Volant Intakes

Modshack said:

Lots of links, impressions and videos at the link:

http://public.fotki.com/ttschwing/gadgetts_and_stuff/52mm_vent_gauge_adapter/

Due to the 5 layers of insulating material, the VTDA likely handles engine compartment heat better than anything else.
Cooler air to the turbo is more compressible
Some temp tests (from a 1.8T) here:
http://www.audiworld.com/forums/tt-mk1-discussion-9/vtda-temp-analysis-including-feed-gasket-effects-lotsa-charts-1937169/#post17194406

Due to the MK6 design, it is almost impossible to significantly affect IAT's. 210 degree air from the radiator is blowing right across the Throttle body pipe.. If you want to lower IAT's effectively, a big IC and WaterMeth are the best techniques..

I also have a 1 day "used" VTDA in the classifieds if interested..

Click to expand...

MorePowah said:

admittedly I am one that has gotten caught up in the hype of only focusing on the numbers... obviously there are multiple factors that contribute to numbers.

Steve, how would you respond to the test that was done a few years ago that claimed the VTDA seemed to run out of steam on the top end compared to the carbino intake?

Click to expand...

Modshack said:

(BTW, Fixed the link above)

Yeah...It's easy to be swayed by the numbers..You really need to ask yourself how much time you spend at 5-6K RPM's where most aftermarket Intakes make their power.... And, can you tell that 8-10hp difference? Is it really important compared to smoothness, Driveability under normal conditions, and throttle response/Spool?

From tests on 2.7 Twin turboed Audi 2.7 motors, the VTDA drops off slightly at the 350 HP mark. In reality, any cannistered intake will, at some point, not flow as well as an open element. But then you have noise and heat to deal with.

A few years ago a bunch of guys ran some flow tests in the UK on a 1/8T AudiTT. As you can see, the VTDA is better at low and mid RPM's where you spend most of your time....And still flowed better than any of the OEM variations. Only a P-flow out-flowed it at high RPM's but look at it's flow pattern in the lower ranges. Given the typical Torque fall-off of most aftermarket intakes, it's important to maintain as much as you can in the low to mid range. In this test, the VTDA got voted best all around intake because it makes more power in day to day drive situations (not redline stuff). Most tests don't go there, instead concentrating on the "Numbers", as you say, to impress.

Click to expand...

MorePowah said:

Yeah, I realize most of this is just for the good looks and such that sway people. It's all marketing. I do wonder though, why did you opt not to do a full smooth pipe instead? Also, what are your feelings on the filter that is turned to the side as opposed to yours which would have a bit of a smaller area for air to be pulled/forced in? Perhaps that might have given it more of that upper rpm pull?

BTW, I am COMPLETELY ignorant to much of this airflow stuff and what some of it means. I know that lower IAT's are going to basically equate to more power, but that's about all I know.

Click to expand...

Modshack said:

It is all marketing...
IMO, a smooth pipe does nothing ultimately... The factory pipe is smooth...even at the Accordion, it's not that turbulent. The accordion helps with flexibility of the mount...Since the engine moves and the Airbox doesn't...being bolted to the front cowl. A direct flow with no bends is advantageous....A VTDA flows so smoothly you can remove the grid/vanes in the MAF to improve flow even more.. Part of the design and plenum area is advantageous to the lower RPM performance.. Lower IAT's allow for more timing advance = more power. Cooler air into the turbo results in greater compressibility. More flow = more air = more HP. Cooler air = more power.

The real key is to avoid bends....especially before/ after the MAF..That's where the turbulance kicks in and results in sporadic MAF/Fueing readings..
Many aftermarket systems involve bends that are not advantageous to smooth flow.

Click to expand...