# N249 delete - Serious debate needed... maybe?



## sferg410 (Oct 23, 2015)

As a fan of removing bits that maybe do not need to be there even if it makes little or no difference, I remain interested in the idea of N249 delete. However there seems to be a very mixed bag of opinions about this and do forgive me if this has been said before, but i think there needs to be proper debate about whether it is a good idea of not.

So N249 delete on a regularly used 225 mk1 TT in good health, good or bad? Pros and cons?


----------



## SpaceHippy1975 (Jun 26, 2017)

Sorry sferg410,

As a Newbie here I have no idea what a N249 delete is, could someone explain?! 

Cheers,

Keith.


----------



## SpaceHippy1975 (Jun 26, 2017)

Sorry!

Just googled it! 

Now have some idea what it all about!

Keith.


----------



## Gtturbo (Jan 7, 2017)

Most remove n249 on the bad advice that it can increase bhp.

Most remove it because they rather remove stuff than fix 20p worth of vacuum pipe


----------



## 1781cc (Jan 25, 2015)

You don't have facts to prove why "most" remove it, multiple people have multiple reasons, some not outlined in your post


----------



## sferg410 (Oct 23, 2015)

1781cc said:


> You don't have facts to prove why "most" remove it, multiple people have multiple reasons, some not outlined in your post


Fair comment 1781, but i have requested debate. What is your arguement... good or bad etc...


----------



## sferg410 (Oct 23, 2015)

Gtturbo said:


> Most remove n249 on the bad advice that it can increase bhp.
> 
> Most remove it because they rather remove stuff than fix 20p worth of vacuum pipe


So your opinion Gtturbo is - bad? Did you vote?


----------



## stevov (Jun 15, 2016)

I ran a 440/450 evo 5 as a daily driver for 10 years. When I bought my roadster and saw the mess that was n249 and that abomination of vacuum and crankcase ventilation hoses and compared it to the evo I just ripped it all out. Next is relocate the dv to the cold side. Why you would divert the hottest air in the pressure side of the turbo back to the intake and at the same time worry about cold air intake is beyond me. Evo 8/9/10 steel dump valve fitted the correct way on the cold side is the next step.


----------



## Delta4 (Jun 19, 2015)

Try it yourself and form your own opinion, you don't need to remove anything just extend one vac pipe to the DV and no it won't increase the bhp.


----------



## sferg410 (Oct 23, 2015)

stevov said:


> I ran a 440/450 evo 5 as a daily driver for 10 years. When I bought my roadster and saw the mess that was n249 and that abomination of vacuum and crankcase ventilation hoses and compared it to the evo I just ripped it all out. Next is relocate the dv to the cold side. Why you would divert the hottest air in the pressure side of the turbo back to the intake and at the same time worry about cold air intake is beyond me. Evo 8/9/10 steel dump valve fitted the correct way on the cold side is the next step.


Did you vote?


----------



## sferg410 (Oct 23, 2015)

Delta4 said:


> Try it yourself and form your own opinion, you don't need to remove anything just extend one vac pipe to the DV and no it won't increase the bhp.


This is not about me - mine is relocated. It is to get an overall opinion on something that seems to split opinion the most.
Did you vote?
What is your opinion Delta4?


----------



## Pow3rL3ss (Dec 15, 2008)

Mine was removed to tidy the engine bay, it wasn't my idea was the garage I use.

I've not noticed any difference whatsoever, apart from a tidier engine bay


----------



## Delta4 (Jun 19, 2015)

No i did'nt vote, it's pointless, my opinion is if my car implodes due to me taking the n249 it's my business i knew exactly what i was doing and why i done it, i was'nt trying to save 20p, my car has also been mapped by wak i can't remember whether i took it off before or after does not matter now.


----------



## 1781cc (Jan 25, 2015)

This is like the perennial argument about the counterweight / harmonic damper... there are those that do their own thing and those that don't, some freak out if you take it off with the argument that Audi put it there for a reason, Audi also put cheating software on their cars, lied about the carbon problem on FSI engines and a whole pile of other stuff.

Ultimately it's your car and up to you what you do with it, research pros/cons and make your own choice.


----------



## ProjectMick (Sep 29, 2015)

To be honest removing it has no real benefits - for the time it takes to remove it you could just replace any split hoses that are causing leaks.

Mine is relocated and running just fine with new silicone vacuum lines used as preventative maintenance.

Although it most probably won't destroy your car removing it, there have been idle issues and similar things reported on the Vortex forums.

Similar to the catch can PCV delete argument in many ways.


----------



## SamDorey (Dec 31, 2016)

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthrea ... -not-do-it


----------



## TT Tom TT (Oct 9, 2015)

I swear the TT got better fuel economy when I had my N249 installed and slightly more torque when being driven lightly... I still want to find a replacement.


----------



## ProjectMick (Sep 29, 2015)

TT Tom TT said:


> I swear the TT got better fuel economy when I had my N249 installed and slightly more torque when being driven lightly... I still want to find a replacement.


That type of thing was what was reported on Vortex. Not saying deleting will kill your turbo instantly but there do seem to be some small issues with it.

Not a life threatening problem though to be fair, you can still drive around happily enough without it. Same with the EVAP delete etc as well.


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

Review and decide for yourself.

In my experience it opens the dv much faster than relying on manifold vacuum, it's there to reduce lag.

And had almost never had a leak in any of the many leak tests I've done.


----------



## 1781cc (Jan 25, 2015)

Wak said:


> In my experience it opens the dv much faster than relying on manifold vacuum, it's there to reduce lag.


And this further backs up my decision to remove it, my car is track only, when I am on track I am always, always in the powerband and rarely rely on low revs and waiting for the turbo lag to pass.

If it cuts the life of my turbo, so be it, I'll just have to upgrade :twisted:

And for me the positives are: quicker access to coil plugs and spark plugs, less stuff to work around if I need to fix something on track, its all about ease of use. Hell, I can even have the whole front bumper off in 6 screws and 2 bolts, its all about simplification.


----------



## desertstorm (Apr 25, 2017)

I asked my tuner about removing it and he said to leave it. Has no real downsides with a standard engine. Apparently on cars with bigger turbo upgrades it can cause issues. I am considering moving it off the top of the engine and resiting it out of the way though to tidy up the engine a bit and make access to the coils / plugs a bit easier.


----------



## Madmax199 (Jun 14, 2015)

1781cc said:


> *
> If it cuts the life of my turbo, so be it, I'll just have to upgrade* :twisted:
> 
> And for me the positives are: quicker access to coil plugs and spark plugs, less stuff to work around if I need to fix something on track, its all about ease of use. Hell, I can even have the whole front bumper off in 6 screws and 2 bolts, its all about simplification.


It is not going to affect the life of your turbo one bit. The damn thing is another failed attempt by Vag engineers to make a better wheel. It complicates simple things that works flawlessly in any other turbocharged car -- add a half dozen mechanical failure points -- plus one electrical valve to fail and malfunction. What's wrong with normal uninterrupted natural vacuum control to a DV? Absolutely nothing!!!

PS: Look around all the other turbocharged engine of that era, many of them much more advanced, efficient, and powerful. See how many run an electrical control valve in between their compressor bypass valve and a direct vacuum source. Damn thing is an epic fail!!!


----------



## 1781cc (Jan 25, 2015)

Madmax199 said:


> 1781cc said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


I was being sarcastic mate, but yes, I agree with all that you just wrote, my twin turbo supra had none of this crap and worked like a dream


----------



## 3TT3 (Aug 30, 2014)

Wak said:


>


Thats almost exactly how I would have described the N249 operation :lol:  :wink:


----------



## longodds (May 8, 2014)

Wak said:


> Review and decide for yourself.
> 
> In my experience it opens the dv much faster than relying on manifold vacuum, it's there to reduce lag.
> 
> And had almost never had a leak in any of the many leak tests I've done.


That's a very educative read. [smiley=book2.gif]


----------



## sferg410 (Oct 23, 2015)

1781cc said:


> Wak said:
> 
> 
> > In my experience it opens the dv much faster than relying on manifold vacuum, it's there to reduce lag.
> ...


I did actually ask for opinions based on an every day use car, not a track car.


----------



## 1781cc (Jan 25, 2015)

Actually, you said regular use, but if you meant non-track I'll bow out now


----------



## sferg410 (Oct 23, 2015)

1781cc said:


> Actually, you said regular use, but if you meant non-track I'll bow out now


OK i didn't say non track, but i did mean a daily use road car.


----------



## stevov (Jun 15, 2016)

Madmax199 said:


> 1781cc said:
> 
> 
> > *
> ...


Agree 100%.overengineered with multiple additional points of failure.


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

I never understand the basis of comments like that !

How many breather parts have upgraded replacements .... lots

How many n249 Assembly have upgraded replacements -- none !

It's like a 1/1000 failure rate and the 1-2, I've seen have been through gorilla handed mechanics breaking bits.

I'm not coming from the angle of being a single car owner with my own unique experience to share, i see and leak test virtually every turbo TT that comes to me.

Taking off an advanced form of anti-lag device for aesthetics is one thing and taking it off because it was fine in the good old days is ok too old timer ! 

Realistically it's not going to cause you problems to remove it but it is a Step backwards hence relocate it for aesthetics is my recommendation.

You can take the horse to water but ....


----------



## Mondo (Feb 20, 2009)

1781cc said:


> ...for me the positives are: quicker access to coil plugs and spark plugs, less stuff to work around if I need to fix something...


Quite agree. And not being a track monkey I've just relocated the gubbins out of sight in front of the battery. 

Plus Wak told me to leave it on, and I always do what the Wakmeister says.


----------



## BadNun (Mar 11, 2016)

This was on my to do list as my second TT had it removed and it was fine. Reading this thread and other info i have now decided to relocate it.


----------

