lookforjoe Posted April 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 1, 2011 Long runner version, I believe Aaron saw a 30% flow increase across all runners over the stock manifold when he compared flow bench data. I am using a BorgWarner K24, which I am told is pretty effficent up to the low 20's in terms of psi. I have yet to find a compressor map for it but some posts on here indicate it flows to 537 cfm but without a map it doesn't help much ... Makes sense, for you, with the shorter runners you'd be losing bottom end. There is no doubt the stock runners, which are around 13", are useless for good top end breathing. I felt an immediate difference the first time I put it on. Finally have all the welding & port issues resolved, so I'm looking forward to getting mine back on the car. My turbo flows over 100cfm more than that, and the exhaust side housing is AR.73 (10cm2). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted April 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 Got the manifold back on today now I need to alter the cam timing & the tune, to adjust for the loss of low end. EDIT: the cam timing from : EXH 2º ADV INT 2º Retard to: EXH 4º ADV INT 0º Above with IPD tool See how that goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maciekb2002 Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 get use to lazy boost. That how my car is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikS Posted April 3, 2011 Report Share Posted April 3, 2011 get use to lazy boost. That how my car is. Did you also go to a large plenum intake manifold maciej? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fischmama Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Hussein, I figure you might like to see the difference between an 02 (and older) and R block (maybe newer 2.5t aswell) PCV vent on the block. The entire PCV box seems to be larger. I wonder how much of difference this makes. 02 B5234T3 04 B5254T4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted April 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Hussein, I figure you might like to see the difference between an 02 (and older) and R block (maybe newer 2.5t aswell) PCV vent on the block. The entire PCV box seems to be larger. I wonder how much of difference this makes. Thanks for the pics! That does appear to be a fairly substantial increase - I wonder if the block internal passages are similarly increased, or if it's just the outlet itself.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the commissar! Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Got the manifold back on today now I need to alter the cam timing & the tune, to adjust for the loss of low end. EDIT: (ref link)Moved the cam timing from : EXH 2º ADV INT 2º Retard to: EXH 4º ADV INT 0º See how that goes. Did you ever figure out what stock setting for turbos are? I recently (Friday) moved from EX +4(IPD) IN +3(IPD to EX +2.5(IPD) IN +2.5 (IPD) It helped smooth the power band out with the most recent revision to my TT maps. Peeking at those you posted here last week helped a lot with the ignition maps...Thanks! I do miss the raw power down low that the more advanced settings had...maybe when I get the insides beefed up I can go back...for now, my tires will last longer ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johann Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Hussein, I figure you might like to see the difference between an 02 (and older) and R block (maybe newer 2.5t aswell) PCV vent on the block. The entire PCV box seems to be larger. I wonder how much of difference this makes. The box itself is larger but the block connection only appears to be larger. It was changed to prepare for RNC style PCV systems. Starting 2004 the short block is casted in such a way that it suits both RN and RNC engine's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted April 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Did you ever figure out what stock setting for turbos are? I recently (Friday) moved from EX +4(IPD) IN +3(IPD to EX +2.5(IPD) IN +2.5 (IPD) It helped smooth the power band out with the most recent revision to my TT maps. Peeking at those you posted here last week helped a lot with the ignition maps...Thanks! I do miss the raw power down low that the more advanced settings had...maybe when I get the insides beefed up I can go back...for now, my tires will last longer No, not relative to the IPD tool. Robert posted some useful info on the NA cam timing, however. I need to move mine around some more. Glad the maps gave you some reference assistance The box itself is larger but the block connection only appears to be larger. It was changed to prepare for RNC style PCV systems. Starting 2004 the short block is casted in such a way that it suits both RN and RNC engine's. AHA! Thanks for that - it did seem odd that the illustrated hose was larger at the block, then shrunk down to close to the earlier size at the breather box.. Quirk from this morning - 4th gear, dip in timing @ 5400rpm - happens in lower gears too. Since putting the new manifold, I've been getting some unstable boost control - pulsation or flutter - not sure what to do about it. You can see it in the uneven MAF line (orange) I'm waiting for a stiffer Greddy BOV spring - I had the crank the current one almost all the way in to maintain over 20psi after installing the Garrett 60-1 compressor. Previous Maps don't see anything blatant in the current fuel / ign maps that could point to the timing dip.. I have been progressively pulling timing in the upper ranges to see if it improves overall timing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fischmama Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 The box itself is larger but the block connection only appears to be larger. It was changed to prepare for RNC style PCV systems. Starting 2004 the short block is casted in such a way that it suits both RN and RNC engine's. Interesting, I did not have the box off so I could not verify it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted April 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 EDIT: (ref link)Moved the cam timing from : EXH 2º ADV INT 2º Retard to: EXH 4º ADV INT 0º Above with IPD tool See how that goes. Moved Intake back to 4º retard, based on Lucky's evaluations. Exh still @ 4º ADV for now. Now I'm confused as to whether I've reduced or increased overlap Still have the timing pull 5400rpm, even @ 17psi 4th 3-4th It's only about a 100rpm window - just can't figure where the anomaly lies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted April 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Dicked around with the fuel & ign maps last night. Still have that dip around 5400rpm. Also still too rich overall @ WOT Also with the cam timing @ (IPD) Exh 4º ADV Int 4º RET, the idle vacuum has dropped from 20" to 18" - not sure if that means I have more or less overlap now Idle doesn't feel quite right - a tad 'lopey", perhaps. I may ADV the intake a couple of degrees again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the commissar! Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 You got me on the overlap vs vacuum...I think it is harder to figure than it first appears due to exhaust back pressure and back filling cylinders etc...gives me a headache when I think about it My idle has been lopey since I got TT, same with running rich at WOT. I think I can fix the running rich in the fuel maps but not sure about the lopey idle...could it be that the ECU can't decide which block it wants to be in making it bounce around since each of the three maps are layed out on a different grid of load x RPM ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookforjoe Posted April 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 You got me on the overlap vs vacuum...I think it is harder to figure than it first appears due to exhaust back pressure and back filling cylinders etc...gives me a headache when I think about it My idle has been lopey since I got TT, same with running rich at WOT. I think I can fix the running rich in the fuel maps but not sure about the lopey idle...could it be that the ECU can't decide which block it wants to be in making it bounce around since each of the three maps are layed out on a different grid of load x RPM ? Idle shouldn't be lopey - mine was fine until I moved the cams. You can always PM me screen shots of your maps if you need assistance. You should have standardized the load & rpm maps so that they all equate - did you alter the scaling? Seem to be making some progress on evening out the timing, albeit at 18psi (data log underreports) - but now the boost flutters when at it's peak - I swapped out the Greddy spring for the stiffer version today - clearly still needs adjustment. Seems to show up under the MAF scale, the boost appears level in the log, but it was pulsing! reduced timing in the 56-62% range, that seems to be the ticket as far as the timing dip I had @ 5400rpm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sconeman Posted April 6, 2011 Report Share Posted April 6, 2011 Hussein, I figure you might like to see the difference between an 02 (and older) and R block (maybe newer 2.5t aswell) PCV vent on the block. The entire PCV box seems to be larger. I wonder how much of difference this makes. 02 B5234T3 04 B5254T4 I believe the PCV kits that are sold now have been updated with the larger opening on the box. The Box and that hose were the same between the 02 and the 95 engines. (I replaced the entire PCV system less than 2 years ago on the 95) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.