6
Possible New K04 file from APR???
- Thread starter FLtrooper
- Start date
- Status
ROOSTER1050
Go Kart Champion
WHP, now that sounds more like it!:thumbsup:
barney91
Passed Driver's Ed
kurupt_hawaiian
Ready to race!
Holy Redline!!!
What manifold?
FLtrooper
Go Kart Champion
haha, I was just busting chops
So the dyno was currently unavailable for me to get the K04 vehicle on before this weekend but it's slated to have dyno time Monday
I figured
Needs MOAR dyno time!
Really, haven't heard anything about! Knowing APR, it will probably run fine with a regular tune, but utilize a "high output" file. Just my guess, but I am interested in it
Bino
Go Kart Champion
Bino
Go Kart Champion
I bet you can get anyone here to install it for free.:lol:
The main purpose it would appear of the new intake manifold is to supplement fueling. Since we can't upgrade the HPFP on the US GTI's we are fueling limited to about 450HP with pump gas. The intake manifold is doing what I've seen in the MazdaSpeed 3 world. APR is adding a port fuel injector with tune on the intake manifold allowing for increased fueling. They have also been playing with E85.
So this will be a good upgrade for big turbo folks who are fueling limited and those of us who would like to run pump E85. But its in development and APR has a lot of there products in the pipe. GTX turbos for our GEN 1 TSI's and probably a whole turbo line up for the EA888 Gen 3 engines that are in the 2013.5 GLI/Bettle/Audi's and will be in the MK7 GTI.
The stock U.S. Fuel system can SAFELY support more like 400hp, not 450. This means not maxing out the HPFP full lift and adhering to a safe LPFP duty cycle to prevent overheating and excessive strain.
Like mentioned, on smaller turbo applications with no need for extra fuel you won't see any significant gains from these style manifolds. You will see a slight loss in spoolup and minor loss in efficiency in the lower rpm region (2000-6500rpm) but above this rpm range will generally show gains. Most calibration files are simply to compensate for the lower efficiency to bring power back up where it was originally.
The main benefits are fuel supply, rigidity, ability to be drilled and welded for W/M nozzles, ease of adding boost sources, and runner flap delete. All of which are helpful but don't expect magic to happen on the dyno graph. Simply bolting on one of these manifolds on the same calibration (there are a few on the market now) will generally make the volumetric efficiency in the standard powerband go down. This means the ignition timing on the standard calibration is now further from MBT. This causes EGT's to actually increase, something you wouldn't prefer. That is why the tune needs to be revised to make sure these things are taken care of.
Unless you did a full engine build capable to rev to at LEAST 8,000rpm or more and are flowing more than around 50lb/min, the SIZEABLE gains from these manifolds will not be seen.
The main purpose for our development was greater fuel supply. Now with some recent tests, there may be alternatives that can supply the majority of users with adequate fuel without the need of the port injection add-on. Like mentioned, the only people that would see a benefit are people with big builds and there aren't really that many of them out there, not enough to justify the cost of producing the product. Especially when the majority of the customers may lose spoolup and really see no gain for their investment other than runner flap delete.
The engineers are still working on the product but if they decide it may not benefit our customers without pouring a lot if snake oil all over the marketing, it's not a product we will sell to our customers. We'll have to see how their development goes.
Like mentioned, on smaller turbo applications with no need for extra fuel you won't see any significant gains from these style manifolds. You will see a slight loss in spoolup and minor loss in efficiency in the lower rpm region (2000-6500rpm) but above this rpm range will generally show gains. Most calibration files are simply to compensate for the lower efficiency to bring power back up where it was originally.
The main benefits are fuel supply, rigidity, ability to be drilled and welded for W/M nozzles, ease of adding boost sources, and runner flap delete. All of which are helpful but don't expect magic to happen on the dyno graph. Simply bolting on one of these manifolds on the same calibration (there are a few on the market now) will generally make the volumetric efficiency in the standard powerband go down. This means the ignition timing on the standard calibration is now further from MBT. This causes EGT's to actually increase, something you wouldn't prefer. That is why the tune needs to be revised to make sure these things are taken care of.
Unless you did a full engine build capable to rev to at LEAST 8,000rpm or more and are flowing more than around 50lb/min, the SIZEABLE gains from these manifolds will not be seen.
The main purpose for our development was greater fuel supply. Now with some recent tests, there may be alternatives that can supply the majority of users with adequate fuel without the need of the port injection add-on. Like mentioned, the only people that would see a benefit are people with big builds and there aren't really that many of them out there, not enough to justify the cost of producing the product. Especially when the majority of the customers may lose spoolup and really see no gain for their investment other than runner flap delete.
The engineers are still working on the product but if they decide it may not benefit our customers without pouring a lot if snake oil all over the marketing, it's not a product we will sell to our customers. We'll have to see how their development goes.
If you want to do a fair comparison to see natural gains of one of these style manifolds, make sure it's done on the same day, same weather, and same dyno. Also make sure ignition advance is reduced enough to eliminate ignition retard from knock during both tests but keep the same ignition advance tune for both tests. Air intake temps, boost and fuel curves need to be mirror images. This leaves only the volumetric efficiency and mass flow as the true measured variable. This can be measured and compared on MAF cars. If it truly helps improve the engines natural ability to flow more, this will show it.
On a small turbo setup like a K04 or smaller, the true culprit to reducing your engines ability to flow is the turbos turbine housing. It starts creating so much back pressure at high boost that it begins to block it's own flow. So when the exabust valves open and try to expel all of the old burnt exhaust gases, it can't. This leaves some if the old inert gases in the cylinders while the new fresh air is being forced in. This is where the volumetric efficiency of the engine takes a nose dive.
For those who don't know, volumetric efficiency is the engines ability to flow it's natural displacement of volume. The engine has 2.0 liters of volume but if you can only fill the cylinders with 1.8 liters of fresh air/fuel during every cycle it's only using 90% of it's volume. So we would say the VE is only 90% at that cycle. The VE will vary at different RPM ranges on each setup. Yes, the right design can see VE greater than 100%
My best example of the turbos back pressure starting to ruin the engines VE,lol:
On a small turbo setup like a K04 or smaller, the true culprit to reducing your engines ability to flow is the turbos turbine housing. It starts creating so much back pressure at high boost that it begins to block it's own flow. So when the exabust valves open and try to expel all of the old burnt exhaust gases, it can't. This leaves some if the old inert gases in the cylinders while the new fresh air is being forced in. This is where the volumetric efficiency of the engine takes a nose dive.
For those who don't know, volumetric efficiency is the engines ability to flow it's natural displacement of volume. The engine has 2.0 liters of volume but if you can only fill the cylinders with 1.8 liters of fresh air/fuel during every cycle it's only using 90% of it's volume. So we would say the VE is only 90% at that cycle. The VE will vary at different RPM ranges on each setup. Yes, the right design can see VE greater than 100%
My best example of the turbos back pressure starting to ruin the engines VE,lol:
Last edited:
- Status