rjjones Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 In particular I'm interested to hear about the EIP turbo Stage 1 and Stage 2:- R32 EIP Turbo - click There's not much info on the webiste though. I'm going to contact them, but was wondering whether anyone here had any first hand experience?? Stage 4 sounds a bit scary at 600BHP!! I heard a while back that AMD were developing a turbo system for the R, but I've not heard anything recently. Have they actually come out with this yet? Grateful for any info on this..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gti_Fly Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 The current twin turbo set up's for R32's are only available for LHD cars. I believe this is why AMD haven't gone any further than Stage3 yet. So far we've only seen a handful of cars go down the supercharging route (in uk), with realistic power of approx 300bhp+ I saw the HGP(??) R32 at Gti International this year, and the owner had spent SERIOUS dosh on it.. This type of conversion turns a decent road car into something that is more like a drag car only... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMeanBob Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 There's not too much info about the EIP stage 1 and 2 yet as they are still not released. EIP are planning to make them RHD compatible however so that shouldn't be an issue. Price will be in the order of $8k-9k I believe. Rich at EIP reassures us that both Stage I & II would allow the car still to be used as a daily driver. There is also an optional boost controller...so when you don't need or want the power, you can dial the turbo right down. I'm not sure what happened to AMD's bi-turbo conversion. It used to be listed on the UK website, by mysteriously vanished about 6 months ago. I wonder if they've decided tat its not worth the R&D for the small number of UK cars that would actually be interested. Of note, the US AMD arm still has it listed, and I also held rumblings of continuing development on this front (probably complete hearsay however). The HGP and HPA modifications are probably only suitable for dragging...I think it would render the car almost unusable day to day... b0b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjjones Posted October 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Thanks for the replies. I was very interested in the supercharging route - VF Engineering etc. A supercharger seems to be the ideal answer to the slightly weak top end on the R32 - it wouldn't give much boost low down then the boost would increase with the revs. But so far the results seem to be a bit of an anti-climax . Even though the VF stage II claims something like 350bhp, the cars don't seem to be "that much" quicker - people with just a chip, exhaust and CAI seem to be not that much off the pace - this would put me off spending the extra just to get a little gain. If anyone has any first hand experience to contradict this then feel free to correct me on that one!! I'm definitely not thinking about going down the twin-turbo route - apart from anything else, I just couldn't afford it! Although HPA claim that their TT R32 can be used as a daily driver, I wouldn't be so confident until the cars have covered a lot more miles - like 50,000+. I only do about 7 to 8K miles a year, but the running costs/insurance on something like that would be crippling (that's without the inital lay-out for such a system). So that's out of the question, for me anyway I'm looking into a reliable single turbo system (without too much lag) that would give you that extra kick in the back and maybe around 375 to 400bhp. My understanding is that the EIP stage I/II systems are just single turbo - which would suit my requirements better and be more realistic for daily driving. The optional boost controller sounds like a good idea - just turn it up when you feel like having some fun. I don't know whether this system would be available for the UK though? I understand that HPA are going to produce a single turbo set-up too, which will be maybe around the 400bhp mark. Will that be available in RHD form for the UK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMeanBob Posted October 24, 2004 Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Not sure about HPA's single turbo yet...the boost controller (as far as I know) would be an option with either US or UK. I was considering the Supercharger for a while. It supposedly allows the car to retain a lot of its stock characteristics. You effectively gain a good bit of power across the whole range. That's why a lot of people that have had it installed don't feel that it makes a huge difference. I think they are expecting the huge thrust that you get when the turbo kicks in. i.e. Although the car IS faster...it supposedly doesn't FEEL faster. Obviously the turbo route gives you the big boost feeling, which is gonna make the car feel faster. The reason I quite like the turbo is the range of potential gains available. As you noted, the VF kit puts the .:R in the region of 300-350, but if you really wanted to go higher...I think you are stuck. With the EIP turbo kits, you are talking 300-400 easily. However, the VF kit is cheaper, and supposedly easier to install/uninstall. I've been thinking about this for a wee while now, and not 100% sure what I would go for. At the moment, the EIP seems like a good option, as I could run it at 300bhp and take it up in the future if need be. Remember that past 300bhp is a big gain (25%+). Its gonna be a different car... b0b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjjones Posted October 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Thanks Bob I think that's part of the problem (depending on how you view things) with the supercharger. You don't get the sudden kick in the back and therefore your fooled into thinking that it's not that fast - even if it is. What worried me is that the quarter mile times of some of the VF Stage II cars didn't seem that fast. Of course a lot of this could be down to driver skill / atmospheric conditions etc. I did read somewhere (can't remember where now) about a VF Stage II R32 not being able to pull much on an R32 with chip, zorst and CAI - this was actually on the road at higher speeds - where driver skill should factor less into it. It could be that the driver of the VF R32 just wasn't in the power band though. I'm quite happy with the stock R32 low down in the rev range - it's got loads of torque. What I'm looking for is something that will keep the low-end more or less the same and then increase the top-end performance. I've driven an AMD stage III car, and whilst it was obviously faster, it didn't feel like it had 25% more power (300 as against 240). To be honest it didn't feel like a whole new car to me at all. The R32 feels quite well sorted as standard and I just feel like it could do with quite a bit more power to make it into the car it should be - it has a lot of potential in my mind. I think that the standard chassis can handle quite a bit more power - but if I was going to increase to 350 to 400bhp I would probably fit coilovers and uprate the brakes. My ideal car would have the low-end grunt of the standard car (to make driving around town easy) and then if you need it the top-end shove is there if you change down to put it into the power band. What I don't want is a car with a lot of turbo lag and then it kicks in with too much of a rush - making it difficult to drive safely - particularly coming out of corners. I hope this makes sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjjones Posted October 24, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2004 Just thinking about it, I don't think that the R32 would suffer the same turbo lag as say a 2.0l turbo because the extra displacement gives you a good base to start with. Obviously there would be lag with a BIG turbo, but I would think that it wouldn't be as apparent as it would be with an engine with a lot less displacement. Does this make sense? My guess is that you wouldn't need a BIG turbo for the R32 to give you a decent amount of power anyway (unlike a 1.8 or 2.0 litre engine). I don't really know enough about it though - anyone care to comment on this side of things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32Ash Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Lowering the compression to suit the turbo would lose some of the bottom end power though. Also, the turbo would need to be of a reasonable size to pump enough vloume for 3.2l engine I would have thought (?). On the subject of superchargers v turbo's, I think the supercharger is an easier option due to not having to lower the compression if you were only going to use a lowish boost pressure. Of course you could go down the same route with a turbo, but would the lack of extra power at the bottom end be worth it then?. I think too that you can't run the same boost pressure on a turbo as you can on a supercharger without lowering the compression, due to the higher charge temperatures causing knock/detonation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjjones Posted October 25, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Could be a good point about the size of the turbo. I don't know enough about the subject. Anyone care to clarify this? I understand that the Stage I EIP turbo is installed without a head spacer (i.e. without lowering the compression) and as far as I know it's just bolt on. I don't know yet what sort of gain in power can be expected from this set-up though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjjones Posted October 25, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 The EIP stage I turbo system includes an intercooler - will this help to prevent detonation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mb Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 As I understand it, the bigger the turbo, the more volume of air it will shift (cfm ?) and hence the greater the ultimate potential output. However, because a turbo is driven by exhaust gas you need to push more gas through a bigger turbo to make it spin up and so a bigger turbo will have more lag, so like most things mechanical it is a matter of balance - especially as teh rest of the engine has to make use of all that air. I remember driving a friends 944 turbo which was a "rubber band" car with a lot of lag then a big kick, I think modern cars tend to use smaller turbos now to reduce lag (design is probably more efficient nowadays too) I think the Lotus Carlton had twin sequential turbos, with a small turbo boosting at low rpm before teh bigger one took over, and some V engines (RS6 I think is one) has twin turbos one on each cylinder bank again to reduce lag. Hope this makes sense and is fairly correct - I hav enever owned a turbo car, but helped some one turbo a bike once (it blew to bits a few times) Cheers Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mb Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Intercooler attempts to cool the compressed (and therefore heated air) before it enters the engine, I think this is more because the cooler the inlet charge the denser the air and so the more O2 in teh air - the big advantage of nitrous is it greatly cools the inlet charge (because it was compressed and is being decompressed) and so allows you to get a load more O2 in (which it handily also supplies). You (try to - in teh case with the bike) prevent detonation by lowering teh compression ratio (which adds to the lag..), using fuel additives or in the old days reducing teh ignition timing - but this is all electronically managed now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mb Posted October 25, 2004 Report Share Posted October 25, 2004 Thinking about it a little more, the intercooler by reducing intake temperature WILL help to reduce the onset of detonation. I think turbos are actually best suited for use at WOT - which is why they are popular on lorries etc. as they are very efficient when they are at the correct design's flow rate, so choosing the correct size turbo is probably about working out the amount of gas the engine will flow most of teh time and setting it there - more of a compromise on a sports car than a lorry or yacht ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjgreen4 Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Anyone noticed that the R32 that is tested in the video of EIP's 600 bhp is front wheel drive - thought they where 4 wheel drive or is it just a mk 4 with a r32 power plant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazza_g Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 The R32 is front wheel drive for most of the time until the Haldex system sends some power to the rears if needed for traction reasons. I also understand that when the car is dyno'd on a 2wd rolling road the Haldex system is disabled ensuring all the power is transmitted forward, thus preventing any disasters ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjgreen4 Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 is that the same for mine then or is the transmission totally different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 Having the DSG gearbox you are limited to the amount of torque you can push through the car. I don't know the limits though, but many TT & A3 drivers have discussed this as a limitation with their cars & the option to tune anything. Hope this helps? Al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjjones Posted October 26, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 [ QUOTE ] is that the same for mine then or is the transmission totally different [/ QUOTE ] Your car uses the same Haldex system. The programming of the way it distributes the power under different conditions may be slightly different, but otherwise it is the same system. The car is front wheel drive until:- 1. The system detects more than 15 degrees of slip in the front wheels (comparing the speed of the front wheels to the rear wheels) - that's less than a 20th of a revolution. 2. I believe that the system also detects conditions that might require power to transfer to the rear wheels. I think this is based on a number of sensors, which will include amount of throttle used, steering input etc. An example might be if you floor it in 1st or 2nd gear; the system predicts that it will need to transfer drive to the rear wheels to prevent the front wheels losing traction. I think that this is why very often you don't notice the front wheels struggling to cope with the power because the drive is already being distributed more to the rear. I forget now the percentage of drive that can be transferred to the rear wheels if necessary, but it's quite a high percentage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smudge Posted October 26, 2004 Report Share Posted October 26, 2004 [ QUOTE ] I forget now the percentage of drive that can be transferred to the rear wheels if necessary, but it's quite a high percentage. [/ QUOTE ] Max 40% at the rear IIRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjjones Posted October 27, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2004 [/ QUOTE ] Max 40% at the rear IIRC. [/ QUOTE ] I wasn't sure about this figure and so I asked the Haldex AWD Club Tech forum what the maximium percentage of drive that can be sent to the rear wheels is. This is the answer I got (verbatim):- <font color="blue"> "In a situation where you would have absolutely no friction on the front wheels you have 100% to the rear but in normal driving situations it will be around 55-60% maybe a little more based on the weight transfer in your vehicle." </font> http://www.haldex-traction.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roughnec Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 http://www.tyresmoke.net/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/931986/an/0/page/0#931986 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roughnec Posted September 11, 2006 Report Share Posted September 11, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R32TIM Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 just to add the rear wheels can't spin any faster than the front... ..you are talking about torque. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKLooney Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 [ QUOTE ] Having the DSG gearbox you are limited to the amount of torque you can push through the car. I don't know the limits though, but many TT & A3 drivers have discussed this as a limitation with their cars & the option to tune anything. [/ QUOTE ] The gearbox starts to disintegrate at 350Nm, don't think a turbo would be a good idea on a DSG equipped .:R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roughnec Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Well tell that to vagtech with a tt dsg 400 0-62= 3.8 1/4 mile standing start = 11.8 Dsg is boring unless ur old =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now