%2Bv%2BRPM%2BC.png

[SJorge3442]

You know, I'd think your see a variation on the maf reading when the intake valve switches over, but on your graphs, I see no evidence of that.

[imnuts]

You know, I'd think your see a variation on the maf reading when the intake valve switches over, but on your graphs, I see no evidence of that.

I feel like the change over is quick enough to not do much to the air flow. There is a slight bump in the curve right around 4500 rpm, which is just before, or right around when the change should happen. It does pull fairly even across the full RPM range. I just don't feel like taking it past 6k without having a backup car in case something hits the fan.

Sent from my Moto X

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Interesting how the ECU is giving you strong timing from 3000-5000 then it drops off. Now, you have a JHM tune right, any reason that the timing is dropping off like that??? Also, could you do a polynomial analysis of your timing curve? Just use the 6th order polynomial analysis.


Regarding the polynomial analysis of your MAF reading 180 at 7000, any chance of some redline pulls to confirm that? (not saying that it won't but I always like to see).

A trace of the curve (just with the cursor, shows 175 g/sec), can you post the polynomial graph you referenced for the 180 g/sec?

Also, interesting that your curve falls off as the revs get higher. I would have thought that the Zingo mod would have resulted in higher readings up top.

A few second gear pulls should give a good idea what's going on from 6000-7000. As for the concerns about damage, I wouldn't worry about it, ever since I got my tune and pipes I've run mine to 7000+ more times than I can count (knock on wood lol).


Also, just for informational purposes your elevation has about 7% more air than where you are. I plugged the numbers from a formula in my engine math book.

(elevation in feet x 0.03 x advertised HP) / 1000 = HP lost to elevation

Edmonton: (1600 x 0.03 x 220) = 10.36 HP lost (4.7%)

Your elevation (450 x 0.03 x 220) = 2.97 HP lost (1.3%)

So that's a difference of 3.4% or about 6 g/sec at redline (I multiplied 170 g/sec by 103.4)

[imnuts]

Not sure how you get any useful data from Torque. Every log I've tried to get has always been 4-500 RPM behind. Went up to 6400 today and last logged data point was 5950. Warmer weather did have air flow down from the log from a few days ago.

Sent from my Moto X

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Not sure how you get any useful data from Torque. Every log I've tried to get has always been 4-500 RPM behind. Went up to 6400 today and last logged data point was 5950. Warmer weather did have air flow down from the log from a few days ago.

Sent from my Moto X

Yeah, it is slow, but it's the best I've got at the moment [:p]

That said, it works OK if you aggregate the data over the same logging session. My results seem to be fairly consistent day to day.


Also, any idea as to the timing drop off that your car is exhibiting? If it was a stock ECU, I wouldn't be surprised. But I'm having a tough time figuring out why a JHM tune would drop off timing as the revs increase.

[imnuts]

That would be a question for JHM. I do wonder if my performance is lessened due to old O2 sensors. I plan on replacing those, the PCV system, and doing a general cleaning of the intake this spring.

Sent from my Moto X

[SJorge3442]

Yeah, it is slow, but it's the best I've got at the moment [[emoji14]]

That said, it works OK if you aggregate the data over the same logging session. My results seem to be fairly consistent day to day.


Also, any idea as to the timing drop off that your car is exhibiting? If it was a stock ECU, I wouldn't be surprised. But I'm having a tough time figuring out why a JHM tune would drop off timing as the revs increase.
It could be a ton of things causing that. Initially, I'd say it's probably the AF ratio forcing the timing pull. I'm hoping to pull some logs this week so we can start comparing a 100% stock tune to the others

[ZimbutheMonkey]

That would be a question for JHM. I do wonder if my performance is lessened due to old O2 sensors. I plan on replacing those, the PCV system, and doing a general cleaning of the intake this spring.

Sent from my Moto X

Yeah, tough to say. Have you logged your A/F ratios? If not, may want to try it and rule it out.

Also, you're correct in wanting to check your PCV system as a vacuum leak could be causing a lean condition that only manifests at high RPM's and would be unlikely to throw a lean code due to what would be an extremely transient lean condition.

As well, I'd be curious to hear what JHM has to say about it. Let us know what they think if you do talk to them.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Please do, it would be great to have a baseline to work from [up].

[Spike00513]

So who's gonna be the scout-ship on the triple-port manifolds. You or me?

[imnuts]

Yeah, tough to say. Have you logged your A/F ratios? If not, may want to try it and rule it out.

Also, you're correct in wanting to check your PCV system as a vacuum leak could be causing a lean condition that only manifests at high RPM's and would be unlikely to throw a lean code due to what would be an extremely transient lean condition.

As well, I'd be curious to hear what JHM has to say about it. Let us know what they think if you do talk to them.

I did get my AFR's with Torque, but not with VCDS, and the AFR is a little higher than I expected. Possibly this weekend, I'll go out and get the AFR and injector duty while logging, as well as any requested information to compare (i.e. requested v actual injector duty). I know that the AFRs don't go lean, they are just closer to 14.7:1 when I'm WOT than I was expecting based on what I can find as ideal AFRs when you're looking for power.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Lol, I say full steam ahead if you're up for it [up]

I'm a little reluctant at this point because the 3 port manifolds are actually longer than the cast ones. Therefore I would have to hack up my downpipes and with the work I'll already be doing fabricating the catback, I think it's best to get one project done right before having to do a revamp of another section.

That said, maybe in a month or two when I'm looking for something to do. I might take the plunge and change the manifolds. On the other hand, I may be coming into some cash in the next few months, so I'm thinking, maybe mid length headers.... hehehe

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I also may choose to take a bit of a different take on the intake system as well.

I just found out that the central library by my house has 3D rapid prototyping printers you can use.

While you pay $1 per gram (IIRC) for materials, you don't have to pay any other fees. So the costs are quite reasonable.

I've downloaded a CAD program and have been slowly learning how to use it.

So what I was thinking was keeping my CAI as is, but making a sealed box around it (like the stock one) BUT, rather than only taking air in from the hood snorkel, I'll see if I can design an intake that draws air from the foglight area as well. I'd also like to redesign the first few inches of the stock hood snorkel with a bellmouth at the entrance, just to make it a little more efficient.

So basically, think Stock airbox with my CAI open element filter inside being fed by two sources. One on the leading edge of the hood and one in the fog light area.



Also, I have a request for those still using the stock airbox with the Zingo mod, I want to know exactly what kind of pressure builds up at speed. All you would need to do is take a vacuum gauge, tap a fitting into the airbox, tape the gauge to the window and take a drive at various speeds.

If there is any significant pressurization of the box, you'll see a corresponding reduction in the vacuum readings. That way we can get some definitive answers as to a sealed airbox's efficiency.

Any takers?

[imnuts]

Just a small update. Still investigating some other stuff, but I got a short run in today while driving around after work. Stopped at ~5500 RPMs, temperatures were 8° C warmer than the logs posted above and still had 157 g/s air flow, which is a little surprising to me as it is nearly the same as what was posted above. I would have thought that the warmer temps would have dropped it at least a little bit, but the difference is negligible.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So I was looking through the thread and I remembered that I was going to re-do the post CAI MAF readings with RPM on the X axis.

So what I did was re-do the graph and I included some recent logs that I had taken in the last week of Feb. So here they are for your viewing pleasure. [up]

Couple of things to note

1) The pre-CAI MAF readings were done without any mods and without the manifold crossover mechanism in place. So bear that in mind when comparing values across the RPM curve.

2) What I do find telling is that the pre-CAI readings just flatlined around 6000 RPM. This may be in part to the exhaust backing up because of the cats. However, I don't think that the lack of the crossover mechanism would have any effect as it's absence wouldn't have been causing any restrictions.

3) With the readings on the post CAI graph hitting the 175 mark, that constitutes about a 10% increase in airflow. Regardless of what mod it came from: exhaust, CAI etc... it's still pretty cool that I picked up somewhere around 20 CHP (220 stock HP x 10%) on intake and exhaust mods, and probably another 5-10 CHP with the added timing from Uni 93 oct tune + Lemmi.

So I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this setup at sea level would probably be putting out an honest 240-250 CHP. And that's still without a proper X-pipe/low restriction exhaust from the downpipe back. If you figure about 10 CHP from that, then I think it would be reasonable to estimate that a tune/catless downpipe/x-pipe mandrel bent catback/CAI should give you an honest 260 CHP at sea level. [up]

Pre-Mods MAF
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/Pre%20Mod%20and%20CAI%20stock%20airbox%20MAF%20rea dings_zpslfzmbwaw.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/Pre%20Mod%20and%20CAI%20stock%20airbox%20MAF%20rea dings_zpslfzmbwaw.jpg.html)

CAI/downpipes MAF
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/post%20CAI%20MAF%20feb%2023-25%20lots%20of%203rd%20gear_zpsmnbyj5cl.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/post%20CAI%20MAF%20feb%2023-25%20lots%20of%203rd%20gear_zpsmnbyj5cl.jpg.html)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Here's another view of both the polynomial trend lines. I added some more data points to the Post-CAI line

Post-CAI = BLUE (Top)
Pre-CAI = RED (Bottom)

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/Pre%20and%20post%20mod%20MAF%20overlay_zpslzvsb3iu .jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/Pre%20and%20post%20mod%20MAF%20overlay_zpslzvsb3iu .jpg.html)

Also made a comparison between timing, pre and post mod (post mod flash is Unitronic 93 octane)

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/pre%20and%20post%20mod%20timing_zpsrwsw1bo8.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/pre%20and%20post%20mod%20timing_zpsrwsw1bo8.jpg.ht ml)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So long time no update. Well don't worry, Zimbu's been a busy little monkey [;)]

Over the last few weeks, I finally got a chance to build and install the rest of my exhaust system from the downpipes back. Although it was a massive amount of work, I'm extremely proud of the result. Especially when you consider that all of this was hand fabricated out of nothing but a bunch of 180 degree U bends and straight piping.

Overall, I'm quite happy with results. Sound wise, it sounds MEAN!!! There's a bit of undesirable drone/vibration around 3000 RPM. However I can easily get around it by shifting into the next gear.

Performance wise, the gains seem to be in the mid-range. It feels much torqueier between 3000-6000. Top end has been unaffected as peak g/sec haven't changed. I'll try and post some logs to compare my pre and post exhaust MAF readings.

Here's the stock exhaust in all it's craptastic glory, along with the downpipes I hand fabricated.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150305_224124_zpsv7f3ccpq.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150305_224124_zpsv7f3ccpq.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150305_224210_zps2njtb4qu.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150305_224210_zps2njtb4qu.jpg.html)

The beginning of my X pipe, I cut the middle of the 180 degree U bend, welded the remainder together and cut the nose off with a bandsaw.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150306_020832_zps81jcnjnn.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150306_020832_zps81jcnjnn.jpg.html)

I made the center section of the X pipe out of some straight sections
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150306_024219_zpse2w7lrun.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150306_024219_zpse2w7lrun.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150306_024445_zpst8wygzbj.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150306_024445_zpst8wygzbj.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150306_133500_zpsehyapwgh.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150306_133500_zpsehyapwgh.jpg.html)

Here is the result
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150306_200032_zpsxizucy7l.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150306_200032_zpsxizucy7l.jpg.html)

Proof that it creates a vacuum on the other side of the X pipe (bear in mind that these particular shop towels are much heavier than a regular paper towel)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150306_231429_zpscubqfxvd.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150306_231429_zpscubqfxvd.jpg.html)

X pipe with the downpipe connectors
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150307_014905_zpsodpcscqa.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150307_014905_zpsodpcscqa.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150307_014919_zpsiawdzrjq.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150307_014919_zpsiawdzrjq.jpg.html)

The stock center section hanger had rusted out so I decided to mount the exhaust directly to the frame by bolting it to the frame. In retrospect, it wasn't the best idea on account of the vibration it creates. However I managed to minimize it by using rubber grommets.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150307_215026_zpsog5xshw9.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150307_215026_zpsog5xshw9.jpg.html)

Damn I'm good..... [;)]
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150307_221322_zpsqjjojfw8.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150307_221322_zpsqjjojfw8.jpg.html)

Mmmm, shiny things....
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150307_225044_zpsacqqwgza.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150307_225044_zpsacqqwgza.jpg.html)

Here's a fun shot of the zip wheel that tried to take off my fucking face.... [down]
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150314_172442_zpsw9us8vpz.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150314_172442_zpsw9us8vpz.jpg.html)

Here's what it looks like all mounted. I know that it's sitting cockeyed, but I just didn't have the time to go back and re-do the bends/welds that came off the resonators. I may go back in and re-so them when I have the time, but for now I'm going to leave it as-is because doesn't make any difference from a functional perspective.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150314_183419_zpsp11xovy3.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150314_183419_zpsp11xovy3.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150314_185512_zps45vlhoh1.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150314_185512_zps45vlhoh1.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150314_185609_zpsw2dpgjph.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150314_185609_zpsw2dpgjph.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150314_185644_zpswwokbgzq.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150314_185644_zpswwokbgzq.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150314_185706_zpsrwjx2s00.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150314_185706_zpsrwjx2s00.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150314_210941_zps7edhyc3y.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150314_210941_zps7edhyc3y.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150314_210954_zpspxdnlh1b.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150314_210954_zpspxdnlh1b.jpg.html)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Aaaaannndd, I've also decided to get you all some hard data on the differences between the stock airbox and a CAI.

What I did was take a drive on the highway and freeways and I drove the car like I stole it. Then when I turned around, I popped the hood, changed out the intake and took the exact same route back and drove the car equally as hard.

So what that means is this test was done on the same car, same ambient conditions, same stretch of road etc....

And the winner is...

Neither really [:p]
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/CAI%20vs%20Stock%20airbox_zpsaiofl3nh.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/CAI%20vs%20Stock%20airbox_zpsaiofl3nh.jpg.html)

The CAI looks like it has an advantage up to 4500 RPM, then it drops a few g/sec between 4500-6000 RPM, catches up and drops off a hair again up to redline.

The stock airbox loses up to 4500 RPM, however it gives a nice linear curve all the way through the rev range.

So there you have it, each configuration has some gains and losses, neither one scores a knockout hit.

Having said that, in light of this data, I've decided to go back to the stock airbox for the moment as the curve is more linear and there are some small gains above 4500 RPM.

Also, I think there is room to make some gains with a sealed airbox. My hood has some crumples from a small collision right right above where the snorkel for the stock airbox sits. So what I think I'm going to do cut out the crumpled section of the hood and make a duct which goes right into the stock airbox (or a sealed airbox of my own design). I figure that making a nice radiused bellmouth intake right out in the open on a leading edge should make for a few more ponies [up]

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/car%20hood%202_zpsyhpwuxpj.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/car%20hood%202_zpsyhpwuxpj.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/car%20hood_zpsc8ax7npz.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/car%20hood_zpsc8ax7npz.jpg.html)

One final point to note is the intake temps. What I found is that while the CAI intake temps may rise at idle or in very slow stop and go traffic, the IAT's drop sharply as soon as you start moving steadily. To the point where they are at ambient air temps.

The stock airbox on the other hand is more consistent in it's IAT's. However it is prone to heatsoak after sitting parked. As well, once it's heated up, it takes well over 10 minutes to drop the temps to an acceptable level. Even then, the stock airbox always seems to read about 5C higher than ambient.

[imnuts]

My stock airbox usually reads the IAT ~1C over ambient temp (as displayed on the DIS), regardless of outside conditions. At ~100F, there is a 1.5-2C increase in temps over ambient, but still nothing odd. If I get down to single digit F temps, then it'll be <1C difference between intake and ambient. I do agree that it can take a while for the IATs to drop if the car sits for a little bit, such as if you get the car up to temp, park for 20-30 min, then start going again. Probably takes a good 5-10 min of constant moving to get them back down close to ambient, and it's much more noticeable in higher temps.

Overall, I like the comparison between the CAI and stock, and it's basically what I was expecting. The major improvement that I can think of over stock would be to remove the accordion sections of the intake piping, and also make the intake be closer to a straight line versus the < shape of it stock, as well as getting rid of the fender intake portion and intake silencer, basically doing the Zingo mod.

[Spike00513]

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/20150307_221322_zpsqjjojfw8.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/20150307_221322_zpsqjjojfw8.jpg.html)

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/012/982/post-19715-Brent-Rambo-gif-thumbs-up-imgu-L3yP.gif

[Audi 4 Life]

+1 remove those badges and paint those lowers, this DIY is cheap and if you prep it good it will come out alright, I'm not sure if the B5 silver is the same as the B6 but if i recall i think someone said once there is a dupicolor silver that's extremely close, or you could go to a local paint shop and have them give you the exact color in a spray can, might cost a few extra bucks but probably worth it.

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/190415-DIY-B5-A4-Painting-Lower-Stock-Side-Moldings

[ZimbutheMonkey]

+1 remove those badges and paint those lowers, this DIY is cheap and if you prep it good it will come out alright, I'm not sure if the B5 silver is the same as the B6 but if i recall i think someone said once there is a dupicolor silver that's extremely close, or you could go to a local paint shop and have them give you the exact color in a spray can, might cost a few extra bucks but probably worth it.

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/190415-DIY-B5-A4-Painting-Lower-Stock-Side-Moldings

Hmmm, not a bad idea. I'll probably pull the dent in the trunk eventually (caused by some drunk asshole I'm sure...) and paint it. If I picked up some extra paint then it could just shoot the lowers then.

Problem is, I don't know that regular autobody paint is well suited for plastic surfaces. I seem to recall there were some decent spray bomb paints that were designed for plastic surfaces tho.

[Audi 4 Life]

You need to use plastic adhesion promoter and primer for it to hold up well. Unfortunately your dent seems to be over that crease in the trunk that goes along side of the license plates. I had a hit and run on the exact same spot and the shop said because of that crease it couldn't be repaired fully. Plus it's a lot cheaper if you can find one that is silver which shouldn't be too hard as its a common color.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

You need to use plastic adhesion promoter and primer for it to hold up well. Unfortunately your dent seems to be over that crease in the trunk that goes along side of the license plates. I had a hit and run on the exact same spot and the shop said because of that crease it couldn't be repaired fully. Plus it's a lot cheaper if you can find one that is silver which shouldn't be too hard as its a common color.

Yeah, unfortunately, when you add up all the additives you need to buy to make professional automotive paint stand up on a flexible and plastic surface it gets to be cost prohibitive. Like I said, I think I'd take the spray bomb route. I've painted other plastic surfaces with it and it turned out quite well.

As for the trunk, I know it's difficult to get a crease re-done, however it is possible. I've fixed worse on car bodies. However it is cost prohibitive to a shop as the shop time it takes to fix it right would exceed the cost of a replacement panel.

Based on quotes from local Canadian wreckers for a new hood, I think it may actually more desirable to try and fix it myself. For some reason, these cars seldom ever appear at places like Pick and Pull. Rather, they are bought up by specialty European wrecking yards and sold for outrageously high premiums.

What may be a better solution is to have my dad bring a hood and trunk back next time he goes to Washington or Idaho.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So long time no update. Can't say as I've done much over the last while.

However, last week the diaphragm in my crank case breather valve went. Managed to take out my valve cover gaskets, so I replaced those on Wed. Then I decided to completely redo the crank case breather system.

So that meant tearing the intake manifold off. Overall, it didn't look too bad. There was some carbon/varnish buildup, but it was just a thin layer.

What I did notice was that a few of the valves had some carbon buildup. So I took some dental picks and cleaned the intake valves 'till they looked sparkly new [up]

To get the final layer of varnish off, I used Lubri Moly intake system purge. The stuff is AMAZING!!! Much more effective than brake cleaner. The intake purge fluid seems to be an extremely light oil. So it actually mixes with the vanrnish and breaks it down.

I also used it to clean the piston heads. I pulled the plugs and gave a little shot right on the piston heads periodically as I worked on it last night. Then, I let it sit on the piston tops overnight, gave them another shot in the morning. Once everything was stitched up, I took the car for a hard run to try and dislodge any carbon build-up.

Overall, the car feels nice and strong. I shot a quick highway pull.

**NOTE: it does hesitate for a second after the 1-2 shift. That's because I forgot to disable the ESP before the run [headbang]


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNSIrqWbV50

[ZimbutheMonkey]

The other little trick I did was to remove the coolant lines from the throttle body and bypass them. Basically all I did was just loop them together and tie them off.

Why did I do this? Um, because otherwise I have 90-100C coolant dumping heat into the intake system.

Interesting read on the subject https://swiftdiary.wordpress.com/tag/throttle-body-coolant-bypass/

I've noticed that the heat sinking I've observed with the stock airbox has dropped off significantly. While the intake will still heat soak when the car is parked or crawing in traffic, it now only takes a minute or less for the intake to drop to a reasonable temperature instead of the 5-10 minutes it took with the heated throttle body.

Although it may be a small gain, I figure for the 50 cents in fittings it took, it's more than worthwhile to do it.

The next step will be to get some phenolic intake spacers from JHM and then wrap the entire intake manifold with a thermal barrier.

I'm also thinking that I'm gonna pick up another water/meth system and install it on the 3.0. While I know that no one seems to run W/M on a N/A engine, I think it'll make a noticeable difference, especially in the summer months when the intake charges are 50+C and sapping power by loosing density and making the engine pull timing.

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/open%20engine%20bay_zpsnpz9q9wf.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/open%20engine%20bay_zpsnpz9q9wf.jpg.html)

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/looped%20coolant%20lines%202_zpsmomxrhgf.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/looped%20coolant%20lines%202_zpsmomxrhgf.jpg.html)

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/looped%20coolant%20lines_zpsykghyjam.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/looped%20coolant%20lines_zpsykghyjam.jpg.html)

[seal66]

nice work. I am getting ready to do this to mine as well soon. Only difference is i'll be installing the jhm intake spacers at the same time.

quick question has anyone ever though of using the 3.2L intake manifold? would it do anything for the 3L

[SJorge3442]

I'm confused how your intake temperature behavior is reading differently. The maf and measures the temperature so the throttle body heater bypass should have no effect.

Also, the directions for the JHM intake manifold spacers explains how to do the TB bypass a little cleaner. They do the same thing as you except they trim the hose so its smaller and a tighter fit.

[imnuts]

I'm confused how your intake temperature behavior is reading differently. The maf and measures the temperature so the throttle body heater bypass should have no effect.

Also, the directions for the JHM intake manifold spacers explains how to do the TB bypass a little cleaner. They do the same thing as you except they trim the hose so its smaller and a tighter fit.

X2 on both counts. The MAF is where you get IAT's, so bypassing the coolant lines on the throttle body will do nothing for reported temperatures. Also, as far as the lines, I would have taken the longer/straighter hose and just put it on the other fitting. Not sure which is supply and which is return, but it would have made a short and quick link between the two that would be less prone to leaking and failure.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Where I suspect it makes a difference is that it removes a source of heat that transmits both into the intake manifold and the plastic ducting leading back to the MAF sensor.

The benefit of bypassing the coolant lines will depend on how well you can isolate the rest of the intake tract from other radiant heat sources. So for example, if you insulate the intake manifold and the rest of the intake tract to the point where it only heats up to say, 20C then eliminating a source of constant flow of 90-100C fluid which radiates into the intake tract will make a substantial difference.

However, if your intake tract is not insulated and it's heated to 120C, then the coolant in the throttle body would actually be cooling the intake tract by accepting the higher level of thermal energy from the surrounding intake.

Basically, it all comes down to thermal management of the entire intake system, not just one part. But in any event, just think entropy. A system with energy inputs will always try and balance itself to a common average temperature. So what you need to try and do is make that average temp from ALL inputs lower.

'Yall dig?

***EDIT*** I just remembered that I don't think I posted this pic. Anyway, here is what I've done so far to thermally isolate the intake system. I wished I could have done the underside of the manifold but I was in a hurry and assembling things at night when no stores were open to buy some thermal barrier material [:(] But not to worry, I'll do it when I get around to ordering the JHM intake spacers.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/airbox%20insulated_zps37qmkln8.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/airbox%20insulated_zps37qmkln8.jpg.html)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

X2 on both counts. The MAF is where you get IAT's, so bypassing the coolant lines on the throttle body will do nothing for reported temperatures. Also, as far as the lines, I would have taken the longer/straighter hose and just put it on the other fitting. Not sure which is supply and which is return, but it would have made a short and quick link between the two that would be less prone to leaking and failure.

I don't think it would have reached. Plus, it would have likely kinked, blocking flow.

I don't think it would make a huge difference, but I figured why chance it.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Well, since talk is cheap, I decided to go out and do some logging. Ambient temps were 15-17c. The data set I have is the intake temps while the engine is at 85-95% load. In other words, those data points are the ones I'm interested in as I want to know what my temps are when I'm into the throttle. I don't really care so much about puttering along in traffic. However, on that point, I stopped my car for a few 20-30 minute breaks to see how bad it would heat soak and how fast it cooled. Suffice it to say, it only took about 4-5 min of 25-40 MPH city driving to knock it down from 60C to about 25C.

But as for my logs, I'd say that the results speak for themselves...

This log is composed of all urban driving
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/apr%2019%20intake%20temps%20city%20driving%2015-17%20ambient%20coolant%20bypass_zpsaf5c7zwp.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/apr%2019%20intake%20temps%20city%20driving%2015-17%20ambient%20coolant%20bypass_zpsaf5c7zwp.jpg.ht ml)

These logs were a mix of city and highway driving
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/intake%20temps%20apr%2019%2015-17%20ambient%20no%20coolant%20thru%20throttle%20bo dy_zpsta10tf3n.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/intake%20temps%20apr%2019%2015-17%20ambient%20no%20coolant%20thru%20throttle%20bo dy_zpsta10tf3n.jpg.html)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So I purchased an interesting little app yesterday called Perfexpert. It's a dyno app which looked to have pretty positive reviews.

Anyway, $13 later and I was off to the races. It seems to be pretty accurate insofar as it takes drag coefficient, frontal area, weight, gearing, powertrain etc... into consideration. As well, it actually uses online data to calculate barometric data, humidity, temp etc...

So this is what I came up with (crank HP numbers) . 247 HP and 245 ft/lb at the crank seems pretty damn close to what I had anticipated (using SAE J139 corrections). The torque figures also appear to be consistent with the few 3.0 dynos that I've seen as the variable length manifold runners give peak torque around 4000-4200 RPM. http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/266775-B6-Dyno-Thread

Anyway, not to say it's gospel truth, but between the accuracy of GPS and the processing power/accuracy of the sensors in the average smart phone, I'm starting to think that these dyno apps may be a lot more accurate than they used to be. The one thing I really like about them is that the measurements they take are using ambient air at road speed, rather than using a floor fan blowing room temperature air.

In any event, it'll be nice to have another means of logging the effects of any other changes that I make.

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/apr%2024%20247HP%20dyno_zpsczwc2xip.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/apr%2024%20247HP%20dyno_zpsczwc2xip.jpg.html)

[Bische]

Great job on the exhaust [up]

If you take away the 10% SAE correction I believe you are closer to actual, do you have any acceleration times?

If so, we could compare them to mine from last year running a N/A R32 VR in my B6, stock rated at 250bhp.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Great job on the exhaust [up]

If you take away the 10% SAE correction I believe you are closer to actual, do you have any acceleration times?

If so, we could compare them to mine from last year running a N/A R32 VR in my B6, stock rated at 250bhp.

If you take into consideration the fact that the barometer readings on my phone are about 920 Kpa, then I'd say that yes, my actual HP readings are closer to 225 HP. Although I'm not a fan of correction factors, I feel that they're needed when comparing non-stock setups to stock HP numbers (220 CHP for the 3.0) which are derived from 1000 Kpa air pressure and ideal humidity and intake temps.

So I guess what I'd say is that with everything I've done, I'm probably roughly 13-15% above whatever a stock vehicle would put out under similar conditions.

I don't have any documented kmh/to RPM figures, however now that I just figured out how to use ME7logger, I can post some. In the meantime, you can always have a look at the videos I posted in page 1 and compare them to your 3.2 vid you posted.

Also, thank you very much for the kind words regarding my exhaust. From what I've seen of your build so far, It means quite a bit [up]

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Aaaaannnnddd, Zimbu's come up with some hardcore logging data

I've started using the ME7logger software from Nefmoto.com. All I can say is wow........ this software is far and above anything else I've ever used. 30 samples for second and access to everything in the ECU.

I'm thinking I might get a stock 3.0 ECU and log it to see how it differs from my Unitronic tune.

This set of graphs has focused on what the cam phasing looks like. The pink and yellow are intake cams, the blue and red are exhaust. Black is MAF, orange is timing and the lines down the middle are requested and actual AFR values.

Couple things to note are that
1) as the revs and airflow raise, the intake cam advance decreases, whereas the exhaust cams go into their 20degree advance position.
2) my bank 2 exhaust cam is consistenly about 2 degrees off my bank 1 exhaust cam. Not sure if it makes a difference, but I'm going to check into it.
3) this tune looks like it runs pig rich. Requested AFR is about 12.5 :1 and my actual is 12.5:1, so no Unitronics, it's not my friggin' 02 sensor, vacuum leaks, logging software etc... that's showing a rich condition, it's your bloody TUNE!!!

So enjoy, oh and I also have about another 15 parameters I was logging if anyone's interested.

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/cruise%20control_zpsfho9lstv.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/cruise%20control_zpsfho9lstv.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/pull%202_zpsbvrgqron.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/pull%202_zpsbvrgqron.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/1_zpsk67whh8p.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/1_zpsk67whh8p.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/run%201%20to%203%20gear%208c%20apr%2025_zpsgw9zomz y.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/run%201%20to%203%20gear%208c%20apr%2025_zpsgw9zomz y.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/Untitled_zpsh35cq9rn.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/Untitled_zpsh35cq9rn.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/part%20pulls_zpsxc6bcmjs.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/part%20pulls_zpsxc6bcmjs.jpg.html)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Here, for the first time ever (as far as I know) is a clear graph of what 3.0 AVK cam phasing looks like boys and girls.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/cam%20phasing%203.0%20AVK_zpscqoh2iep.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/cam%20phasing%203.0%20AVK_zpscqoh2iep.jpg.html)

[imnuts]

3) this tune looks like it runs pig rich. Requested AFR is about 12.5 :1 and my actual is 12.5:1, so no Unitronics, it's not my friggin' 02 sensor, vacuum leaks, logging software etc... that's showing a rich condition, it's your bloody TUNE!!!

Is that under WOT? If so, then that seems to be about right from what I've read. It is on the richer side of the spectrum for best power though. If that's just the AFR for cruising around town, then yes, that is definitely rich. I never got a log of what my requested AFR was when driving, maybe I'll go grab that later today.

[imnuts]

I went out and logged mine today and I get a requested AFR that progressively goes down to ~13:1 (λ = 0.883) at WOT. Less than 3k RPMS, requested is ~13.5:1; 3k-4k RPMs is ~13.2:1, top end (>4k RPMs) is ~13:1. It almost looks like step changes when the requested AFR is graphed. I couldn't get ME7Logger to work, but I think I know what I have to do so it works with my VCDS cable, so maybe I'll be able to get another log later.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Yeah, you pretty much nailed it, 13:1 is where the AFR's should be at WOT, progressively dropping from stoich. Mine just seems to drop like a rock from stoich to 12.5.

Also, thanks so much for taking the initiative to get ME7logger to work. I'll be really curious to see that JHM does with the cam phasing. My prediction is that's what they're using to get the additional power relative to the other 3.0 tunes out there. I've seen how tuners make power on other N/A engines, and the cam phasing is where they make the big gains.

I mean, there's only so much timing you can add before the ME7 ECU will start to pull it in the dynamic range and thus lower it's requested timing. Similarly, there's only so much you can do with the AFR's too.

Nefmoto has a document that completely breaks down the ECU function, so I've been doing some serious reading up on it. It's crazy how much other parameters can affect each other. However, it does seem to make sense once you wrap your head around it.

[imnuts]

Got ME7Logger to work with my VCDS cable. Needed to install and configure the virtual COM port drivers and then it worked. Went out for another quick run to see what ME7 can do compared to VCDS, and it's better. I need to figure out what variables I want to keep in my config over what I logged the first time as well. Anyway, here is cam angle plot, intake angle on the left, exhaust on the right. Also, plot of requested/actual AFR.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GZ8X_O90sZ0/VT03BgLkzOI/AAAAAAAA1RY/YoAvy6HAMtk/w966-h541-no/Cam_Angle.png

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-WIvjGBzvppI/VT03BcASPEI/AAAAAAAA1RU/uUEX9Hvtt4k/w966-h541-no/AFR.png

One other thing I found is that my injector duty on the driver's side is ~1% higher than the passenger side. I'm hoping to take apart the fuel rail, injectors, etc. and making sure nothing is clogged this summer.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

here's the cam phasing from a 2nd gear pull from 2000-7000 RPM
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/cam%20timing%202nd%20gear%20apr%2025_zpsyprqdvcg.j pg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/cam%20timing%202nd%20gear%20apr%2025_zpsyprqdvcg.j pg.html)

[imnuts]

Looks fairly similar to mine, with a few degrees more of intake advance at low RPM's for you. The exhaust cam advance looks to be about the same on both. What item did you log for the cam phasing? I may have logged it, but I'm not sure.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Got ME7Logger to work with my VCDS cable. Needed to install and configure the virtual COM port drivers and then it worked. Went out for another quick run to see what ME7 can do compared to VCDS, and it's better. I need to figure out what variables I want to keep in my config over what I logged the first time as well. Anyway, here is cam angle plot, intake angle on the left, exhaust on the right. Also, plot of requested/actual AFR.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GZ8X_O90sZ0/VT03BgLkzOI/AAAAAAAA1RY/YoAvy6HAMtk/w966-h541-no/Cam_Angle.png

Interesting, if I assume that the right axis in your graph is the exhaust timing, then the cam phasing between the two tunes are absolutely identical...

any chance that you logged the timing values on that pull, I'd like to see if there's any difference between the two. If not, I'm kinda wondering how the JHM tune is superior.

Unfortunately, JHM absolutely refused to give me any information about what parameters they've changed and how their tune differs from the Unitronics one...

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/cam%20timing%202nd%20gear%20apr%2025_zpsyprqdvcg.j pg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/cam%20timing%202nd%20gear%20apr%2025_zpsyprqdvcg.j pg.html)

and here's the timing log with trendlines
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/2nd%20gear%20pull%20timing%20vs%20rpm%20w%20trendl ines_zpsuqc0e699.jpeg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/2nd%20gear%20pull%20timing%20vs%20rpm%20w%20trendl ines_zpsuqc0e699.jpeg.html)

[imnuts]

I'll look tonight to see if I logged zwout and zwist, and if I did, I'll post the graph. If I didn't, I'll add that to the config file and get it next time I have a chance.

EDIT: I didn't get those two variables, so I added them to the config for the next time I'm out.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So, now that I have ME7logger, I've learned a new little secret.

As I mentioned earlier, the ECU has 5 dynamic ranges that it will pull timing out of based on previous knock data. This then sets the maximum timing that the ECU will allow. While that's great for engine protection, it hurts performance as the conditions under which the ECU pulled dynamic range timing may no longer exist (i.e. a really hot humid few days and then it cools off). Or, perhaps you managed to get your hands on some 99 motor octane race fuel (like a certain evil monkey did today...)

So all you need to do to reset these values is pull the battery terminals, wait a minute or two, re-connect them and PRESTO!!! clean sheet for timing. As far as I know, clearing the ECU faults won't do the trick, it has to be a reset via loss of power to the ECU.

By way of example, here's my timing curves from yesterday (the lower, red one is the timing I'm actually seeing)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/3rd%20gear%20pull%20long%20TIMING%20with%20CAI%201 7c%20apr%2027_zpsxihmtynl.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/3rd%20gear%20pull%20long%20TIMING%20with%20CAI%201 7c%20apr%2027_zpsxihmtynl.jpg.html)

And here are the reset curves with a 50/50 mix of 94E10 and ethanol free 99MON gas
Let me say, the re-set timing makes a world of difference. So enjoy this little life hack 'yall [up]
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/apr%2029%2099%20octane%20and%20hystersis%20reset%2 017c%20ambient%20stock%20airbox_zpsg5hoylqn.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/apr%2029%2099%20octane%20and%20hystersis%20reset%2 017c%20ambient%20stock%20airbox_zpsg5hoylqn.jpg.ht ml)

Just for interest's sake, here's my ghetto polynomial analysis of imnuts's previous timing data and an even more ghetto overlay of the two timing lines above.
Looks like JHM really jacks the timing up in the midrange vs the Uni tune. However, as I recall that timing graph was taken in -8C vs the +17C that my last 2 were. Interesting nonetheless. I'm wondering if JHM took the view that with the fixed OEM hardware specs like cams, ports, intake etc... that it was best to get as much midrange as possible since that's where the bulk of this engine's VE still is.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/JHM%20timing%20w%20trendline%20and%20my%20timing%2 0_zps4sgl8xrj.png (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/JHM%20timing%20w%20trendline%20and%20my%20timing%2 0_zps4sgl8xrj.png.html)

[Boost_creep]

This forum needs a like button.
Great work!

[Audi 4 Life]

I don't see how resetting the ECU via power loss does anything at all. You should of logged it with the same fuel, it makes more sense your gains were from a higher octane fuel. Unless I'm missing something.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I don't see how resetting the ECU via power loss does anything at all. You should of logged it with the same fuel, it makes more sense your gains were from a higher octane fuel. Unless I'm missing something.

Reason you'd want to reset the hystersis function is that it depends on past data about timing events to justify pulling timing out of the max requested timing before anything even starts. So say that you had just gone through a lot of bumber tp bumper cut and thrust traffic with occaseional on ramp spurts and did so all on 91 oct California craptane.

Now, you have an opportunity to dump 30L of 99 MON fuel in your tank. Fuel which would likely allow you to run higher timing safely. But once you get going and logging you find out that 'gasp' your timing values are still really flat, even with no individual cylinder pull.

This is because the last few days have resulted in your ECU pulling timing as a safety measure. However, since you are running in wide open roads, cooler air with another 9 octane points, you'll want to be able to allow your car to readapt and quickly. Hence the reason I've published here for those of you who want to try and have some fun with higher octane fuels [up]

PS: here's what my timing looked immediately after resetting the ECU via the battery. Mind you it's only one run, so it's not gospel by any means.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/2nd%20gear%20pull%20immeediately%20after%20hysters is%20reset%20with%20average%2099%20octane%20fuel_z psvvbjdrmv.png (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/2nd%20gear%20pull%20immeediately%20after%20hysters is%20reset%20with%20average%2099%20octane%20fuel_z psvvbjdrmv.png.html)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I'll look tonight to see if I logged zwout and zwist, and if I did, I'll post the graph. If I didn't, I'll add that to the config file and get it next time I have a chance.

EDIT: I didn't get those two variables, so I added them to the config for the next time I'm out.

Looking forward to it man!!! [up]


You have no idea how super stoked I am about all this new logging capability. If the guys at Nefmoto care to assist, we could be seriously on the verge of some major breakthroughs with this platform.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

ALSO, if anyone here has some good resources about tuning VVT, please post them.

I have about 5 or so that I can post links to. However, the more the merrier.

I can also post the links to the Nefmoto ME7 reading materials. Complicated as hell, but it does start to make sense after a while.

[Boost_creep]

It's interesting that past knock events effect future tuning calculations. I've done some pretty extensive tuning on my other car (Mazda), and there is a base timing table that the ecu looks at every wot pull. It does make compensations on the fly for temperature, knock, etc. but always looks at that base timing table and if there's no knock recorded I hit those timing tables exactly. So that's kind of a bummer to see, and I guess some sort of "nanny" feature that Audi decided to incorporate into the logic.

The only experience that I have with vvt is for boosted engines. Typically you can run higher amounts of vvt in the lower rpm to help turbo spool/response, and you always want it to ramp down to zero vvt in the higher rpm's. More vvt in the higher revs can sometimes cause some knock retard, so dialing it back in those regions might allow you to then run more timing up there.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So kids, after driving around with the 94/99 mix, I decided to double down and put in a half tank of straight 99 MON (or 102 AKI) Fury 99 fuel.

reset the hystersis function again just to be safe and WOW!!!! goes like stink. After wailing on it as best as I could, all I was seeing was one dynamic range correction of -0.75. Otherwise, it's full steam ahead. I can tell you this, my car absolutely LOVES this stuff. Also, while it's not cheap at 2.50/L, it's still reasonable. Hell, when oil was +100$ a barrel, I was paying like 1.50-1.60/L for E10 94 oct.

But you know what makes this gas really special......
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/kool%20aid%20brand%20race%20gas_zps1bacehyq.png (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/kool%20aid%20brand%20race%20gas_zps1bacehyq.png.ht ml)
Yeah, it looks like blue drank and it comes with it's own Kool Aid man lol

[ZimbutheMonkey]

On a bit of another related note, I think my findings support the idea that running a water/meth system on one of these engines would be worthwhile.

Without this 99 oct fuel, I was loosing between 3-6 degrees of timing. If you could suppress any knock events, keep that timing available, or even add some more on top, then I think the gains would be more than worth the $400 price of entry.

Also bear in mind that the water itself adds a slight bit of torque as it releases energy as it undergoes the transition from vapor/steam. All the while, eliminating rough carbon buildup and autoignition points.

[Spike00513]

On a bit of another related note, I think my findings support the idea that running a water/meth system on one of these engines would be worthwhile.

Without this 99 oct fuel, I was loosing between 3-6 degrees of timing. If you could suppress any knock events, keep that timing available, or even add some more on top, then I think the gains would be more than worth the $400 price of entry.

Also bear in mind that the water itself adds a slight bit of torque as it releases energy as it undergoes the transition from vapor/steam. All the while, eliminating rough carbon buildup and autoignition points.

Similar to this? Partscats has engine diagrams, same goes for the SSP's - any idea where you'd put it, and if you even will install it? (personally not sure of difference between WMI, and regular old grocery store distilled water). I've got access to a good amount of hardware inventory. If installing it is a matter of getting the right needle valve, I can take a look.


With the water feed point after the throttle valve, the water metering flow is created by the vacuum in the intake manifold.
A fixed restriction to limit maximum water flow results in the maximum water flow rate into the intake manifold is at the highest flow rate at idle or any other spped with a closed throttle valve, creating the lowest absolute pressure in the manifold.



http://www.audizine.com/gallery/data/500/IMG_0033_480x640_.jpg

This is my metering needle valve, thread size is 10-32. Metering the water flow this way, it is not possible to hydraulic lock the engine, because the engine will stop running from excessive water flow rate before there is enough water flow into the intake sufficient to flood one or more cylinders at top dead center. Using Kano Kreen instead of distilled water would perform cleanup a lot faster, However I don't know without doing a test how Kano Kreen metered into the intake will effect the engine operationally.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Similar to this? Partscats has engine diagrams, same goes for the SSP's - any idea where you'd put it, and if you even will install it? (personally not sure of difference between WMI, and regular old grocery store distilled water). I've got access to a good amount of hardware inventory. If installing it is a matter of getting the right needle valve, I can take a look.

In theory, perhaps it would serve a cleaning and antidetonant function. The one main advantage to the high pressure W/M systems is that the methanol component is incredibly fine. As such with all that surface area it only takes tenths or even hundredths of a second to pull heat out of the air it's injected into. The high pressure mist also encourages more even distribution into the cylinders.

However, I would say what's most important is that the W/M mist will easily blend in with the gasoline mist as it comes past the injectors. In addition, once the intake valves snap shut and the resonance pulse begins (charge pulse shoots backwards to the intake entrance) I would think that it would aid in allowing the W/M/G to stay in proper fine mist suspension as it comes out towards the next incoming intake pulse, meets the pulse, and gets swept back in and set en route to the combustion chamber.

Any of this make sense? lol

[ZimbutheMonkey]

It's interesting that past knock events effect future tuning calculations. I've done some pretty extensive tuning on my other car (Mazda), and there is a base timing table that the ecu looks at every wot pull. It does make compensations on the fly for temperature, knock, etc. but always looks at that base timing table and if there's no knock recorded I hit those timing tables exactly. So that's kind of a bummer to see, and I guess some sort of "nanny" feature that Audi decided to incorporate into the logic.

The only experience that I have with vvt is for boosted engines. Typically you can run higher amounts of vvt in the lower rpm to help turbo spool/response, and you always want it to ramp down to zero vvt in the higher rpm's. More vvt in the higher revs can sometimes cause some knock retard, so dialing it back in those regions might allow you to then run more timing up there.


It's interesting that past knock events effect future tuning calculations. I've done some pretty extensive tuning on my other car (Mazda), and there is a base timing table that the ecu looks at every wot pull. It does make compensations on the fly for temperature, knock, etc. but always looks at that base timing table and if there's no knock recorded I hit those timing tables exactly. So that's kind of a bummer to see, and I guess some sort of "nanny" feature that Audi decided to incorporate into the logic.

The only experience that I have with vvt is for boosted engines. Typically you can run higher amounts of vvt in the lower rpm to help turbo spool/response, and you always want it to ramp down to zero vvt in the higher rpm's. More vvt in the higher revs can sometimes cause some knock retard, so dialing it back in those regions might allow you to then run more timing up there.

Good to have someone on board who has a little VVT experience, welcome [up]

As you've indicated, VVT tuning differs between N/A and F/I. Basically, with a turbo, you have a blockage in the exhaust that makes the exhaust prone to reversion into the cylinder. Whereas on an N/A engine, it's possible to have close to zero backpressure with a well designed exhaust. The result, (on a catless free flow exhaust) is that when the exhaust valve opens (EVO) after BDC on the combustion stroke, the pressurized gas in the cylinder will exit swiftly, creating both a vacuum which pulls the rest of the exhaust charge out as well as lowering pumping losses as the piston rises towards the intake stroke.

However, in terms of dynamic efficiency, an early EVO (and the resulting late exhaust valve closing EVC) means that there is little overlap as the piston rises. While this seals off the exhaust port and prevents reversion, it also makes it more difficult for the incoming intake pulse to fill the cylinder as it incurs it's own pumping/filling losses by having to compress itself into the cylinder.

The alternative would be to delay EVO by retarding the exhaust cam and simultaneously advancing the intake cam for an early intake valve opening (IVO).

Now, there will be some pumping losses for the first, say, 25% of the stroke (just a guess) when the piston has to press against the still-expanding combustion gasses which have no where to go yet (B/C of no EVO or IVO).

However, if you time the EVO just a bit before the IVO, then, the blowdown of the cylinder charge begins just before the IVO. Once IVO opens while overlapping with the EVO then you get a dynamic charging effect as the outgoing exhaust creates a vacuum in it's wake which helps draw in the incoming charge.

That effect, known as 'scavenging' is why a car makes more power without cats. The reason being is that with no restrictions, the exhaust pulse moves quickly, creating a stronger vacuum for the intake charge. Also, with no restriction, the exhaust gas is far less likely to find it's way back into the chamber (this is called 'reversion')

Anyway, I'll add to this, but I gotta get some shuteye. Hope it explains some of the basics to those who are wanting to learn. [up]

[imnuts]

It'll probably be a little bit before I log my car again. I'm almost positive that my fuel pump is why I'm getting the higher AFR's than I should in the top end of the RPM range. I've heard a random groaning noise for 1-2 sec just after starting my car a few times this past week, and it was coming from behind me. I don't really want to push it just for logging sake until I get a chance to replace it, and I'm not sure when that will be yet.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Well boys and girls, the evil monkey has made good on his promise to find some more goez for theh 3.slowz.

I present to you, the follow up mod to the Zingo airbox mod....

The Zimbu mod!!!! [up][up][up]

As I've maintained all along, there had to be a way to improve on the stock induction system.

Turns out it's pretty simple actually, all you need is

1) a 90 deg 2 in plumbing elbow and threaded coupler
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/2015-05-13%2001.18.26_zpsx6tiw10u.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/2015-05-13%2001.18.26_zpsx6tiw10u.jpg.html)

2) a 3 in to 2 in rubber transition (actually, a tapered silicon coupler would be best if you can fine one) and
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/2015-05-13%2001.19.32_zpsfmwjkcs6.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/2015-05-13%2001.19.32_zpsfmwjkcs6.jpg.html)

3) some 3 in metal dryer ducting.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/2015-05-13%2001.20.36_zpssxl7hc2n.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/2015-05-13%2001.20.36_zpssxl7hc2n.jpg.html)

Then, you pop out the lower fog light, run the ducting down from the airbox, secure it and VOILA! a second ram air entrance in a high pressure zone.

***EDIT, here's some updated pictures with the ducting painted***
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/painted%20ducting%202_zps8mrfeypk.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/painted%20ducting%202_zps8mrfeypk.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/painted%20ducting_zpspdouinvc.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/painted%20ducting_zpspdouinvc.jpg.html)
As you can see from this before and after comparison, the gains are substantial. 7-8 g/sec on the top end and absolutely no losses.

Or, to put it another way, the airflow I was seeing at 10-15C today was the same as I was logging at -15C during the winter months.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/pre%20and%20post%20ram%20air%20MAF%20readings%2010 %20to%2015C%20ambient_zpsq2zgzymq.png (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/pre%20and%20post%20ram%20air%20MAF%20readings%2010 %20to%2015C%20ambient_zpsq2zgzymq.png.html)

By my calculations, 7 g/sec divided by 161 g/sec = 4.3% increase. Apply this to a conservative stock value of 220 CHP and that works out to 10 CHP max gains at redline.

Not bad for $25 and an afternoon's work [drive][drive][drive]

[Spike00513]

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/02/13/bmw-reveals-m4-safety-car-with-innovating-water-injection-system/

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Lol, glad I'm not the only one posting at 3am around here [;)]

Interesting find Spike [up]

[imnuts]

Dragging this back from the dead. I got all of the stuff changed out yesterday that I wanted too (pump, filter, FPR, injectors, & PCV system). I haven't really driven the car to much since then, just a short trip around the apartment complex parking lot and then a slightly longer drive to get gas. So far, things seem to be much smoother, and my car seems to be able to achieve stoich more consistently even when idling or easy driving. I haven't checked upper RPMs too much, but overall the car seems to drive a little smoother. I'm going to try to get some logging done today, but I don't know how well that'll go yet as I'm going to visit some friends for the day.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

No problem, I'll be happy to get any comparison logs I can get.

Glad to hear your car is running well and thanks again for taking the time to do the logging.

There's so little hard information about these 3.0 engines that ANY hard data helps [up][up][up]



and yes, I haven't had too much to post as of late. I've been so pre-occupied with getting my law practice up and running that I haven't had much of a chance to play with my car other than basic maintenance to keep her running.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

But.... on the subject of naturally aspirated engines, in a few weeks I'll be taking possession of one of these.....[drive][drive][drive]

It got tapped by a slow moving car on the other side, but the frame is still totally straight. So it'll need a new rear driver door as well as a new cam adjuster on bank 2. But for what I'm getting it for, it'll TOTALLY be worth it (knock on wood lol).

The fellow selling it is a very close friend of mine who owns an Audi shop, so at least I have a bit of an inside line on the condition of the vehicle.

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/cf1c5dda-5135-407f-973b-006a6001602d_zpslmkftrxy.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/cf1c5dda-5135-407f-973b-006a6001602d_zpslmkftrxy.jpg.html)

[jpulll]

But.... on the subject of naturally aspirated engines, in a few weeks I'll be taking possession of one of these.....[drive][drive][drive]

It got tapped by a slow moving car on the other side, but the frame is still totally straight. So it'll need a new rear driver door as well as a new cam adjuster on bank 2. But for what I'm getting it for, it'll TOTALLY be worth it (knock on wood lol).

The fellow selling it is a very close friend of mine who owns an Audi shop, so at least I have a bit of an inside line on the condition of the vehicle.

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/cf1c5dda-5135-407f-973b-006a6001602d_zpslmkftrxy.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/cf1c5dda-5135-407f-973b-006a6001602d_zpslmkftrxy.jpg.html)

That'll be one sexy ride after you're done with it Zimbu!

[AudiA4_20T]

2.7T swap

[blitz2190]

2.7T swap

and re-use the 3.0 heads lol.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So we've had a few really hot days lately and I thought it would be a good time to get some empirical data on how good of a job my CAI setup does at keeping IAT's down.

In addition to the ducting, and disconnecting the coolant lines from the throttle body, I've also wrapped the entire air intake system with the gold DEI heat wrap.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/gold%20heat%20wrap%20a4_zpsk830caqu.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/gold%20heat%20wrap%20a4_zpsk830caqu.jpg.html)

Ambient temps according to the weather station were 34C. My in-dash display was showing about 38-39.5 C

I let the car sit for about 30 min after driving around with the A/C on full blast. Temps rose to about 56C.

I drove in a mix of 1st gear crawling for the first 1/2 of the graph. Then, traffic cleared a little bit and it was moderate traffic (stop and go, up to 50 km/hr). Again, I had the A/C on full blast the entire time.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/c8055de8-c7be-4050-9e6e-a3eacc3c0a3e_zpshpgej6c4.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/c8055de8-c7be-4050-9e6e-a3eacc3c0a3e_zpshpgej6c4.jpg.html)


I think the results speak very well of this setup. At worst, (crawling with the A/C on full blast) the IAT's were about 10C above the weather reported 34C ambient during the 1st gear crawl (once I got moving for a few minutes and cleared the heat soaked engine bay). Once I got into moderate stop and go, the IAT's were about 5C above the weather station reported ambient (or 1-2 C above the in-dash display).

Can't get much better than that IMO [up]

[blitz2190]

So we've had a few really hot days lately and I thought it would be a good time to get some empirical data on how good of a job my CAI setup does at keeping IAT's down.

In addition to the ducting, and disconnecting the coolant lines from the throttle body, I've also wrapped the entire air intake system with the gold DEI heat wrap.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/gold%20heat%20wrap%20a4_zpsk830caqu.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/gold%20heat%20wrap%20a4_zpsk830caqu.jpg.html)

Ambient temps according to the weather station were 34C. My in-dash display was showing about 38-39.5 C

I let the car sit for about 30 min after driving around with the A/C on full blast. Temps rose to about 56C.

I drove in a mix of 1st gear crawling for the first 1/2 of the graph. Then, traffic cleared a little bit and it was moderate traffic (stop and go, up to 50 km/hr). Again, I had the A/C on full blast the entire time.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/c8055de8-c7be-4050-9e6e-a3eacc3c0a3e_zpshpgej6c4.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/c8055de8-c7be-4050-9e6e-a3eacc3c0a3e_zpshpgej6c4.jpg.html)


I think the results speak very well of this setup. At worst, (crawling with the A/C on full blast) the IAT's were about 10C above the weather reported 34C ambient during the 1st gear crawl (once I got moving for a few minutes and cleared the heat soaked engine bay). Once I got into moderate stop and go, the IAT's were about 5C above the weather station reported ambient (or 1-2 C above the in-dash display).

Can't get much better than that IMO [up]

What's where the Temps without the heat shielding.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I'll have to dig through the logs to find some comparable days. Problem is 1) it's not often that we get days as hot as this and 2) that I don't have any way of knowing if the A/C was running. This point is fairly important as the A/C system sheds a ton of heat in and around the engine bay. 3) I removed the coolant lines and shielded the airbox at least a few months back in the Spring. So I doubt that I'll have any stock 30+C data to compare.

What may be of some assistance is if someone wants to pull some logs with a completely stock airbox setup on a similarly hot day, in stop and go traffic with the A/C running.

In any event, I can't see a stock airbox without heat shielding and 105C coolant running through the throttle body being able to keep the IAT's within a few C of ambient under these conditions. I tried as hard as I could to make this a worst case scenario.

[JEENYUS]

when you take off the intake manifold, what is the black thing that's bolted down between the heads?

[blitz2190]

I'll have to dig through the logs to find some comparable days. Problem is 1) it's not often that we get days as hot as this and 2) that I don't have any way of knowing if the A/C was running. This point is fairly important as the A/C system sheds a ton of heat in and around the engine bay. 3) I removed the coolant lines and shielded the airbox at least a few months back in the Spring. So I doubt that I'll have any stock 30+C data to compare.

What may be of some assistance is if someone wants to pull some logs with a completely stock airbox setup on a similarly hot day, in stop and go traffic with the A/C running.

In any event, I can't see a stock airbox without heat shielding and 105C coolant running through the throttle body being able to keep the IAT's within a few C of ambient under these conditions. I tried as hard as I could to make this a worst case scenario.

you would be fairly surprised, there is a reason they use plastic instead of metal for the airbox and other intake related parts. The thermal transfer of plastic is really low, which in this case is a good thing. the only time that shielding will make a bit of difference will be sitting at a idle for long periods of time, and then only until it becomes heat soaked. Where it shines its in places where your shielding a cold side metal pipe from radiant heat such as on the 2.7t where the inlets are stupidly close to the manifolds.

[SJorge3442]

when you take off the intake manifold, what is the black thing that's bolted down between the heads?
That's the "valley pan". There's a few oil check valves in there. I believe Slick made a thread about them titled 3.0 oil check valve diy or something similar. Maybe it was spike. Either way, no need to go in there unless you have oil pressure problems. the check valves are super expensive and the gasket for the lid itself is $50.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[JEENYUS]

That's the "valley pan". There's a few oil check valves in there. I believe Slick made a thread about them titles 3.0 oil check valve diy or something similar. Maybe it was spike. Either way, no need to go on there unless you have oil pressure problems. the check valves are super expensive and the gasket for the lid itself is $50.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Thanks for the information. [emoji106]🏼

[ZimbutheMonkey]

you would be fairly surprised, there is a reason they use plastic instead of metal for the airbox and other intake related parts. The thermal transfer of plastic is really low, which in this case is a good thing. the only time that shielding will make a bit of difference will be sitting at a idle for long periods of time, and then only until it becomes heat soaked. Where it shines its in places where your shielding a cold side metal pipe from radiant heat such as on the 2.7t where the inlets are stupidly close to the manifolds.

While you're obviously right about the thermal conductivity of plastics being poor, I'd say that it gets hotter than we think.

It may very well be the case that the stock airbox keeps the temps close to ambient in situations where the vehicle is started cold and moves relatively often, I would think that its effectiveness drops off sharply once it heatsoaks after a stop or in stop and go traffic.

Poor thermal conductivity or not, without some sort of thermal barrier, the plastic will eventually match the temp of the surrounding engine bay. Of course, this is compounded by the fact that the airbox is only inches away from the exhaust manifold.

On a bit of an unrelated point, I know many people make the argument that "well the air is only in the manifold for a split second, there's no way it picks up that much heat from the ducting". So basically talking about uninterrupted laminar flow.

Well I've been doing some research on pulse resonance and came to realize that's not the case. Bear with my explanation as it's kinda hard to describe it without an illustration.

When the intake valve snaps shut, it generates a positive pressure wave in the opposite direction. That wave then eventually encounters the low pressure of the ambient atmosphere and then reverses direction again, basically ping-ponging until it gets consumed in the engine.

So with that in mind, it would stand to reason that multiple pulses will eventually reach an equilibrium where there is constantly a portion of the gas that is effectively lingering in the intake stream, all the while picking up thermal energy from the surrounding environment

Think of it like blending octanes where you can only run the tank down to 7/8. No matter how many times you blend 91 octane with 94 octane, you'll never quite be able to get straight 94. Now obviously at some point, the difference becomes negligible the more times you blend it, but there will always be a portion of 91 octane.

Now, maybe it would be the case that the heat picked up by the interacting charges doesn't amount to much, but it has to amount to something; and I would argue that the heat picked up by interacting pulses is much more than would be picked up by an uninterrupted laminar flow.

Anyway, just something for 'yall to think about [up]

[imnuts]

I think there are probably logs of IATs somewhere that show that plastic intakes are fine as long as the car is moving, but if it is sitting for an extended period after the car was hot (>1 hr), especially if it is a really hot day outside, it takes forever for the IATs to start coming down again. I know that I've seen it just monitoring with Torque. If my car sat for a little bit, the IATs will drop by a couple degrees really quickly, but getting back down close to ambient takes much longer if the car was already at, or close to, operating temperature. It is a trade off for which you want, do you want a plastic intake that will take a long time to heat up or cool down, or do you want a metal intake that will heat up quickly, but also cool off much faster.

[Bische]

You guys are missing the point with the different conductivity coefficients of the different materials.

Plastic/rubber is by far the best material for intake plumbing in regards of preserving a cold air charge. Think about it, the reason why metals and aluminum specific, cools down so fast - why is that?

Is the surrounding heat/radiance lower with aluminum as intake plumbing? Making it cool down faster? No.

The reason it cools down faster, is because it transfers its heat ALOT faster to the cold intake charge vs plastic material. The exact opposite of what we want - heated intake air charge. Thats why all new engines has plastic intake manifolds aswell.

If it were plausible, I would have plastic for the whole intake plumbing for that reason. But the downside is that it doesnt hold up for boost, hence metals gets much more easier to use.

This is why the high end builds use carbon fiber plumbing, low coefficient and strong as hell. [:)]

[Charles.waite]

^^ this.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I think there are probably logs of IATs somewhere that show that plastic intakes are fine as long as the car is moving, but if it is sitting for an extended period after the car was hot (>1 hr), especially if it is a really hot day outside, it takes forever for the IATs to start coming down again. I know that I've seen it just monitoring with Torque. If my car sat for a little bit, the IATs will drop by a couple degrees really quickly, but getting back down close to ambient takes much longer if the car was already at, or close to, operating temperature. It is a trade off for which you want, do you want a plastic intake that will take a long time to heat up or cool down, or do you want a metal intake that will heat up quickly, but also cool off much faster.

How long are we talking? I'd be interested to see the logs.

If you look at my graph, it came down from 57C after sitting for an hour and was down to within 5C of ambient from (38-39.5C according to my dash display) within about 4-5 minutes of crawling stop and go with the A/C on. It went down to 1-2 C above ambient within 7 minutes.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So I decided to change out the x-pipe that I fabricated for a Magnaflow x-pipe. reason being is that I always felt it was a little too loud for my liking. The Magnaflow mellowed it out very nicely IMO.

Here's a sound clip from the cabin with the windows rolled down https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoqq4WV8drU

It also seemed to improve the torque between 3000-5000 RPM (vis a vis my self made X-pipe). The engine feels noticeably more responsive, especially in transitional throttle applications. What this suggests to me is that the Magnaflow x-pipe is promoting better scavenging in the mid RPM regions where the engine is trying to get into it's peak volumetric efficiency range.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So I had some spare time this weekend and went on a Motronic ME7 bender.

I've been disassembling the AVK 599E ECU code with Winols using what I like to call the 'Rosetta Stone' of ME7 courtesy of Nyet at Nefmoto. https://github.com/nyetwurk/ecuxplot/blob/3bc1ca083e5a74335007ec12082560c53612525e/data/4Z7907551R.csv

What I found works well is taking the maps in Winols and cross-referencing the grid sizes using "Ctrl-F" on the web page with the ecuxplot. From there, it's usually pretty clear which factors need to be plugged into the Winols maps to get the correct map values.

Unfortunately, I can't save any of them since I have a Winols demo, but I've been painstakingly documenting (in Microsoft Word) all the hex addresses for the X/Y/Z axes and maps as well as the map descriptions for future reference.

Here' s a neat little pic I took of the AVK intake cam timing. I'm really curious as to what gains there are to be made by tailoring the cam advance and intake manifold changeover points to better suit a modified engine's more efficient and broader VE curve.

The color map is inverted, but it looks more like how the cam timing shows up in ME7 Logger (RED = intake valve opening advanced / BLUE = intake valve closing delayed)

The line graph is how the cam timing appears in the native map format. You can see how the engine has to 'kick' the advance up as the engine passes through the Intake manifold changeover point. As well, it appears that the cam timing is fairly aggressively advanced early on as the stock engine's peak VE would have been early on in the rev range due to the restrictive cats.

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/cam20phasing203d20view_zpsbvkbpvdz.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/cam20phasing203d20view_zpsbvkbpvdz.jpg.html)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/cam20phasing20winols203_zpsuu9iuppb.jpg (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/cam20phasing20winols203_zpsuu9iuppb.jpg.html)

PS: if anyone wants to see what I've managed to dig up, I'll be happy to share my results. Alternatively, if someone happens to have some more map info that they would like to share (i.e. DAMOS or the like) for my 559E ecu PLEASE let me know. Otherwise I'll just keep plugging away to see what I come up with.

[imnuts]

It took longer than expected, but I was able to go out and get some logging done today. Here are the graphs, first is the zwist & zwout logs, followed by the intake & exhaust cam timing info, and lastly the MAF readings. Another good thing to report is that my fueling issues are gone. The actual AFR's hovered right around 13.0 at WOT and high RPMs, and both banks were more or less equal, where bank 2 was always a higher AFR under load than bank 1 before.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/o7AWR4iopTNkZporXXADJjLdgDb6bfCfXg7Hn5lpN8yDx9N54C EKUM15GYSKQacOcNvmJrWGTRKVkz8zzTXpHNyWlXi9uK9DjgCd iRuJc60uJ84B0a4YRh9-8OXlzHvblJI4Fc8xAGpms9oIpYsgEDkwYd4i-j6nvDpEBR1Z_FmLS_gxBJj8hGq6Po_4MRZi2eW9BaanAhu_CnM G38Fd602drHmBqya_-eOYxaqixV1QsuBW_1w6bArIR3SnqeX3KmIFEFP2FLMQ66tpcEz VhSJJmUYrQ2CQ8khbPJ6yoQ0gGpbwvSmsIk4ImLjW8uu-sOjyEtYRR75y29Qmv3efus6_jPlR8upPUAGSoS1csY8UYFu9-bdlv8sc7rJ4aNkIJwXaaPXyThhUO1y9yfnL5g-i0tG20WN0Vf0kIU53tt1C3gMZp4-ET3sEYrawYDlxzJid4FvbAyV_9T-8DcLOOkljoKXTO_X1lC7G3HQo7KHoKZ0-HAji3o239EHsR2bky1bIOu8YH3sxrT8aDH3nPCIrn1aDu5KWXn cwNJGGwUFG=w1840-h965-no

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/UVcX8aYTiCxW7auLM_WzQVCkx0y4c4TNrxhQOLo5E-3aN9_Hls1lAagBYHkYGs-_-R6n5HQLYTuK8UCRxf18HrDASVYydyQ2yMWZgYZeC82HMCb_HQU nbLXsEBb_907_srUrU0XsMgmrZ2dx3ec4txzLG7Bodjf6gBNoE 1KIWcr4qHCOSIBOyn0sp5nf5ZJ7EPJaTEf8bDZCEKsac5zfO1y P06qKuPDZifXBO1YuakvGaCJs-ArdG7ywV6qcTvi0WJd7ZlsnoO8kH49iCdhX7OCuLO6D5t2wJ0P NgDmEtkkCA_bjfK2G90lVKevac3zRYqmh1YhNP2eVrxyBFW_3L Rq4JABCU25YA3KgoqSddvcJXTtrGOhlgVF5UNxsNtbxMkI5V3D lva8t99JpYPB7zFl9AeJ6bf_GcWEhQ9b-RWasKAn7b75dY6cGvYvNOHWiO1bXExP6OTiD85VBpnwT9u4OSe Eq-Qw4TfnOw0karDFz1xV7G-winUdThcrgO3bSn6sI_eKi4jIk8XxHaRrW3ENbsnQcEqpqq6Hj MwecUwPe=w1840-h965-no

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/wf-0VcFemhvwFL7CsGyxEf8Fzj1t11Nr8FpHCptSbm_cvZPnVfyUp Klsuqh5LVBa0nJITCtoQbMmW1VpJbAHevOdTOOg_je76_5Yw3v 2fVt0qr4IPtzPimOWM_bOoTrqpwHtKFQB7Vob8RGnv4b4gJZBD LFftO-kw_9YbzrwHOQI6g1edjkq-zAbwXeGOwwWFeRyHoytBdak07JS7CMUKc_VH6mQSBNpUCRpRXt ke2YW3FtgeF16PeAsLgigpIYES6Nt0JmxKHCKWVR7yRCODTbUj 5jOTq1sRR152LtcGZ_a8Dc2TLsmKtHyh7JJ86VcStB6eoc3Lp0 b06LxPf_3PI8Uk-LIJUlQGa9uWGzrz7-AUZBaI37xmEFMGAv7BO6kM9ySwYxNkxc5KTRs9jXaMKJODiSa1 g_ZFKB_I9pGUat27ODv4rcFOa44mdjY0Na1M0Pd_zVCWY2TlOz O9HprgxoYRWCqNsfEkMvq__8MWYCrTwSbipzsErySUGuTh2uBU a-CiSIZCbYM_W1QTCv9HVRY-4bZCi23aSx711fEBPky=w1840-h965-no

[SJorge3442]

It took longer than expected, but I was able to go out and get some logging done today. Here are the graphs, first is the zwist & zwout logs, followed by the intake & exhaust cam timing info, and lastly the MAF readings. Another good thing to report is that my fueling issues are gone. The actual AFR's hovered right around 13.0 at WOT and high RPMs, and both banks were more or less equal, where bank 2 was always a higher AFR under load than bank 1 before.




in your second post, whats up with the purple and green values at the top of the RPM curve? Idea idea why they are dramatically changing so much? That jump at the end has me sitting at my desk like [confused]

[imnuts]

Those are the exhaust cam timing plots. Not sure why it does that, but Zimbu's is similar if you go back a page or 2.

Sent from my Nexus 6

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Imnuts: GOOD SHOW [up] thanks for posting those up. Sorry of the delayed response, but I've been living over at Nefmoto.com learning how to tune this thing.

I've actually made a ton of progress on the project. I have a working DAMOS of the 559E ECU as well as a tune that I wrote to replace the Unitronic one I had.

I've actually decided to make both the tune and my DAMOS available for anyone who wants to use it (or better yet, contribute to it ***cough cough, wink wink***)

If you go to Nefmoto.com and type in "AVK V6 3.0 2003 8E0 909 559E ECU tuning thread" it's all there to see. Please note that I'm not posting a 'clicky' link as I feel that making someone actually copy and paste the search into Nefmoto at least screens out the completely lazy and ignorant.

Bear in mind that the guys over at Nefmoto, while not elitist, STRONGLY share the view that they are there to exchange and offer their help and information. However, they don't tolerate the usual "hey, u got toon for X ECU and DAMOS, you send me?" garbage posting that makes up about 95% of the volume on virtually every other European tuning site.

So while I highly encourage people to go check out that forum, please be respectful of the atmosphere and standard that they've created.

Finally, looking at your cam timing logs, it's appearent that JHM did alter the intake cam timing slightly. If you look at my old logs, the stock cam timing advance is always at 5 degrees when the exaust cams switch at 5500 RPM. The JHM tune by comparison, is at 0 degrees (full retard) just as the exhaust cams switch over.

This makes sense as you want to have as much overlap as possible at higher RPM's.

I actually altered my cam timing maps to do the same thing (my own idea though, I did it about a month ago). I also extended the intake advance to cover a larger area between 3000-4000 RPM. It had a noticeable effect as far as I was concerned.

[SJorge3442]

I love coming on here and seeing new 3.0 data. I recently grabbed a k0mpresd ECU that I havent had the chance to throw in yet, but when I do, I plan on taking some logs before and after so I (we) can see if there is actually a difference in the tune vs the stock tune. Any recommendations as to what to log?

Also, if everything that you're doing with sharing your file, about how much investment would someone like me (who has 0 experience with the ECU and anything related to it) to swap out the k0mpresd tune for yours? Is it possible to me save the k0mpresd tune so that I can reload the different maps?

[ZimbutheMonkey]

It would take little in terms of investment. You should be able to use a generic 3rd party VAG-COM cable and the Nefmoto Flashing software to download the .bin on the k0mpressed ECU and then you can just use the demo version of winOLS to either compare maps or make changes.

Only drawback to the demo version is that you can't save anything, however you could either a) find a cracked version (torrent site) or b) since I have done a lot of the legwork on the definition file, you aren't in a situation where you would need to find and define most of the maps over and over again just record the values you enter (if it were me, I'd just take screenshots) and enter them manually.

[SJorge3442]

It would take little in terms of investment. You should be able to use a generic 3rd party VAG-COM cable and the Nefmoto Flashing software to download the .bin on the k0mpressed ECU and then you can just use the demo version of winOLS to either compare maps or make changes.

Only drawback to the demo version is that you can't save anything, however you could either a) find a cracked version (torrent site) or b) since I have done a lot of the legwork on the definition file, you aren't in a situation where you would need to find and define most of the maps over and over again just record the values you enter (if it were me, I'd just take screenshots) and enter them manually.

I guess my investment question was worded weird. I was meaning, how much time investment would I need to make to learn how to do basic things such as moving maps on and off the ECU?

[imnuts]

I'm not sure what others are using as their config for logging, but here is my config (https://sites.google.com/site/imnuts/8E0909559D.cfg?attredirects=0&d=1) that I am using for ME7Logger. I figure sharing the config could be helpful so that if others wanted to log, they could get the same data for comparison. This could be especially helpful for people just starting out as the config isn't the easiest thing to setup, though it also isn't that hard.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I guess my investment question was worded weird. I was meaning, how much time investment would I need to make to learn how to do basic things such as moving maps on and off the ECU?

Ok, that's what I figured. In terms of time, the map packs that I've generated on Nefmoto (AVK V6 3.0 2003 8E0 909 559E ECU tuning thread) will save you literally hundreds of hours.... at least that's how long it took it took me to research and map it all out.

Now, that's not to say that my definition file is 100% complete or necessarily correct. However it's a huge leg-up for anyone who wants to fiddle with a 3.0 ECU.

Really, as long as you have a demo copy of winOLS, you can make the changes quite easily. However you'll probably find that you need to do quite a bit of research before you become comfortable enough to start changing settings.

My advice is buy a spare ECU off ebay, (they're between $50-100), get a wiring harness from a junkyard for a ME7 ECU and build a bench flasher, (about $50) and then all you need is a generic VAG-COM cable and the rest of the software is free, courtesy of the good folks at Nefmoto :)


I'm not sure what others are using as their config for logging, but here is my config (https://sites.google.com/site/imnuts/8E0909559D.cfg?attredirects=0&d=1) that I am using for ME7Logger. I figure sharing the config could be helpful so that if others wanted to log, they could get the same data for comparison. This could be especially helpful for people just starting out as the config isn't the easiest thing to setup, though it also isn't that hard.

Great idea, thanks for sharing that [:)][up]

[jaydeff]

Nefmoto works for flashing ME 7.1.1? I saw your thread on Nef and I'm impressed by how much work you've done. I started looking at my stock bin a little while ago but stopped since I just didn't have the time to define maps and stuff.

I'd love to try your tune I just have some issues I want to fix on my car first (including getting downpipes like you recommend) before messing with anything. Do you have a full version of WinOLS or something similar to correct the checksum? Like is the bin you posted ready to flash?

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Well, I know it's been a long time since I've posted any updates, but I'd say that this is worth the wait... [drive][drive][drive]

After literally more than 500 hours on this project, I've put together a solid tune and DAMOS file :)

I've redone over 25 maps relating to Ignition timing, Torque production, Fueling, Cam timing, Intake manifold changeover, throttle response, etc...

Here's the link to the project on Nefmoto http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=8764.msg77937#msg77937 It's a great site with a ton of very knowledgable people. Part of the reason I'm posting this up here is to get people to have a look around and see if they want to contribute to that community.

ONE THING TO NOTE, DON'T GO THERE EXPECTING PEOPLE TO HAND OUT TUNES AND/OR ANSWER INANE QUESTIONS. THE SITE ADMINISTRATORS HAVE WORKED HARD TO KEEP THE THREADS ON THAT FORUM ON POINT AND INFORMATIONAL. READ AND RESEARCH FIRST, THEN ASK QUESTIONS!!! If your question has had some thought put into it, there are a ton of very helpful people there.

Tune was made for a car with 2.5 in catless downpipes, and a low restriction exhaust, running 94 octane. It makes a WORLD of difference to how the car feels. Way more responsive and pulls hard throughout the rev range. The cam timing changes add about 5-6 g/sec (or about 7-8% more airflow from 3750-5750 RPM).

So, if anyone wants to try it out, it's there for anyone who wants to try it and save yourself $500 ***of course, THE END USER ASSUMES ALL RISK OF DAMAGE!!!***

Also, THESE CALIBRATIONS ARE STRICTLY FOR INDIVIDUAL USE, ANY COMMERCIAL USE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED Not that this warning will necessarily stop anyone, but you know what, as a lawyer myself, I know enough ways to at least require people to spend money lawyering up to defend a claim. So while I would likely never collect any damages, if I ever catch wind if these calibrations in a commercial file, trust me, I'll do my best to get my pound of flesh....


I suggest getting a demo version of Winols, buying a spare ECU and downloading the tune to the spare (JUST MAKE SURE TO DEFEAT THE IMMOBILIZER) you can do this with software found on Nefmoto.

If you use your own ECU binary, then I would suggest transferring the values from my tune to your own binary just in case there are any incompatibilities between the two.


Difference between the best of my stock cam timing readings and two datalogging sessions with the new cam timing settings.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/V6%20A4%20CAM%20TIMING%20COMPARISON%202_zpsufzetkl m.png (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/V6%20A4%20CAM%20TIMING%20COMPARISON%202_zpsufzetkl m.png.html)

Here it is compared to some of the lower MAF averages that I've seen.
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/V6%20A4%20CAM%20TIMING%20COMPARISON_zpsthjvq5kg.pn g (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/V6%20A4%20CAM%20TIMING%20COMPARISON_zpsthjvq5kg.pn g.html)

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/cam%20timing%201%20WINOLS_zpsdddnj72d.png (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/cam%20timing%201%20WINOLS_zpsdddnj72d.png.html)

http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/cam%20timing%202%20WINOLS_zpsv9ch4f0j.png (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/cam%20timing%202%20WINOLS_zpsv9ch4f0j.png.html)

Exhaust cam timing and the new intake manifold changeover settings
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/cam%20timing%20exhaust%20WINOLS_zps337fnw37.png (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/cam%20timing%20exhaust%20WINOLS_zps337fnw37.png.ht ml)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Here are pics of the calibration of some of the other maps

So here it is... I'm hoping that some people get some use out the file. But more importantly, I hope that some of you might choose to make your own calibrations and post them for others.

I'm gonna get on my soap box for a bit here and air my gripes about all the secrecy about tuning on the forums. While I can appreciate that tuners may not want to post their calibrations openly, there's no reason not to discuss them. I man for Christ sake, I've had two tuning companies (one that I bought a tune from and another that I was thinking about buying a tune from before I decided to just do it my self) who I swear were like talking to the Pentagon... "sorry, sir, I can't release any information on whether this tuned file has been tuned" [:p]

Here's hoping to see some innovation and love for the 3.slow!!!

KFZW
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/WINOLS%20A4%20KFZW_zpscy7u4i36.png (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/WINOLS%20A4%20KFZW_zpscy7u4i36.png.html)

ZWOPT
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/WINOLS%20A4%20ZWOPT_zpscwjqtguk.png (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/WINOLS%20A4%20ZWOPT_zpscwjqtguk.png.html)

KFPED
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/WINOLS%20A4%20KFPED_zpsuvxygopb.png (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/WINOLS%20A4%20KFPED_zpsuvxygopb.png.html)

KFMOIP/KFMIRL/LAMBDA
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/WINOLS%20A4%20KFMIRL%20KFMOIP%20LAMBDA_zpsorh8y2xt .png (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/WINOLS%20A4%20KFMIRL%20KFMOIP%20LAMBDA_zpsorh8y2xt .png.html)

[imnuts]

I've considered making a bench top flashing setup previously and trying to tackle this, just that I could never find the motivation to do so. Maybe now I'll look into it a little more. Just a question related to your tune, did you defeat any of the emissions checks, and if so, did you do so in a way that it could still pass an emissions inspection?

[SJorge3442]

Once this new fuel pump is in, I'll be building a bench tuner. Thanks for the help and I can't wait to give this a try! Oh also, are you still running the additional air intake from your fog light grille?

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[idotavant]

Great stuff guys! Loved reading the thread.

[jaydeff]

You guys don't need a flashing bench to write a file to the ECU (although they are definitely nice to have). You can use a Chinese version of MPPS v13 with a cable from aliexpress. They're supposedly hit and miss on working but I bought one for I think like $15 shipped and it works. I just did a quick search and it looks like they're even cheaper now. I know a bench is preferable but I'm just throwing this out there in case anyone is interested.

Zimbu, that's some awesome work to give out for free. Do you know if there would be anything detrimental to running your file without the changeover system installed? Mine was broken so I removed it and just screwed the actuator part back on to cover the hole.

[SJorge3442]

You guys don't need a flashing bench to write a file to the ECU (although they are definitely nice to have). You can use a Chinese version of MPPS v13 with a cable from aliexpress. They're supposedly hit and miss on working but I bought one for I think like $15 shipped and it works. I just did a quick search and it looks like they're even cheaper now. I know a bench is preferable but I'm just throwing this out there in case anyone is interested.

Zimbu, that's some awesome work to give out for free. Do you know if there would be anything detrimental to running your file without the changeover system installed? Mine was broken so I removed it and just screwed the actuator part back on to cover the hole.

Yeah im gonna test out flashing through the OBD2 port with a battery charger attached to my car. Using my kompresd ECU as a test unit.

[SJorge3442]

I plan on spending the night reviewing Nefmoto, Winols and learning how to pull back timing since I have stock cats. I'd rather not try to run too much ignition timing if it could cause issues with the engine and pre-det. I miss running my tuned ecu for the short time I did, so hopefully this one works without an issue and I can start having fun again!

[ZimbutheMonkey]

You guys don't need a flashing bench to write a file to the ECU (although they are definitely nice to have). You can use a Chinese version of MPPS v13 with a cable from aliexpress. They're supposedly hit and miss on working but I bought one for I think like $15 shipped and it works. I just did a quick search and it looks like they're even cheaper now. I know a bench is preferable but I'm just throwing this out there in case anyone is interested.

Zimbu, that's some awesome work to give out for free. Do you know if there would be anything detrimental to running your file without the changeover system installed? Mine was broken so I removed it and just screwed the actuator part back on to cover the hole.

Happy to contribute [:)] I was hoping I could get a few daring individuals on Nefmoto to try out the tune and offer their feedback and own suggestions, but unfortunately I just don't think there are enough members there with this engine configuration to make it work.

Besides, what good does it do myself or anyone to guard this information. Not like I plan on selling it for $500 a pop. Although now that I've finally gotten a glimpse behind the veil, I will say that my tune probably has at least as (or more) maps massaged as most $500 reflashes.

Is it on par with $400-500 tune? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. I can feel a few areas that could use a little more finessing (i.e. every so often, tip-in can be a tiny bit coarse) and I'm sure that you guys would have some valuable insights. That said, I'm pretty damn happy with how the car feels now vs when it was stock.

I think it would be really interesting to see how different people dial their calibration preferences in. Also, I think that having different sets of eyes on the binary and different asses in the drivers seats would yield some great results. So I look forward to getting some feedback and ideas from you guys, which is far more exciting and satisfying than letting this information sit on a hard drive. [drive][drive][drive]


As for running it with the changeover system disabled, I don't think that it would necessarily be harmful. However, since I've been trying to gear the tune towards low-mid range torque, (and these engines seem to die really badly above 4500 or so with the manifold in the long runner position past that point) you'd kind of be "damned if you do/damned if you don't" in that you'd probably loose lot of low end grunt at the expense of keeping what little top end these engines have with the runners in the short mode.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I plan on spending the night reviewing Nefmoto, Winols and learning how to pull back timing since I have stock cats. I'd rather not try to run too much ignition timing if it could cause issues with the engine and pre-det. I miss running my tuned ecu for the short time I did, so hopefully this one works without an issue and I can start having fun again!


Yeah im gonna test out flashing through the OBD2 port with a battery charger attached to my car. Using my kompresd ECU as a test unit.

It's pretty easy to make changes with WinOLS. Just highlight the text and click +/-1, "edit absolute" or edit the map in 3D. Maybe I'll make another version with the timing dialed down a bit. That said, the stock ECU is designed to be ran on 89 octane in all conditions, so the timing is probably not too far off as is if you're filling the tank with 94. Honestly, I was probably a little cautious when I wrote up the risks section when I posted my tune. However, I felt it was better to err on the side of caution in that respect.

I would also highly recommend investing the $50 or so in EFIanalytics Mega Log Viewer HD http://www.tunerstudio.com/index.php/megalogviewer

It's been a HUGE help in dialing the tune in. Just log everything and the kitchen sink (I log over 100 variables whenever I go out logging) with ME7logger at 10+ samples a second. Then plug the data into the "histogram" feature, set the cell count to the same as the ECU (i.e. RPM x 16 cells, Engine Load x 11 for KFZW) and it mirrors what the ECU is spitting out after corrections.

Here's what the logs I took on Jan 26 looked like. (Note, it's obviously not 100% accurate as it averages the data)
http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo238/tlillo1/megalog%20kfzw_zpsagenmgic.png (http://s379.photobucket.com/user/tlillo1/media/megalog%20kfzw_zpsagenmgic.png.html)

The other great thing is that you can run traces in these tables to see what cells are active and when. It's also incredibly useful to be able to go over old data sets retroactively when you want to compare changes between different files.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I've considered making a bench top flashing setup previously and trying to tackle this, just that I could never find the motivation to do so. Maybe now I'll look into it a little more. Just a question related to your tune, did you defeat any of the emissions checks, and if so, did you do so in a way that it could still pass an emissions inspection?

Nope, I put spacers in my exhaust when I built it, so no check engine lights. Plus, I live in the redneck republic of Alberta, so no need to pass emissions.

That said, the winOLS map pack that I posted probably has the 1x1 on/off map areas necessary to defeat emissions highlighted somewhere. I'll look into it for 'ya.

[imnuts]

You guys don't need a flashing bench to write a file to the ECU (although they are definitely nice to have). You can use a Chinese version of MPPS v13 with a cable from aliexpress. They're supposedly hit and miss on working but I bought one for I think like $15 shipped and it works. I just did a quick search and it looks like they're even cheaper now. I know a bench is preferable but I'm just throwing this out there in case anyone is interested.

I know that it isn't required, but I wanted it since I have a spare ECU sitting here, and it would be potentially easier to flash offline.


Nope, I put spacers in my exhaust when I built it, so no check engine lights. Plus, I live in the redneck republic of Alberta, so no need to pass emissions.

That said, the winOLS map pack that I posted probably has the 1x1 on/off map areas necessary to defeat emissions highlighted somewhere. I'll look into it for 'ya.

At the moment, the only thing I'd be interested in is the catalyst efficiency change so that that monitor didn't go off and cause a CEL. All of my other systems are working, so no need to mess with them. I think down the road, SAI would be the only other item that I would disable.

[SJorge3442]

I spent quite a bit of time last night playing around and for the life of me, I cant get Winols to recognize any of the maps. It's gonna take me a bit to figure this out.

Sent from my Nexus 6 using Tapatalk

[jaydeff]

As for running it with the changeover system disabled, I don't think that it would necessarily be harmful. However, since I've been trying to gear the tune towards low-mid range torque, (and these engines seem to die really badly above 4500 or so with the manifold in the long runner position past that point) you'd kind of be "damned if you do/damned if you don't" in that you'd probably loose lot of low end grunt at the expense of keeping what little top end these engines have with the runners in the short mode.

Hmm I'm also limited to 91 octane here in SoCal so I think it's definitely not ideal to run the tune with how my car is right now. I'm gonna be fixing/upgrading some things in the coming weeks like replacing my dead front O2 sensor, 2.5" catless downpipes, new fuel pump, and I'm seriously considering buying a changeover system new but $400 is a lot for that piece of plastic... Anyway I'll fix these things up then see where to go from there.