Going from k04 to Frankenturbo worth it?

[AudiTurbo]

So, I have recently upgraded from my k03 with the giac 1 bar to a k04 with the pc-16 upgrade (all other supporting mods minus the front mount), but now I am wondered is it worth buying the frankenturbo upgrade turbo? What kind of additional modifications will I have to make? I know I'll need a front mount, but will I have to get a different manifold, injectors and will I be able to run the pc-16 file with it?

I don't want a crazy upgrade from the K04, but something that runs well!

Thank you

[xdewaynex]

I would only suggest it, if the K04 was failing, or you found one really cheap. All other mods you have should work, Im not knowledgeable of the pc-16 file. The FT is basically a hybrid K04, and will bolt right up to the stock manifold, which most people prefer to use, because the high flow manifold that comes in the FT kit, is a bit of pain to install.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Should run great on the PC-16 file actually. Having had both (K04-015 and a hybrid very similar to a Frankenturbo) and running a really aggressive file on the K04-015, there was a huge difference between the two.

I know GIAC claims 247 CHP with the PC-16 file, but I think that's a load of shit. I know that GIAC used to apply 25% correction factors to some of their dynos to get CHP figures from the WHP ones, so whatever WHP number they got that 247 CHP from was probably closer to 230 CHP if they used a realistic driveline loss figure.

That said, a Frankenturbo will flow enough for a solid 275-280 CHP with a half decent tune and maybe more if you push it. So you're looking at a 45-50 CHP gain and it'll hold boost to the stock redline unlike a K04-015 which spikes and dies.

[zandrew]

I wouldn't go with the frankenturbo. There is actually another K04 out there that will bolt in to the factory postion and flows a lot more then the franken. It flows 38lb min to be exact which is very similar to the GT2860RS. Will it make the same power as the GT2860RS? No but that has more to do with how the turbo spools and holds torque. A GT28 spools later and naturally makes more hp due to how hp is calculated. The turbo I am referring to should respond much like the stock turbo but should make more then the franken. Considerably more. It is also cheaper but you don't get some of the nice things that comes with the franken.It does have nice warranty though.

The PC16 file should work fine but ultimately a proper tune would yield the best results. The thing that worries me about the pc16 upgrade is the fuel injectors and them running out. I would have a wideband at the very least and inch psi once you are sure they are OK. I was actually considering running a AEM FIC 6 since the timing should be just fine and it actually controls the injectors. It is one of few piggy backs that can actually do that. You don't have to lie to the computer by adjusting MAF values and that silly BS. It has been done as well but I found very lil info regarding it. Not my number one idea but it should work on a budget.

I know a guy that did a franken turbo swap into his PC16 upgrade and it ran fine. He wanted some more psi and swapped in a VR6 MAF and scalled the injectors based off the increase of the cross sectional area. He said it ran fine as AFR's were normal. Later he upgraded to a better tune and is running it still and is very happy from what I know. He is not on this forum though.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

And this 38 lb/min K04 that bolts on to a longitudinal 1.8t would be...?

[zandrew]

Zimbu- I dunno if I should post it. I have gotten hated on for the idea before I actually came across someone that builds them. I was in a heated debate over it since I machined an adapter to run an unmodified one but then the DP would have to fabbed up. Thats not that big of a deal since you can get a Vband outlet for it and Dp are easy to make. The oil lines and coolant lines bolt right up as well since it is K04. The only other issue is getting a TIP with 2.5" and rotating the compressor housing and modifying the internal gate. Pretty standard stuff.

Its the Mazdaspeed 3 turbo. It is also used on a Mazdaspeed 6. The compressor is 46.5mm inducer and 60mm exducer with extended tips. The GT2860RS is 47.2mm inducer and 60mm exducer.

There is a company that takes the K04 015 and uses the larger MS3 turbine and compressor and also uses the compressor housing.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Had Gpop-shop make that exact same center cartridge and compressor housing into a hybrid K04 on my car (that was 3 turbo setups ago lol). It's pretty much identical to a Frankenturbo (just one size up IIRC).

However, the Frankenturbo probably puts out a hair more power as the wastegate flaps in the Frankenturbo turbine housings are larger than the OEM Borg Warner ones and backpressure at the turbine is what kills those hybrids in terms of making power. Trust me, I've been through more turbo setups than most (6 different ones) and I've researched hybrids to death.

As for what those turbos are rated for, they're 32 lb/min compressors and I know from personal experience it's hard to get even 32 lb/min out of them on account of backpressure from the miniscule K04-015 housings, and I even had a clipped turbine (and yes, it was a Mazdaspeed turbine, not a K04-015). But hey, good you were at least trying to think outside the box.

As for using the Mazdaspeed turbine housing, I thought about trying it out, but it was gonna be a lot of hassle and it isn't tons bigger than the K04-015. The larger wastegate that the Frankenturbo has probably actually makes for more overall flow than the larger Mazdaspeed turbine housing would give you in the end anyway. So really, the Frankenturbo just makes way more sense as it's truly plug and play.

[Nateness]

We can only hope that Doug @ FT considers making the F23 available for the longitudinal platform. Until then, the F21 is hard to beat for easy performance gains and value.

[zandrew]

You need to look at the compressor sizes again. The franken is 42mm and is the same one as used on the CX7. The MS3 compressor is significantly bigger and is the same compressor used on the F23 unless franken screwed up the nomenclature when they sent it oo me. The place I am referring to ports the housing significantly and it is not G(ripoff)Pop.

The MS3 housing is way better especially with a lil loving. To give you an idea I had a friend that put down 320fwp with the stock turbo and about every bolt on and tune possible. I like the MS3 motors but they nose dive after 5K due to the DBW literally shutting the throttle. This turbo is used by franken on the F23 and it has put down over 300whp as well. It is also the compressor that is used overseas on some Ford RS and they came rated very high from the factory.

The Solstice GXP uses the same type of turbo but has 44mm compressor and with a solid tune you can 260-290rwhp depending on quality of the build. GM themselves pushed it with racegas and made something rediculous like 480lb ft and 360whp.

Just because a compressor can flow 50lb min does not mean it will make 500hp. The turbine determines how much power you can generate from what the compressor has to offer. The K04 has was built for spool and fat mid range. It dies off well before you can get to make use of the torque hp crossover.


Also with teeny tiny K04 stub shaft it is really not a good idea to push them for extended periods. If you drove it as daily and was civil 90% of the time you would most likely be OK.

There are other compressors even bigger then the MS3 that can be used. There Billet comps and even K16 comps. When it comes to turbos the limiting factor is what you are capable of doing. I rebuilt turbos at machine shop for several years and did several one off builds. Things like stuffing billet T4 compressors in CT26's and completely swapping carts from one turbo to another (mostly for smog hating cali people).

[juxsa]

I think if the K04 is running fine, you would be better off spending the money on buying a quality FMIC and fine tuning your calibration.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

You need to look at the compressor sizes again. The franken is 42mm and is the same one as used on the CX7. The MS3 compressor is significantly bigger and is the same compressor used on the F23 unless franken screwed up the nomenclature when they sent it oo me. The place I am referring to ports the housing significantly and it is not G(ripoff)Pop.

The MS3 housing is way better especially with a lil loving. To give you an idea I had a friend that put down 320fwp with the stock turbo and about every bolt on and tune possible. I like the MS3 motors but they nose dive after 5K due to the DBW literally shutting the throttle. This turbo is used by franken on the F23 and it has put down over 300whp as well. It is also the compressor that is used overseas on some Ford RS and they came rated very high from the factory.

The Solstice GXP uses the same type of turbo but has 44mm compressor and with a solid tune you can 260-290rwhp depending on quality of the build. GM themselves pushed it with racegas and made something rediculous like 480lb ft and 360whp.

Just because a compressor can flow 50lb min does not mean it will make 500hp. The turbine determines how much power you can generate from what the compressor has to offer. The K04 has was built for spool and fat mid range. It dies off well before you can get to make use of the torque hp crossover.


Also with teeny tiny K04 stub shaft it is really not a good idea to push them for extended periods. If you drove it as daily and was civil 90% of the time you would most likely be OK.

There are other compressors even bigger then the MS3 that can be used. There Billet comps and even K16 comps. When it comes to turbos the limiting factor is what you are capable of doing. I rebuilt turbos at machine shop for several years and did several one off builds. Things like stuffing billet T4 compressors in CT26's and completely swapping carts from one turbo to another (mostly for smog hating cali people).

As I stated in my previous post, the compressor I had in my hybrid was from the Mazdaspeed 3/6 (so the entire CHRA and the compressor housing), and that was explained as being rated at 32/lb/min. That said, even if it flowed more, putting anything larger than that on a K04-015 housing is still en excersise in futility.

Even on the larger K04-02x housings from the Audi TT, the most I've ever seen out of these hybrids even with the K-16 and other compressors is about 320 FWHP. After that volumetric efficiency suffers so much from backpressure that the compressor size becomes moot. Also, a lot of those guys running the billet and K-16 compressors on the K04-02x have issues with surge. These issues would be even worse with the smaller K04-015 turbine housing.

So like I said, the F-21 compressor is probably running at the limits of what can be flowed on the K04-015 turbine housing, even with the larger turbine and wastegate port. I don't think you'd see a ton of benefit to going with the larger compressor found in the F23/Mazdaspeed 3 etc... Also remember that reversion from the turbine section backing up is going to hurt VE and result in lowered timing as a result of the hot exhaust gas in the chamber.

[zandrew]

Zimbu my entire point was to not use the K04 015 housing. I was only mentioning to the OP that it could be used for a bolt on application. I completely agree that you are approaching the max efficiency range of the turbine at around 300chp but you "should" still be able to generate 250awhp with it or more using the MS3 housing since it has already been done. Also the Mazdaspeed motor will spool the turbo faster which is good for torque, bad for hp. Holding a similar torque level further into the rev range will produce more hp which the 1.8t should be able to do. Clipping the MS3 turbine and using it in its own turbine housing produced significant gains with minute loss of spool. You can also bore the exducer outlet on the turbine side to reduce back pressure. I know on the T3T4 turbos with a stage 1 turbine a .25mm or .5mm total increase in the opening will delay spool about 300 RPM's but gained around 30whp at peak.

If you look at franken website they rate the F21 at 34 lb and the F23 at 38 lb min. That is why I am skeptical of what Gpop used, that and the reason I know of other people that bought stuff from them and ended up with something else. Specifically the Big T28 they offered.

If you are a DIY person as myself and willing to get your hands dirty the MS3 turbo as a whole makes more sense. It could easily be done for less then $1k and until it has I am going to be hard pressed to believe that the F21 would outperform it especially will all things equal.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Zimbu my entire point was to not use the K04 015 housing. I was only mentioning to the OP that it could be used for a bolt on application. I completely agree that you are approaching the max efficiency range of the turbine at around 300chp but you "should" still be able to generate 250awhp with it or more using the MS3 housing since it has already been done. Also the Mazdaspeed motor will spool the turbo faster which is good for torque, bad for hp. Holding a similar torque level further into the rev range will produce more hp which the 1.8t should be able to do. Clipping the MS3 turbine and using it in its own turbine housing produced significant gains with minute loss of spool. You can also bore the exducer outlet on the turbine side to reduce back pressure. I know on the T3T4 turbos with a stage 1 turbine a .25mm or .5mm total increase in the opening will delay spool about 300 RPM's but gained around 30whp at peak.

If you look at franken website they rate the F21 at 34 lb and the F23 at 38 lb min. That is why I am skeptical of what Gpop used, that and the reason I know of other people that bought stuff from them and ended up with something else. Specifically the Big T28 they offered.

If you are a DIY person as myself and willing to get your hands dirty the MS3 turbo as a whole makes more sense. It could easily be done for less then $1k and until it has I am going to be hard pressed to believe that the F21 would outperform it especially will all things equal.

I get what you're saying and I think you're pretty much bang on in terms of being able to produce 300 CHP as a max using a MS 3/6 CHRA and compressor housing combined w a K04-015 frame.

As for what G-pop used on mine, it was a MS compressor. Here are the pics





As for what Slappy has posted for compressor maps, I'm not 100% sure that he has it right. I'm gonna wager that he was probably off about 3-4 lb/min and that the F-21 is good for about 30 lb/min and the F-23 is good for about 34 lb/min.

[QuattroGinger]

i agree that if ko4 is running good, leave it and get good fmic. i just did frankenturbo and my problem is finding good turner. no one makes a specific tune for FT. UM wants to give me GT28 tune for $500+, and i heard j-Fonz has awesome tune for great deal but he MIA. over a week now and i cant get them to respond to FB or emails. im overboosting like crazy running GIAC flash for my ko3s.

[zandrew]

Quattroginger- The other person I know running the Franken runs the United 630cc tune that uses the VR6 MAF and he is happy. He says its not perfect but runs good and pulls hard. He went with it so he could upgrade to a GT28 without issues.

Zimbu- Here is the compressor map directly from Borg Warner. Giggity.



It is the 2280 compressor. Take 22 which is inches and times by 25.4 to convert inches to mm. That is 55.88mm (they like to round). Then take that times .8 (the 80 stands for 80%) and you get the compressor inducer. It is 44.7mm. Funny they don't add the exducer extended tips. The m3/sec does come out right around 34lb min. I think what I did last time was convert to cfm and then lb min. .235 m3/sec is 540 cfm. 540cfm x .069 (factor I picked up from turbonetics) equals 37.26 lb min.

I think I read some of your old posts hating on billet compressors saying they were snakes oil. It was in a thread I was comparing the highest whp 1.8t AEB to the highest whp 2.0 AEB (funny since the 1.8 actually made almost 300 more awhp and in the same rev range as well but I chalk that up to turbo). You don't think the newer billet compressors actually make more flow?

[QuattroGinger]

zandrew - did you happen to know if they had to run a mbc to prevent overboost or the did the tune control it properly. thats what im scared of happening. spend all that money for a gt28 tune and still have overboost problems.

[Dan[FN]6262]

Lmfao

[zandrew]

As far as I know he had no issues. I am sure he ran it at whatever psi the tune came with.

DAN6262- What makes me laugh is that you bash people for no appearent reason. You have something on your mind but refrain from saying it. What makes me LMFAO is you run a 6262 on what you call 1.8 liters of fury. Don't you know silly, that shit was so 8 years ago. You call this weaksauce but my friend you are doing shit that was done on Hond duhs years ago, and they still run.

[rockersteady]

you shouldnt overboost a franken turbo on a gt28 tune,
What will likely occur is a under request for boost at approx 4000+ rpm (as the tune tries to limit the gt28 torque produced for a stock motor)
Fueling will be fine, or maybe a little leaner than some like at (Franken turbo) earlier spool onset, ask who's running it what is the AFR at 2500-3000 rpm

Running a standard Ko4 file (stock maf/ uprated FPR) wont do as you will surpass the load tables and run out of fuel, and run too much timing leading to knock correction. The K04 file for 3"maf/ larger injector will probably do quite nicely except for a a probable spike and slight overboost, Id run a Limiting MBC in conjunction with the n75

[zandrew]

The united tune is specific for the K04 and gt28. Atleast thats what they have it listed and when I spoke to them in regards on using it. There are 2 seperate tunes for the K04. One uses 440cc and is K04 specific, the 630cc is for both gt28 and K04.

[QuattroGinger]

The united tune is specific for the K04 and gt28. Atleast thats what they have it listed and when I spoke to them in regards on using it. There are 2 seperate tunes for the K04. One uses 440cc and is K04 specific, the 630cc is for both gt28 and K04.

Yeah yet told me if run gt28 tune for my FT with genesis 415cc

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Quattroginger- The other person I know running the Franken runs the United 630cc tune that uses the VR6 MAF and he is happy. He says its not perfect but runs good and pulls hard. He went with it so he could upgrade to a GT28 without issues.

Zimbu- Here is the compressor map directly from Borg Warner. Giggity.



It is the 2280 compressor. Take 22 which is inches and times by 25.4 to convert inches to mm. That is 55.88mm (they like to round). Then take that times .8 (the 80 stands for 80%) and you get the compressor inducer. It is 44.7mm. Funny they don't add the exducer extended tips. The m3/sec does come out right around 34lb min. I think what I did last time was convert to cfm and then lb min. .235 m3/sec is 540 cfm. 540cfm x .069 (factor I picked up from turbonetics) equals 37.26 lb min.

I think I read some of your old posts hating on billet compressors saying they were snakes oil. It was in a thread I was comparing the highest whp 1.8t AEB to the highest whp 2.0 AEB (funny since the 1.8 actually made almost 300 more awhp and in the same rev range as well but I chalk that up to turbo). You don't think the newer billet compressors actually make more flow?

Yep, like I said, it's a 2280 just like the Mazdaspeed's sompressor. IIRC, the next size up used on the F-23 was the 2283.

As for my thoughts on billet compressors, I'm not completely hating on them. Fact is, most of the billet compressors they are using flow better than the cast ones that they are replacing. My problem is that companies are selling them as being better simply because they are made from billet Aluminium. As far as I'm concerned this whole "it's better because it's lighter and the fins are narrower" stuff is complete horseshit.

What makes them better is the aero profiles on the compressor are better. However that has nothing to do with them being made from billet blanks, it's because until recently (with the exception of lines like the Garrett GT series) most performance turbos were basically derived from the parts bin of commercial applications.

Why? because until recently, it was prohibitively expensive for a small manufacturer to invest in designing compressors using castings. However, with the advent of cheap 5 axis machining, small companies can get a design that they think is close, make one-offs on the 5 axis machines and tweak it until they get it right.

The only inherent advantage I see in billet compressors is that I do think it allows for a smaller root hub and therefore more blade area vs the comparatively wide hub that a cast wheel tends to have.

However the fins are no smaller than a cast compressor. Hell, I measured my Comp turbo fin thickness and my comp billet wheel is way thicker than my old 60-1 I was running. In fact, the 60-1 fins are like paper. Also, I feel that the weight savings vs a cast unit would be negligible at best. You know as well as I do that unless you're running an EFR turbo that the turbine is by far the heaviest part of the rotating assembly. Also, you know as well as I do that the turbine is really what dictates your spool-up. The compressor creating pressure is the byproduct of getting that turbine spun up first.

So really, my biggest problem is when companies use questionable logic to try and hype their product. If there is a real advantage then by all means advertise it. However when I see some of the claims that are made using logic like "it spools faster because it has thinner blades etc..." it just makes me think that these guys really don't know what the hell they're talking about. That, or they're just plain shady and will say anything to get you to buy their stuff.

[zandrew]

The first billet compressors that came out were excat copies of their cast counterparts. There was no advantage in flow from them but did one things cast could not do. They handle higher pressure gradients since tha base material is stronger. There are hub designs that are stronger then the typical super back like hubless but they are more expensive to develope and use. The billet compressors stave off hub burst. Most would think the blades are the weakpoint but they are not. The hub that they attach too is. They actually created super back compressors to thicken the area that fails.

There is advantages to be had from the billet compressor as far as flow goes. With the billet compressor you can use more aggressive fin angle and you can safely increase the diameter of leading edge of the compressor. Too give you an idea though the inducer may be 45 mm the the bore is 5mm. Typical rule of thumb is to also have atleast 5mm on each side of the compressorbore decreasing the effective inducer from 45mm to 30mm. With Billet you can cut the cylinder wall down by half and have a compressor that has an effective inducer of 35mm which is significant gain. The difference in weight is minute but every lil bit counts. Hell Garrett was making ceramic turbine for T28 in the 90's that responded faster then ball bearings but they can not safely handle higher psi. The weight difference between the a billet 20G and cast 18g is 71grams to 62grams. The hub diameter at the inducer is 17.5mm for the 18G and the 20G is 12.5mm.

Small batch compressors are actually cheaper to produce with 5 axis opposed to cast.

I agree that most companies seem to BS more then anything else where billet compressors are concerned. Just out of curiousity what were you running the 60-1 on?

The biggest custom compressor I have seen is 2675.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So it sounds like we're pretty much exactly on the same page re: billet compressors. Like I said, the reduced hub area vs the cast compressors makes for a larger swept volume. I made a point of comparing the comp 5556 compressor with my 60-1 and there was a considerable difference between the two.

As for the 60-1, I ran it on the engine setup I have now. I currently have a comp CT2 5556 with a triplex bearing assembly though. Only reason I changed is that I was getting oil seepage from the turbine housing on the 60-1 and figured I'd be needing a rebuild at some point, so I ended up initially buying a journal bearing 5556 since the price was so good. Then there was a mix up with the turbo comp sent me and since I needed it right away and they didn't have any journal bearing CHRA's at that moment, they gave me a killer deal on a BB CHRA and I upgraded.

All in all I was happy with the 60-1, it was kind of slow to spool since I'm at 3500 ft, but pulled like a freight train when it spooled. Unlike most people I ran it with a .48 exhaust housing though. What was interesting about that is that I did some backpressure testing at the exhaust manifold and I found that there wasn't as much backpressure with that housing as people would believe (IIRC it was 40 PSI max at the exhaust and 30 PSI max at the intake)

Thing is, the turbine is what dictates the flow, the A/R is really just to adjust your window of peak turbine efficiency to your engine's peak volumetric efficiency, and with the stock cams wheezing at 6500 or so, the .48 housing was probably working just fine. Now, throw in a set of aftermarket cams that cam breathe at 7500 plus and then it's a different story though...

Anyway, good to have someone new on the forum that has some in depth technical knowledge on turbos. As you've probably figured out by now I'm kind of a turbo nerd lol. Not that there aren't guys around here who know their stuff, but I just don't see them commenting much on the extremely technical side of turbo tech for some reason.

[zandrew]

Those old 60-1 really were never intended for performance setups. Mostly low pressure high flow like diesel setups.

Its funny you mention the CT2 55 I came across an oil less setup that is brand new for $800 shipped and was just talking to M hood about them. I had no clue they use grease instead of oil and periodically need repacked. How are you liking the your 5556? You have a dyno by chance?

Was your 60-1 a big shaft or standard? You still have it?

Of all the T3T4 turbos the 2 I stick too is the 50 trim and 57 trim. If your wanting more spool the 46 trim is decent but will not get you past 350whp.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Those old 60-1 really were never intended for performance setups. Mostly low pressure high flow like diesel setups.

Its funny you mention the CT2 55 I came across an oil less setup that is brand new for $800 shipped and was just talking to M hood about them. I had no clue they use grease instead of oil and periodically need repacked. How are you liking the your 5556? You have a dyno by chance?

Was your 60-1 a big shaft or standard? You still have it?

Of all the T3T4 turbos the 2 I stick too is the 50 trim and 57 trim. If your wanting more spool the 46 trim is decent but will not get you past 350whp.

Yeah I know, I ended up using it because it was given to me, so the price was right. As for the shaft size, it was a small shaft IIRC and yes I still have it. Actually it's sitting beside me on my desk as I write this lol.

As for how I like the 5556, I think it's a good turbo. I'd really like to see what it can do with a set of cams though. These compressors on the comp turbos work well with high pressure ratios. However I think I'm at the limit of what the stock cams will flow as my MAF readings seem to pretty much flatline from about 26-27 PSI and up. Having a set of cams that will let this thing breathe would allow me to crank the boost some more and take advantage of that new compressor I'm running. That and the bearing design on these triplex units pretty much eliminates all thrust induced wear on the bearing so you can spin them to obscene shaft speeds and they just come back for more.

[zandrew]

What I thought about doing to increase the rev range was add a intake cam like IE's and then swap in a larger set of exhaust valves. That coupled with a set of supertech springs and retainers should safely get you to 8K and not have to upgrade to solid lifters. It will also increase exhaust flow but not hurt spool chractersitics to badly like a complete set of cams will.

What tune are you running and what engine code?

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Anything bigger than a GT 3071r and I'd say go with a set of the IE street intake/exhaust cams. Skip the bigger exhaust valves and just replace them with stainless ones so they don't crack like the stock sodium ones have been known to do. Throw in a set of lifter springs and you're good to 8500. I've been running that setup and I've revved past 8000 plenty. But if you look at IE's dyno charts you'll see that the street or street/strip cams are really the best choice if you're revving over 7000 RPM.

I'm running a Eurodyne tune on an AEB

[M-Hood]

So, I have recently upgraded from my k03 with the giac 1 bar to a k04 with the pc-16 upgrade (all other supporting mods minus the front mount), but now I am wondered is it worth buying the frankenturbo upgrade turbo? What kind of additional modifications will I have to make? I know I'll need a front mount, but will I have to get a different manifold, injectors and will I be able to run the pc-16 file with it?

I don't want a crazy upgrade from the K04, but something that runs well!

Thank you

Might want to just consider getting supporting mods that will help increase how much power the car makes or start looking at doing weight reduction of the car.

Should run great on the PC-16 file actually. Having had both (K04-015 and a hybrid very similar to a Frankenturbo) and running a really aggressive file on the K04-015, there was a huge difference between the two.

I know GIAC claims 247 CHP with the PC-16 file, but I think that's a load of shit. I know that GIAC used to apply 25% correction factors to some of their dynos to get CHP figures from the WHP ones, so whatever WHP number they got that 247 CHP from was probably closer to 230 CHP if they used a realistic driveline loss figure.

That said, a Frankenturbo will flow enough for a solid 275-280 CHP with a half decent tune and maybe more if you push it. So you're looking at a 45-50 CHP gain and it'll hold boost to the stock redline unlike a K04-015 which spikes and dies.

Wait so you don't think a K04-16 setup can make 192awhp? Because that is what 247chp is when using a standard 22% drive line loss for a 1.8t quattro. GIAC used to multiply the WHP numbers by 1.28 to come up with a CHP number and that is actually less then using a 22% drive line loss.

230chp is only 179.4whp using a 22% drive line loss which is way too low for a well running PC16 setup. Welcome to the world of Quattro you silly FWD owner. lol

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Might want to just consider getting supporting mods that will help increase how much power the car makes or start looking at doing weight reduction of the car.





Wait so you don't think a K04-16 setup can make 192awhp? Because that is what 247chp is when using a standard 22% drive line loss for a 1.8t quattro. GIAC used to multiply the WHP numbers by 1.28 to come up with a CHP number and that is actually less then using a 22% drive line loss.

230chp is only 179.4whp using a 22% drive line loss which is way too low for a well running PC16 setup. Welcome to the world of Quattro you silly FWD owner. lol

Umm, either I'm completely delerious from being up for 24 hours studying and the 15 mg of Zopiclone that's in the middle of knocking me out, but if I take a WHP figure multiply it by 1.28 that means I'm taking 128% of the WHP number and turning it into a CHP number, whiiiicchhh means that you're using a 28% driveline loss. I'm sorry, but the only quattro car with that kind of driveline loss is a tip with cement in the transmission lol.

If we took that 192 AWHP times 1.22 it would be (gasp) 234 CHP. Or, if we used the figure I recall seeing in the Motorgeek blog posting where they did a chassis dyno to WHP dyno I recall they had an 18% driveline loss which would be 225 CHP. So yeah I think AWE/GIAC are completely full of shit IMO

Oh, and thanks for correcting me, I forgot that GIAC was using 28% corrections, not 25% ones

PS: interesting article where they found that the driveline loss on Nissan GT-R varied from a high of 17% all the way down to 5% at lower speeds. So yeah, that 18% figure I saw for a Quattro car seems pretty much bang on the money.
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...-power-ratings

[zandrew]

I have always seen 22-23% for AWD manual operated vehicles. For AWD automatics in the 27%-35%. I know back when I ate and shit Jap the 2JZGTTE Supra with an automatic making 1,000 chp was only making about 700rwhp. Of course sluch boxes have gotten better. Imagine though if the Supra was AWD?

Zimbu- the dyno's I have seen AWHP come in right around 200 for AWE K04 kit with PC16 upgrade. I would say it is pretty spot on. I know of one that made 200AWHP without an upgraded DP or exhaust so that was damn impressive too me.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Yeah ,but I still think that 's a little high, just based on the fact that the K04-015 realisically flows around 230 CHP or so. Mayyybe 240 if you really press it on an aggressive tune. But to get 247 CHP from 192 WHP (assuming mike was correct and I think he was as that matches with the old 1.28 % conversion formula that AWE used to use (interesting how they took it down lol).

Point is, if someone else managed to get 200+ AWHp from a K04 and that meant that it could make 247 CHP, then GIAC has no right advertising that as their power figure as their own when it didn't come from their own testing.

Really, you have no ideas what other shops testing conditions can be. It's like if all of the people suddenly started claiming that they had 330 AWHP GTRS cars because they say David's dyno and thought well mine must make the same right? So why don't I advertise it as a 330 WHP setup when I go to sell it. I'm just sick of all the BS and half backed lies/truth that so many tuning companies put on their products and then get pissy when someone calls them on it.

And with that, my teeth are green and I'm now as high as fucking kite on sleeping pills, I'm going the fuck to bed while I can still see straight, Merry Fucking Christmas Snoopy and the Gang!!!!!!!

[demonmk2]

i agree that if ko4 is running good, leave it and get good fmic. i just did frankenturbo and my problem is finding good turner. no one makes a specific tune for FT. UM wants to give me GT28 tune for $500+, and i heard j-Fonz has awesome tune for great deal but he MIA. over a week now and i cant get them to respond to FB or emails. im overboosting like crazy running GIAC flash for my ko3s.

c2 motorsports 440 tune works very well with the frankenturbo setup.

[M-Hood]

Umm, either I'm completely delerious from being up for 24 hours studying and the 15 mg of Zopiclone that's in the middle of knocking me out, but if I take a WHP figure multiply it by 1.28 that means I'm taking 128% of the WHP number and turning it into a CHP number, whiiiicchhh means that you're using a 28% driveline loss. I'm sorry, but the only quattro car with that kind of driveline loss is a tip with cement in the transmission lol.

If we took that 192 AWHP times 1.22 it would be (gasp) 234 CHP. Or, if we used the figure I recall seeing in the Motorgeek blog posting where they did a chassis dyno to WHP dyno I recall they had an 18% driveline loss which would be 225 CHP. So yeah I think AWE/GIAC are completely full of shit IMO

Oh, and thanks for correcting me, I forgot that GIAC was using 28% corrections, not 25% ones

PS: interesting article where they found that the driveline loss on Nissan GT-R varied from a high of 17% all the way down to 5% at lower speeds. So yeah, that 18% figure I saw for a Quattro car seems pretty much bang on the money.
http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1...-power-ratings

There must be something going on with you because when you to up from WHP to get CHP the number being used is going to be larger then what the actual drive line loss is. Come on Tyler that is basic elementary school math.

100 - 28% = 72
72 x 1.28 = 92.16
72 x 1.3888 = 99.99


If a car makes 200awhp a 25% drive line loss for a Quattro car would give it 266chp , while 22% would give it 256chp.
(200 x 100)/75 = 266
(200 x 100)/78 = 256

200 x 1.28 = 256
200 x 1.25 = 250

Are you up to speed with the rest of the class now?

What I don't understand is why it is always the FWD guys that are in denial when it comes to AWD having a much higher drive line loss. lol

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Ahhh nuts to you I'm just gonna blame it on insomnia induced delirium and drugs lol.

[Dan[FN]6262]

I love how simply posting LMFAO warranted such a response and PM from you. That is hilarious.

Seriously whats your deal?
I don't get whats up with you. If you don't like what I post why comment? I have read a shit ton of posts of yours but have yet to be a douche bag in the sense you are. Not everyone has the same back ground or expierence you have. What kills me is your hating on people that are actually trying to learn.

If you are trying to piss me off its not working. As I stated not everyone wants 36psi and meth. Appearently others need their vehicles to run.

Because a pretty simple search would quickly and easily answer all of your questions. But you instead choose to be spoon fed information. I find it helpless and hilarious. If you really wanted to learn, I have a list of books that you should purchase and read.