# Hybrid K04 314 bhp update



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

What started off as a simple upgrade turned into a development project, revealing the unexpected potential of the K04!! It all started in late December 2011 and after six months I am now in a position to report a long term assessment of the most enjoyable modification I've been involved in with my TT, consisting of the following changes.

Bespoke one-off K04 hybrid turbo
Painstaking road and chassis dyno mapping which required 28 tweaks before satisfying my personal requirements 
Forge Motorsport turbo intake hose
ZF Sachs racing single mass lightweight flywheel and clutch assembly 
Snow performance water/methanol injection
Badger 5 inlet manifold to cylinder head phenolic thermal barrier

[Modifications previously fitted to my May 2000 225 Quattro Coupe: Koni Sport adjustable dampers - Eibach Pro springs - Blue Haldex performance controller - upgraded anti roll bars - Brembo brakes with Ferodo DS2500 pads]

The car is very quick and well behaved, and combined with the previous suspension, brake and transmission modifications I am able to take advantage of the full potential of 314 bhp. There is only a trace of turbo lag (less than a standard 225) and power is delivered with a neck jerking urgency, highlighting once again that second gear is far too low.

My oil consumption is as before&#8230;no oil added in six months and none expected between oil changes, as before. I use Miller's competition fully synthetic engine oil 5W/40...Triple Ester, specifically formulated for very high performance Motorsport and track day use.

Note&#8230;why chase your tail bowing down to all the palaver about Audi approved engine oil when you can simply buy far superior oil as used by the drivers at the sharp end of engine performance and protection.

I still love the race clutch which bites like an angry Rottweiler and enables lightening gear changes when pushing hard. Its on/off character suits me just fine and provides me with a pinch of nostalgia. The slight chatter from the gearbox with this setup does not bother me and in any case is not audible with the clutch pedal depressed or when gears are engaged or the car is moving. The clutch pedal resistance is slightly heavier. The fact that the engine is much more able to pick up revs and therefore more conducive to increased performance is more than justification for a lightweight competition single mass flywheel and competion clutch.

A word about the ZF Sachs setup which is to be used 'for racing only' (etched on the metal); to make sure everything would be compatible my tuner made detailed measurements and a drawing before fitting it to my TT. Moving off using a racing clutch can result in stalling (three times in the first 2 days lol&#8230;none after that!).

It was not long before my Liquid TT indicated that turbo intake temperatures were too high for my liking and I decided to fit a Snow Performance water/methanol injection system along with the Badger 5 thermal barrier. The work was carried out by my tuner, including everything referred to above. This enabled him to push the map further and my air intake temperatures have been reduced to the low twenties in any conditions. I've been out on drives with like minded colleagues when ambient temperatures have been high [two occasions but hoping for a good summer lol] and intake temperatures remained stable and within a safe area.

I always use Shell V-power and Millers Octane Boost and did so for the chassis dyno run which produced 314 bhp at 5,180 rpm.

It's now more so possible to steer on the throttle which adds another dimension to that which I had before the latest engine modifications. The brakes are still coping well thanks to Brembo and DS2500 pads all round. It's a good feeling to want to drive my TT at every opportunity; and after 12 years of ownership of this particular TT I still look back over my shoulder after parking and walking away!!

I'm glad to report that reliability has been 100% and performance has been consistent with no 'off days'.

Thanks Audi for a superb basis to build on.

Happy days

Joe


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Millers Nanotech is your next step :wink:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

jamman said:


> Millers Nanotech is your next step :wink:


Hi James

I forgot about that. You mentioned it a while back. As it happens I'm on my last two 500 ml bottles of the 'old' stuff. I'll try your suggestion this time round. Hope it mixes well with methanol :roll: I like my tyres to be in conact with the road if possible :lol:

Joe


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

jamman said:


> Millers Nanotech is your next step :wink:


James, I've misunderstood your post. Not having looked up Nanotech I assumed it was a petrol additive to raise octane even further. I'll still look into it but I really am happy with the Miller's oil I'm already using.

Joe


----------



## Mondo (Feb 20, 2009)

Nice one, Joe. Glad it's all working out. A hybrid is on my distant future list, despite all the ribbing I get about BTs from certain members... :wink:

Need to sort my brakes out first. :?


----------



## cookbot (Apr 19, 2011)

My turbo is knackered so I've ordered a china turbo to keep me going until I can get the original one made into a hybrid. So it seems you're enjoying it!


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

cookbot said:


> My turbo is knackered so I've ordered a china turbo to keep me going until I can get the original one made into a hybrid. So it seems you're enjoying it!


I am indeed. I've never been happier with every aspect of my iconic TT  If you need to, send me a PM.

Joe


----------



## TTSPORT666 (Dec 1, 2011)

Great report Joe,and well done on your reliable 315bhp.
I'm a believer in hybrid turbo's and it sounds like you have a great linear delivery of power, and cooling under control. You using standard internals? 

Damien.


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

TTSPORT666 said:


> Great report Joe,and well done on your reliable 315bhp.
> I'm a believer in hybrid turbo's and it sounds like you have a great linear delivery of power, and cooling under control. You using standard internals?
> 
> Damien.


Hi Damien

Yes, I'm using standard internals. The engine is an APX.

Joe


----------



## stewbieTT (Jun 23, 2012)

I've never seen a definitive list of mods for going hybrid K04, I assume you need larger injectors?

Also are you on the standard exhaust manifold? If so 318 is a good figure and gives me some hope that K04 hybrid is a good way forward


----------



## Pugwash69 (Jun 12, 2012)

TTCool said:


> Note&#8230;why chase your tail bowing down to all the palaver about Audi approved engine oil when you can simply buy far superior oil as used by the drivers at the sharp end of engine performance and protection.


Does it make much difference? I won't suggest I know TT internals, but I know some idiot I bought my bike from had fully-synth oil inside and the clutch was slipping. First thing I did was replace with semi-synth, as suggested by the manufacturer and approved by those in the know.


----------



## cookbot (Apr 19, 2011)

So where did you get your turbo reworked into a hybrid?


----------



## LOWTT225 (Oct 13, 2008)

Hi joe mines running better than ever too, although I still haven't had it mapped for the hybrid and injectors yet. Think I'll go and see mark who done yours


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

LOWTT225 said:


> Hi joe mines running better than ever too, although I still haven't had it mapped for the hybrid and injectors yet. Think I'll go and see mark who done yours


Hi

You will get a first class remap from Mark at Automark, Stokesley. PM me if you need to.

Joe


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

Is this on Standard Injectors? 
Can I see a 002 -031 log?


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

stewbieTT said:


> I've never seen a definitive list of mods for going hybrid K04, I assume you need larger injectors?
> 
> Also are you on the standard exhaust manifold? If so 318 is a good figure and gives me some hope that K04 hybrid is a good way forward


Hi

Larger injectors were not needed. I'm on a standard exhaust manifold; I wanted to avoid the very real possibilty of cracking assocaited with other improved versions. I'm sure 314 bhp is directly related to the skill of the tuner, so not a case of any tuner will do. Not all hybrid K04 turbos are the same. The list of mods is all that was needed to achieve what we did. An existing engine in good fettle with no issues and good compressions is also essential.

Joe


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Wak said:


> Is this on Standard Injectors?
> Can I see a 002 -031 log?


I know what Waheed is thinking because I'm brainy :lol:

Enjoy your driving Joe...


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

jamman said:


> Wak said:
> 
> 
> > Is this on Standard Injectors?
> ...


What fool told yovu that :wink:


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

YELLOW_TT said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> > Wak said:
> ...


 [smiley=bigcry.gif] [smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Mondo said:


> Nice one, Joe. Glad it's all working out. A hybrid is on my distant future list, despite all the ribbing I get about BTs from certain members... :wink:
> 
> Need to sort my brakes out first. :?


Hi

I can only relate to you my own hybrid experience; power with reliability. A big turbo will give you more straight line power but that's only part of the story. Reliability and _usable power on the twisties _are more important IMO. I was out with the PistonHead boys recently and a BMW M3 reported that he couldn't keep up without making full use of the straights.

Brembos are working for me and Ferodo DS2500 pads are a perfect combination. They are handling any new situation with ease.

Joe


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Pugwash69 said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > Note&#8230;why chase your tail bowing down to all the palaver about Audi approved engine oil when you can simply buy far superior oil as used by the drivers at the sharp end of engine performance and protection.
> ...


Hi

The difference is that the engine is better protected, will last longer and Miller's CFS competition oil helps to produce a little extra performance.

I think even Audi would not suggest you should use their recommended 'road going oil' where substantial increased engine power and vigorous usage applies. In any event an oil which exceeds Audi criteria is a far better way to go if you love your engine  There's no possibilty of any downside IMO.

Joe


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

TTCool said:


> Larger injectors were not needed. I'm on a standard exhaust manifold; I wanted to avoid the very real possibilty of cracking assocaited with other improved versions. I'm sure 314 bhp is directly related to the skill of the tuner,


Joe not trying to rain on your parade and far be it for me to question the tuning gods of Zeus and Thor  when most of us mere mortals are seeing stock injectors with sensible a/f targets maxing out at 280-290 it begs questions on what a/f you are running and what egts are in the strategy appreciating you don't have an egt probe for protection.

You know there are some stock 420cc injectors in the Audi catalog listed against APX which would be perfect for a little overhead over standard for this.

It's for sure a contradiction to suggest wanting to avoid cracking and then have a leaner strategy tune.

You have a Dyno with an a/f plot?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Wak said:


> Is this on Standard Injectors?
> Can I see a 002 -031 log?


Hi Wak

Yes, this is on standard injectors as stated earlier (314 bhp at 5,180 rpm on a chassis dyno run). I don't have a 002-31 log. That is a matter for Mark. I can mention it to him but I know what he'll say :wink: If I did have access to the log you refer to what difference would that make? It would change nothing. Are you saying you can produce even more power with 'uprated' injectors or it's not possible to achieve what we have on standard injectors?

Mark and I have qualified our results with me driving on road tests and not relied entirely on VCDS. PM me if you think you can improve on power.

Joe


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Wak said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > Larger injectors were not needed. I'm on a standard exhaust manifold; I wanted to avoid the very real possibilty of cracking assocaited with other improved versions. I'm sure 314 bhp is directly related to the skill of the tuner,
> ...


Crikey Wak! Have I touched a nerve or two? Calm down :roll: What you write does not bother me one iota. You should direct your rant elsewhere. I'm merely a enthusiastic driver who knows how fast my TT is and I trust Mark implicitly...that's all that matters.

Joe


----------



## Diveratt (Aug 31, 2009)

Your lucky my Bam 225 injectors started maxing out around 280


----------



## TTSPORT666 (Dec 1, 2011)

Joe i don't think Wak meant any harm in what he said. 

Damien.


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

TTSPORT666 said:


> Joe i don't think Wak meant any harm in what he said.
> 
> Damien.


Hi Damien

Point taken. I have emailed my tuner with Wak's post. Hoping for a reply very soon. Thanks for your concern. Don't worry; no fall out at my end.

Regards

Joe


----------



## TT SMITHY (Jan 18, 2011)

most standard injectors will max out around the 280 mark but Zeus AND Thor mapping services
can get extra or maybe you have increase your FPR ?


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

TTCool said:


> Wak said:
> 
> 
> > Is this on Standard Injectors?
> ...


 :lol: If you believe I am talking about power Joe then seriously mistaken for someone looking at reliability and avoiding cracking, you should understand I'm talking about EGT control and management, but I'm not getting into this in any more detail online.

I'm just hope you do have many years of trouble free motoring, If your happy you trust whats been done then thats cool.... Joe cool!



TTCool said:


> Crikey Wak! Have I touched a nerve or two? Calm down :roll: What you write does not bother me one iota. You should direct your rant elsewhere. I'm merely a enthusiastic driver who knows how fast my TT is and I trust Mark implicitly...that's all that matters.
> 
> Joe


Not touching any Nerves Joe, and its not meant to bother you! blimey you are touchy these days :lol: Just highlighting that If something doesnt make sense I'm entitled to ask no?

You'll find I'm very objective and if I've missed something then thats fine always willing to learn.
I'll not say any more I'll keep my thoughts to myself and maybe its just me, I must like my tunes a bit too juicy up top! :roll: :lol:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

This all sounds a bit wacky to me :lol: I'm still waiting for a reply from my tuner.

Joe Cool :wink:


----------



## stewbieTT (Jun 23, 2012)

TTCool said:


> Wak said:
> 
> 
> > Is this on Standard Injectors?
> ...


Interesting... that is quite a low RPM to achieve max power I would have expected something nearer 6000 rpm. Perhaps that explains how they got away with standard injectors due to reduced airflow at lower rpm? Presumably power tails off quickly after 5,200? This isn't necessarily a bad thing as it implies you have good power lower down the rev range whcih will be less laggy than a typical big turbo setup


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

TTCool said:


> Crikey Wak! Have I touched a nerve or two? Calm down :roll: What you write does not bother me one iota. You should direct your rant elsewhere. I'm merely a enthusiastic driver who knows how fast my TT is and I trust Mark implicitly...that's all that matters.
> 
> Joe


Joe 
I think all Wak is worried about is you running lean at the top end.
You have an APX engine which is a good engine but has a narrow band lambda sensor and no EGT probe, therefore it is not as good at correcting any issues with fuelling as a BAM engine.
My 550cc injectors are pretty much running out of puff at 350 bhp so your 386cc injectors are working very hard. Did you upgrade to a 4bar FPR? 
The other thing is, that you may be getting some of your fuelling from your meth spray - thats really good tuning and thats a real advantage of the meth, but if you havent got some built in safeguards like retarding boost if the tank runs dry then you could run into trouble.

Personally I would fit a wideband lambda and EGT gauge just for peace of mind


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Quote "Interesting... that is quite a low RPM to achieve max power I would have expected something nearer 6000 rpm. Perhaps that explains how they got away with standard injectors due to reduced airflow at lower rpm? Presumably power tails off quickly after 5,200? This isn't necessarily a bad thing as it implies you have good power lower down the rev range whcih will be less laggy than a typical big turbo setup " 

Thanks for a more balanced comment. I did ask for power lower down without compromising power at higher revs...oh and 'no' turbo lag. This was due to my wanting to compensate for 'bad' gear ratios. I didn't try to tell him how to achieve this!!! So far as power tailing off is concerned I can assure you that what I can only describe as a second 'seemless' breath between 5,000 and 6500 rpm is proving to be very useful :wink: I've got power everywhere I want it.

My tuner knows about mapping, believe me.

Joe


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Matt B said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > Crikey Wak! Have I touched a nerve or two? Calm down :roll: What you write does not bother me one iota. You should direct your rant elsewhere. I'm merely a enthusiastic driver who knows how fast my TT is and I trust Mark implicitly...that's all that matters.
> ...


That's very interesting, espcially about my methanol injection and fuelling. I don't profess to know anything about the technicalites but I do know what I want with regard to performance and when I'm getting it  . I'm waiting for Mark to address everything talked about. I have two reservoir tanks and a warning light telling me when the tanks are down to one third remaining and another light telling me when injection is happening.

Joe


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

PS Mark would not neglect fuelling at the top end. I'm sure he would regard that as a puerile mistake.

Joe


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

TTCool said:


> PS Mark would not neglect fuelling at the top end. I'm sure he would regard that as a puerile mistake.
> 
> Joe


Joe - It seems like you are getting a bit defensive here. 
I wasnt trying to insult your tuners knowledge. You posted some updates and a couple of people have asked some questions. People arent taking the piss - they only have your interests at heart. My BT build just went pop after about 20,000 miles and if you ask me it was a ticking bomb from the start :?

Chilllllllllll out man


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=151069

Taken from the above thread.

However the main issue with an APX is the fact that it has not got as many sensors that can hold the car back if there is a problem. For example no EGT probe (exhaust gas temperature). Also if a MAF fails on one of these it can cause more issues than a BAM as it often goes un-detected. However if you are sensible with the car - (replace MAF periodically and install an EGT/Air fuel gauge you can monitor any problems yourself and save expensive problems happening)


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Matt B said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > PS Mark would not neglect fuelling at the top end. I'm sure he would regard that as a puerile mistake.
> ...


Sorry to hear about your BT going pop at 20,000 miles. That's a sobering thought for me to ponder. Matt, I am chilled out. It's always a problem when not face to face, as on forums. Eye to eye contact and body language are not present.

Your comments are appreciated

Joe


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Matt B said:


> http://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=151069
> 
> Taken from the above thread.
> 
> However the main issue with an APX is the fact that it has not got as many sensors that can hold the car back if there is a problem. For example no EGT probe (exhaust gas temperature). Also if a MAF fails on one of these it can cause more issues than a BAM as it often goes un-detected. However if you are sensible with the car - (replace MAF periodically and install an EGT/Air fuel gauge you can monitor any problems yourself and save expensive problems happening)


That's a very interesting link to the TT Shop. The conversion looks very professional and well thought out and not too expensive.

Joe


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Good morning

I've spoken at length with my tuner concerning my Hybrid K04 installation; covering all the points raised. Suffice to say I'm a very happy boy...same as I was before this thread expanded. Thank you all for your concerns. It's very nice to know that you are genuinely looking after my interests.

Regards

Joe


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

Hi Wak and TTcool, very interesting thread, I just need some clarification and educating, the term 'cracking' is normally used when describing the molecular seperation of a hydrocarbon into lighter base molecules. If this is what you mean then why is this to be avoided, this is a genuine question which I do not know the answer to, its so that I may better understand what you mean and learn a bit more. Thanks Wak........... [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## nelmanners (Feb 1, 2012)

Hi Joe,

I am glad you have your TT in such shape. I also have a 225 APX 2000 and it's a machine i tell you! I have replaced all my pipes with Forge ones and mine is chipped to 275 Bhp. Its an amazing car and with the blue haldex performance controller the corners are more enjoyable for me! It seems like the APX has so many sensors already! Can't believe The BAM has more, wow!

Thanks For the post! I'm looking forward to get my TT to max performance without reliability issues in the future!

Regards
Werner


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

TTCool said:


> Good morning
> 
> I've spoken at length with my tuner concerning my Hybrid K04 installation; covering all the points raised. Suffice to say I'm a very happy boy...same as I was before this thread expanded. Thank you all for your concerns. It's very nice to know that you are genuinely looking after my interests.
> 
> ...


You could ask what's the point of asking if u don't share the opinion otherwise the thread becomes a bit like Steves Autograph thread and everything becomes a bit overly defensive.


----------



## TT SMITHY (Jan 18, 2011)

TTCool said:


> Good morning
> 
> I've spoken at length with my tuner concerning my Hybrid K04 installation; covering all the points raised. Suffice to say I'm a very happy boy...same as I was before this thread expanded. Thank you all for your concerns. It's very nice to know that you are genuinely looking after my interests.
> 
> ...


Joe whats the deal with this ? i will be running a hybrid but not with stock injectors but
really curious about the explanation you got ?


----------



## Pensive666 (Jun 18, 2011)

Fascinating thread......i must admit to being lost at times in some of the comments, but thats why Wak is Wak, and I am Jon.

My BAM injectors were almost maxing out their duty cycle from my 260bhp stage 1 map (on account of their age/mileage or what have you), something I need to keep on top of.....reminds me its time for a VCDS moment to check how they are running.


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

hi joe......it is fantastic that the car is pleasing your every dream, however unless i am stoned on carrot juice!! your mapper hasn't answered one question asked from varying peeps. if it is a trade secret of his then bloody heck get the hackers in to find out the secret of his success. or.........is it something different entirely and hence why others have asked Q's to clarify.


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)




----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

Hi Joe

Nice graph there, certainly looks like the power is pretty instantaneous. Given the comments about EGT though its a shame the Exhaust temp sensors aint hooked up (I am assuming that 1000C across the run means they aint plugged in)


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Matt B said:


> Hi Joe
> 
> Nice graph there, certainly looks like the power is pretty instantaneous. Given the comments about EGT though its a shame the Exhaust temp sensors aint hooked up (I am assuming that 1000C across the run means they aint plugged in)


Hi

Thanks Matt, I meant everything I wrote in my opening post, the performance is all I could wish for, along with all aspects of the car's behaviour.

Joe


----------



## Mondo (Feb 20, 2009)

Interesting chart. Not that I know diddly about this, and you're evidently a very happy bunny with how she is, but the chart does seem - admittely, to my untrained eye - a bit, well, peaky. I mean, both the torque and BHP build to a peak fairly quickly then tail off equally quickly.

Just for a visual comparison, here's my latest log:








Not saying one's better than the other (although I'd love to touch 300BHP, so that would suggest yours is better!), just different. Personally if you're chuffed with how she feels, excellent! I'm in a similar boat; I love how she feels. Just wish she had a bit more to give. :?

But I'm working on that. :wink:


----------



## L33JSA (Jun 30, 2010)

Hi Joe

I hope you dont take offence at this...but.....unfortunately your graph that your tuner has supplied you with isnt in the slightest bit accurate when it comes to the correlation between HP & Torque which then puts the whole graph into question.

When using the same scale on the graph (which yours isnt for starters) the HP & torque line should cross at 5252rpm.

This is because..

HP = Torque x RPM ÷ 5252

So I'm not sure what you want to make of that but I think I'd be asking questions personally as to why the dyno has given you inaccurate results.

Also 367NM torque (or 270lb/ft) isnt particuarly impressive for a 1.8T motor running supposedly over 300bhp. You'll normally easily get that off a stage 1 map.

Like I say....not wanting to offend you....more educate/advise you.


----------



## dbbloke (Jan 30, 2012)

Certainly an interesting thread. Not much info to go on. As everyone is having a punt, my fiver on your real figures:

Power
BHP at 5180 rpm = 272.8134395
*Max BHP at 5000 rpm = 276.7304356*

Torque
TQ at 4846 rpm = 298.1819191
*Max TQ at 4250 rpm = 319.68776*

Corresponding graph would look something like









Sorry in advance if I'm wrong, my niece is the maths expert not me.


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

As all units are imperial then rpm x pounds feet / 5252 = HP

361.18 N*M = 266.39 lbs ft

so 5180 x 266.39 / 5252 = *262 hp*, but the right hand column next to the graph showed *314.521 hp* at this rpm, To attain *314 hp* at 5180 rpm you would require a torque figure of* 432.486 N*M or 318.986 lbs ft*.........what am I missing guys????Joe's tuners graph does not stack up, software glitch maybe???? :?


----------



## FinTTq (Sep 23, 2010)

I'm running a K04 hybrid turbo on APX engine. After putting 550c injectors, 3" dp, custom remap gave me 295hp(5700rpm) and 400nm (295 lb/ft) of torque. My tuner here in Finland told me that standard injectors are only capable up to 280hp, that is a fact I've also heard from many other people. Also I must ask why you have so little torque? I think unless you drive on a track all the time with your figures it won't be really faster than a standar chipped TT...
Also you need to install an aftermarket EGT sensor and start monitoring. The known problem with K04 hybrid turbos are high egt's when pushed to the limit. If you don't do this you might have a knackered turbo in real short time! 
You should also think about running over 300hp with stock internals (if you are really over 300hp...), I know many run 330-350hp with APX stock internals fine but some haven't had so good luck...


----------



## FinTTq (Sep 23, 2010)

here's my dynorun to compare to yours. I'm really happy with the power delivery, as you can see how linear my torque curve is, it pulls really smoothly from 3000rpm to 5500rpm 8)


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

FinTTq said:


> here's my dynorun to compare to yours. I'm really happy with the power delivery, as you can see how linear my torque curve is, it pulls really smoothly from 3000rpm to 5500rpm 8)


 I just checked your graph and it follows the mathematical formula perfectly to determine hp across every 1000 rpm increment. I'm bored in work... [smiley=zzz.gif]


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

so given the raw facts of math formulas can anyone give undisputable proof that joe's mappers figures are incorrect and give joe actual facts to go back with to ask why it is not as specified on the tin. not a dig joe, more that if the facts and figures are wrong bud you may have spent bucks on a product that does not do as it says on the tin. personally i hope it is just a graph glitch and not a problemo m8ee


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

I think all the info required is in Lees very well put post, I'm sure Joe won't take offence and hopefully his tuner will take the opportunity this time to answer these questions.

The mistake or error perhaps also explains how the tuner was able to claim figures never seen before from standard injectors
in any other setup.

What Joe needs to realise is that none of the posts be it Lee, Wak myself etc are doubting his car or tuner it's just that the details don't quite add up.


----------



## Mondo (Feb 20, 2009)

Jeez, James, that was almost diplomatic. Are you unwell? Lack of food getting to you?


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Me diplomatic god I must have a word with myself :lol:


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

Mondo said:


> Jeez, James, that was almost diplomatic. Are you unwell? Lack of food getting to you?


blood sugar too low, quick, throw him a Mars bar... [smiley=rolleyes5.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## dbbloke (Jan 30, 2012)

merlin c said:


> FinTTq said:
> 
> 
> > here's my dynorun to compare to yours. I'm really happy with the power delivery, as you can see how linear my torque curve is, it pulls really smoothly from 3000rpm to 5500rpm 8)
> ...


Ignore the column headings for the moment (forget lb/ft conversion)!
Here is a starter excel.
View attachment start excel.xlsx

I asked myself, so what can be wrong here and used the formula.
Are dyno runs so expensive in the UK?


----------



## fransh (Dec 16, 2011)

My tuner once offered me a few free dyno runs to any of my friends with a hybrid turbo conversion. I think we should take him up on his offer to get a second opinion!


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

fransh said:


> My tuner once offered me a few free dyno runs to any of my friends with a hybrid turbo conversion. I think we should take him up on his offer to get a second opinion!


tbh that is upto Joe as its his car his tuner his deal and his final say fransh


----------



## Diveratt (Aug 31, 2009)

Don't forget there is the north south shoot out on the 20th of October. Same day same RR so it's a good comparison no hybrids running at the moment. It would be interesting to see if you get more than Tonys stage 2 

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=274980


----------



## fransh (Dec 16, 2011)

Gazzer said:


> fransh said:
> 
> 
> > My tuner once offered me a few free dyno runs to any of my friends with a hybrid turbo conversion. I think we should take him up on his offer to get a second opinion!
> ...


Obviously its Joe's decision, but if he doesn't agree we could always break into his house at night steal the keys and have them back before he wakes up


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

fransh said:


> Obviously its Joe's decision, but if he doesn't agree we could always break into his house at night steal the keys and have them back before he wakes up


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## Garth (Feb 7, 2012)

Poor Joe.
To an outsider, this thread must look like vultures circling a dying animal. Everyone wants to have a piece.

If I were Joe, I probably wouldn't want to come back to this thread. I say, as long as he's happy with the way it drives, fair play and let's leave him be ;-)

I've never been one for doing mods for the sake of some numbers. I do them for the way the car feels afterwards. I can understand if people are offering a warning that his engine might blow up, but if you modify an engine, you're taking your chances anyway.

Ignore me and continue...


----------



## tricklexxx (Oct 21, 2010)

Garth said:


> Poor Joe.
> To an outsider, this thread must look like vultures circling a dying animal. Everyone wants to have a piece.
> 
> If I were Joe, I probably wouldn't want to come back to this thread. I say, as long as he's happy with the way it drives, fair play and let's leave him be ;-)
> ...


+1 but the trouble is if you start quoting figures like that on a dedicated thread people are gonna wanna know what you've done that is so different that it has achieved SIGNIFICANTLY more oomph than anyone before... Boast about it (in a nice way) and your gonna be asked to prove it!


----------



## tony_rigby_uk (Nov 27, 2008)

Diveratt said:


> Don't forget there is the north south shoot out on the 20th of October. Same day same RR so it's a good comparison no hybrids running at the moment. It would be interesting to see if you get more than Tonys stage 2
> 
> viewtopic.php?f=3&t=274980


Wouldn't rely on that Dyno too much matey.. you do realise... My Stage 2 got 309BHP on that Dyno Last year where as one of the BT boys got 314BHP straight after.. Then the following weekend I had it at my Tuners and it was 292BHP.. (P.S my tunner is the one that everyone moans at me for and says my figures are high..every time i post a graph (but in this instance i got less)

I like Your style Joe.. Like me you are doing things differently than just slapping on a BIG turbo. As my goal has always been to prove the KO4 can top 300BHP.. which at the rolling road, infornt of most of the BT boys and stage 2+ boys we thought it was there.. Only for it to be over 309 on the day but suspect the rollers were reading high... (know most won't like me saying that, especially the ones that got less than expected)

In addition my new Prototype is on.. however found issues with the the cambelt (it is on 39763miles) so thats getting changed. then i will be bedding it in and having a rolling road done at my usual place. in preperation for the Rolling road day.. again i expect the figures may be abit higher than i get on my usual rolling road..

Keep smiling Joe, Forget the figures you'll never convince anyone around here.. even on the day at the rolling road :lol: :lol:

But i commend you for what you've done. and would like to see and have a chat about it... and maybe my prototype is of some interest assuming it survives the tests.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Couldnt agree more Tony they were over reading 15-20 easy.


----------



## Diveratt (Aug 31, 2009)

jamman said:


> Couldnt agree more Tony they were over reading 15-20 easy.


I don't think there will ever be a RR that everyone agrees on but on the day its the same RR for every one even Tony. And there can be a lot of reasons why a BT can be down on power not just the RR

That said it was within 2 bhp of Liquid TT .


----------



## Diveratt (Aug 31, 2009)

I seem to remember on the day Tony almost wet himself with the 309 it was worth going up just to watch that 

I don't think I'll even get close I'll be happy with around 280 to 290.


----------



## tony_rigby_uk (Nov 27, 2008)

I Hide outside because one day it will blow up :lol:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

I was out testing all day yesterday with outside temperatures reaching 24C according to my dashboard display, and no detriment to my car's performance was experienced. *It takes off through the gears like a scalded cat.* I'm not even saying that bhp is solely responsible for this. There's more to 'the black art' than meets the eye. My TT has been mapped to my own specific requirements; some say 'Ok for racing'!! Regard should also be acknowledged concerning the single mass lightweight flywheel and the introduction of methanol into the equation; not forgetting the exceptional hybrid K04; one of only two produced to date.

I've had the privilege of being allowed 'inside' my tuner's mapping software and been shown exactly how the power and drivability has been achieved. So far as other considerations are concerned, my tuners project history and past experience have been maligned IMO. Boys' toys e.g. VCDS has lot to answer for and is only a small part of my tuner's tools with regard to extracting power with reliability and safety. No parameters have been compromised.

Joe


----------



## Mondo (Feb 20, 2009)

It's alive! 

As long as you're happy, Joe, we're all happy for you. Now go out and spank your girl some more. :twisted:


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Come on Joe my friend no one is maligning your tuner at all mate its a forum's nature that if people make claims they are asked to either prove them or provide information.

A dyno plot was provided which basically didn't add up and that always makes people question how the figured were obtained.

I would email Lee's very polite post to your tuner and ask him to comment on his questions and concerns.


----------



## Diveratt (Aug 31, 2009)

TTCool said:


> I was out testing all day yesterday with outside temperatures reaching 24C according to my dashboard display, and no detriment to my car's performance was experienced. *It takes off through the gears like a scalded cat.* I'm not even saying that bhp is solely responsible for this. There's more to 'the black art' than meets the eye. My TT has been mapped to my own specific requirements; some say 'Ok for racing'!! Regard should also be acknowledged concerning the single mass lightweight flywheel and the introduction of methanol into the equation; not forgetting the exceptional hybrid K04; one of only two produced to date.
> 
> I've had the privilege of being allowed 'inside' my tuner's mapping software and been shown exactly how the power and drivability has been achieved. So far as other considerations are concerned, my tuners project history and past experience have been maligned IMO. Boys' toys e.g. VCDS has lot to answer for and is only a small part of my tuner's tools with regard to extracting power with reliability and safety. No parameters have been compromised.
> 
> Joe


Sounds good Joe does the water/ meth help with with keeping the inlet temps down on hot days? Not that were getting many of them


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Diveratt said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > I was out testing all day yesterday with outside temperatures reaching 24C according to my dashboard display, and no detriment to my car's performance was experienced. *It takes off through the gears like a scalded cat.* I'm not even saying that bhp is solely responsible for this. There's more to 'the black art' than meets the eye. My TT has been mapped to my own specific requirements; some say 'Ok for racing'!! Regard should also be acknowledged concerning the single mass lightweight flywheel and the introduction of methanol into the equation; not forgetting the exceptional hybrid K04; one of only two produced to date.
> ...


Yes, methanol does help with keeping the turbo intake temperatures down (low twenties at the last check on Liquid TT). Another reason for using methanol is so that the tuner can safely push the map to it's limit. We had a hot day yesterday! and I was nice to know I was injecting methanol.

Joe


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

jamman said:


> Come on Joe my friend no one is maligning your tuner at all mate its a forum's nature that if people make claims they are asked to either prove them or provide information.
> 
> A dyno plot was provided which basically didn't add up and that always makes people question how the figured were obtained.
> 
> I would email Lee's very polite post to your tuner and ask him to comment on his questions and concerns.


So the graph does not add up, and my TT does nothing of what I have described in my last post. Now that really doesn't add up :lol: You _have_ read my last post and my other performance related comments...Methanol, single mass flywheel, mapped to suit my specific requirments? It seems to me that the worst scenario is that the graph does not make sense, which makes no difference to that which I'm experiencing. Instead of only looking at the graph why not accept my good fortune as a very positive result. I'm a very happy boy and nothing will change that. The mods to my TT are delivering, regardless, and that's what matters  I'm getting more than my share :wink:

Joe


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Joe please show me where I have doubted that your car isnt performing very well in any post I have made because I'm lost if I have said anything of the sort?

Your tuner produced the dyno map using his professional non boys toys equipment but it doesnt add up its my nature to question when things don't add up.

You know from our PMs that I find what you are doing interesting so stop being such a grouchy toad :wink:


----------



## TT SMITHY (Jan 18, 2011)

jamman said:


> Come on Joe my friend no one is maligning your tuner at all mate its a forum's nature that if people make claims they are asked to either prove them or provide information.
> 
> A dyno plot was provided which basically didn't add up and that always makes people question how the figured were obtained.
> 
> I would email Lee's very polite post to your tuner and ask him to comment on his questions and concerns.


yeah got to agree any build thread or BT setups dyno,s etc posted up will always get people asking what
set up they have got ,,,its good to have constructive criticism or concerns ,,but joe you choose 
not to share i dont know why ? what is your choice of course people are just interested


----------



## merlin c (Jan 25, 2012)

The whole ethos of 'Forums' is to share experiences and pass that knowledge onto others, but not behave in a manner that gives a drip drip thread by saying " yes, I and A N other did this bit and that bit but that bit is is secret and my BHP went to X number.......What is the point, why not say PM me and send £20-00 and I'll ask my tuner to contact you, or just say " I achieved this, go figure"?? :?


----------



## TT SMITHY (Jan 18, 2011)

You do tell us how well it pulls with single mass flywheel water and meth etc but maybe the
reason the car feels so fast is because your previous car was an (( Austin allegro ))) ??? 

Sorry only joking just humoring myself :lol:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

jamman said:


> Joe please show me where I have doubted that your car isnt performing very well in any post I have made because I'm lost if I have said anything of the sort?
> 
> Your tuner produced the dyno map using his professional non boys toys equipment but it doesnt add up its my nature to question when things don't add up.
> 
> You know from our PMs that I find what you are doing interesting so stop being such a grouchy toad :wink:


James

I believe you when you say you haven't made any criticism of my cars performance. By people saying that the graph is rubbish, or words to that effect, it says or at least implies that I have been led up the garden path. I can't understand why such a big deal is being made of it. It changes nothing so far as I'm concerned. I know how my TT is performing. What is it you want; different numbers?

Don't be such a doubting Thomas :wink:

Joe (your grouchy mate!)


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

Joe i love the fact that you are happy with how the car feels and runs.....however an old saying goes: you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time. i do not pretend to fully understand the whats and how two's of your conversion in all honesty, however it would be great for your mapper to pop into the thread and answer these questions and finish it once and for all bud. (slightly sad as my TT went to neilc today)


----------



## L33JSA (Jun 30, 2010)

TTCool said:


> I believe you when you say you haven't made any criticism of my cars performance. By people saying that the graph is rubbish, or words to that effect, it says or at least implies that I have been led up the garden path. I can't understand why such a big deal is being made of it. It changes nothing so far as I'm concerned. I know how my TT is performing. What is it you want; different numbers?
> 
> Don't be such a doubting Thomas :wink:


Its not words to any effect Joe.....quite simply the graph is rubbish. I probably could have drawn a more accurate one on my Etch-a-Sketch when I was 7 years old!

If you truly truly belive you have 314bhp (as your post title states), especially after all the comments, facts and reasoning that people have given you to dispute otherwise and you are still adament that the figure is right and your tuner is quite simply jesus of the mapping world and is able to perform miracles and defy physics then you're clearly deluded I'm afraid.

Perhaps you need to remove your power figure from the title and simply state 'Hybrid K04 update', oh & remove the graph too - that way then people wont need to question you and obviously offend you.

Oh & in answer to your question 'what is it that you want?'.......quite simply its the truth...because despite what you've spent with your tuner you clearly havent got it yet...

Tell you what.....humour us and post up some logged MAF values from VAGcom....


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

L33JSA said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > I believe you when you say you haven't made any criticism of my cars performance. By people saying that the graph is rubbish, or words to that effect, it says or at least implies that I have been led up the garden path. I can't understand why such a big deal is being made of it. It changes nothing so far as I'm concerned. I know how my TT is performing. What is it you want; different numbers?
> ...


Thanks for your concern and suggestions.

Joe


----------



## L33JSA (Jun 30, 2010)

No probs Joe.....anytime...


----------



## TT SMITHY (Jan 18, 2011)

L33JSA said:


> No probs Joe.....anytime...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: lmfao !ha ha ha !!! oh my god that was so funny


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

L33JSA said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > I believe you when you say you haven't made any criticism of my cars performance. By people saying that the graph is rubbish, or words to that effect, it says or at least implies that I have been led up the garden path. I can't understand why such a big deal is being made of it. It changes nothing so far as I'm concerned. I know how my TT is performing. What is it you want; different numbers?
> ...


ott lee m8, joe does not derserve that treatment


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

I bought my 225 Quattro new in May 2000 and therefore have owned the same car for over 12 years. I had it remapped at AMD Bicester in 2004. These are the graphs which accompanied my bill for the remap and a Viper diverter valve which together cost me £746.11. I'd be interested to know if these graphs add up:

BHP 266.1 at 5,471 rpm
TORQUE 299.4 at 3,076 rpm

It would be helpful if someone could interpret these graphs from way back using the same criteria as reported in this thread.

As I understand it, the original AMD folded and some of the employees formed APS Brackley. AMD was sold to Big Boys Toys, so far as I remember.

Joe

Click to enlarge and make easy to read



























Use view image to view a very large clear picture

Joe


----------



## L33JSA (Jun 30, 2010)

Bit hard to tell exactly Joe as you don't have any figures to pop into a spreadsheet and produce a graph and the scales are different so I can't transpose on onto the other BUT roughly speaking at 5252rpm on both graphs the figures are roughly identical @ 250 - in which case yes that graph is looking to be a goodun.

Interesting though that you have more torque off that stage 1 MAP than you do off your latest work.


----------



## Mondo (Feb 20, 2009)

Joe,

I can obviously only speak for myself. The graphs you've just shown look good to me. It's hard to tell exactly as the BHP and LB/FT charts aren't on the same, er, chart, but the scales are the same, which helps. So with a bit of help from every mainframer's favourite utility IEBIBALL (i.e. looking at it) it would appear the BHP and LB/FT charts cross over/meet at around 5200rpm. As they should.

That's what makes the charts believable, and 'look good'. Your recent charts don't seem to make sense from that basic principle, which I believe is the main point of other's posts. However, as said, I can't speak for them.

If I were you I'd ask your tuner why the BHP and LB/FT charts don't meet at 5252rpm. But I'm not you so, as I've also said before, if you're happy I'm happy for you.


----------



## L33JSA (Jun 30, 2010)

Mondo

The scales arent the same mate - check again.

The BHP goes as high as 260
The Torque goes as high as 300

..then Measure the size of the Y axis- thats the same height in both graphs.


----------



## Mondo (Feb 20, 2009)

Lee, the high marks might not match, but the scale seems to i.e. both start at 0, both have figures at around 260 at the magic 5252.

Looks OK/consistent to me. :?


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

L33JSA said:


> Bit hard to tell exactly Joe as you don't have any figures to pop into a spreadsheet and produce a graph and the scales are different so I can't transpose on onto the other BUT roughly speaking at 5252rpm on both graphs the figures are roughly identical @ 250 - in which case yes that graph is looking to be a goodun.
> 
> Interesting though that you have more torque off that stage 1 MAP than you do off your latest work.


Thanks for that. There seems to be something adrift with the graph I've been given and yet it's impossible to ignore the performance I'm experiencing which is stratospheres above what I had before the hybrid K04.

Joe


----------



## L33JSA (Jun 30, 2010)

Mondo said:


> Lee, the high marks might not match, but the scale seems to i.e. both start at 0, both have figures at around 260 at the magic 5252.
> 
> Looks OK/consistent to me. :?


Mondo if the 'high marks' don't match and yet the height of the Y axis is the same on both graphs then the actual scale of the graph isn't the same. Its close but still not the same - hence why one cannot be transposed straight onto the other.

Having figures around 260 on both graphs has absolutely diddly squat to do with scalings of either graph - you are just simply looking at the X value of 5252 and then reading off the corresponding Y value.


----------



## L33JSA (Jun 30, 2010)

TTCool said:


> Thanks for that. There seems to be something adrift with the graph I've been given and yet it's impossible to ignore the performance I'm experiencing which is stratospheres above what I had before the hybrid K04. Joe


I'm glad you've finally agreed with me on that.No one is disputing you have more power......just rather 'how much more power'. Bear in mind too that that AMD run was done some 8 years ago. There's a good chance that over time without you realising the car may have gradually lost power - and the work you have recently had done may have restored power with a few more gains.

Its a shame you can't go back to AMD and have a power run on their rollers for comparison. Nothing stopping you going to another rolling road though and having a power run there especially now you know what you are looking for in terms of accuracy.

Least then you will have something to go back to your tuner with to use to start question him - which I presume if he is a genuine person he won't take offence at and may even thank you for pointing out his equipment is inaccurate.


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

My car is having another tweak on the map due to a new level of methanol mix, soon I hope, and it's going to have another dyno run after that on the same rollers.

My tuner is the most genuine bloke I've ever met in the motor trade. He's done lots of excellent work on my TT. His installation and setting up of the Snow Performance water/methanol kit could not be bettered IMO. He's so genuine and experienced I'm reluctant to even ask him but if needs must...maybe all will come right at the next dyno run.

There's a few pics of the Snow Performance intallation on another thread of mine. It looks like it came from Audi with it already fitted 

Joe


----------



## L33JSA (Jun 30, 2010)

TTCool said:


> My car is having another tweak on the map due to a new level of methanol mix, soon I hope, and it's going to have another dyno run after that on the same rollers.


So what will your reaction be when more than likely the graph will be inaccurate? Will you continue to return to him again and continue paying him your hard earned cash knowing that the figures you are receiving from him are false?



TTCool said:


> My tuner is the most genuine bloke I've ever met in the motor trade. He's done lots of excellent work on my TT. His installation and setting up of the Snow Performance water/methanol kit could not be bettered IMO. He's so genuine and experienced I'm reluctant to even ask him but if needs must...maybe all will come right at the next dyno run.


He can appear to be as genuine as he likes, as long as you're paying him money he will probably continue to be like this. The real test of how genuine he is will be when you ask the question 'can you explain why my dyno graph inaccurate?'


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

TTCool said:


> L33JSA said:
> 
> 
> > Bit hard to tell exactly Joe as you don't have any figures to pop into a spreadsheet and produce a graph and the scales are different so I can't transpose on onto the other BUT roughly speaking at 5252rpm on both graphs the figures are roughly identical @ 250 - in which case yes that graph is looking to be a goodun.
> ...


Hey joe, my tt big turbo had a lower peak torque than lots of the k04 tt's when we rr'd it at awesome. Ok so the turbo wasn't long for this earth at the time but the big difference was the k04 peak lasts about half a second and on a bt car it's all the way to the redline.

Ps what meth mixture are you going from/to? I have been running straight 50/50 wt/vol since the outset but my tune (very well known tuning house) is a bit shit to say the least.


----------



## TT SMITHY (Jan 18, 2011)

Joe next time your on the dyno maybe ask if you can have some logs done on the dyno runs
i expect any good tuner wouldn't hesitate to share these with you,,,, iv always taken a good
interest with regards to hybrid builds as i will be running one myself eventually in most
other forums its seems common practice to share logs theres threads where iv seen
Morgan and Badger bill comparing notes logs etc,,, regards to hybrids so dont feel
its unreasonable to ask your tuner for information 

Regards to the dyno these can give really distorted readings if not setup right there
was a situation where a tuner was setting up a dyno and readings were a bit wacky
i think it was Jim from JKM mentioned if you slow the ramp speed on the dyno it
will show higher torque and consequently show lower BHP and increasing the ramp
speed will under read on torque but show higher BHP so its how well the dyno,s 
setup but in the real world its how it performs on the road ,what you are happy with
but would be interesting to see whats going on with a few logs available


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

L33JSA said:


> Mondo if the 'high marks' don't match and yet the height of the Y axis is the same on both graphs then the actual scale of the graph isn't the same. Its close but still not the same - hence why one cannot be transposed straight onto the other.
> 
> Having figures around 260 on both graphs has absolutely diddly squat to do with scalings of either graph - you are just simply looking at the X value of 5252 and then reading off the corresponding Y value.


This is the two graphs roughly overlaid and scaled to the same axes:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Matt B said:


> Hey joe, my tt big turbo had a lower peak torque than lots of the k04 tt's when we rr'd it at awesome. Ok so the turbo wasn't long for this earth at the time but the big difference was the k04 peak lasts about half a second and on a bt car it's all the way to the redline.
> 
> Ps what meth mixture are you going from/to? I have been running straight 50/50 wt/vol since the outset but my tune (very well known tuning house) is a bit shit to say the least.


Hi Matt

Methanol: Moving from 20 Methanol 80 demineralized (deionised) water... to... 50 Methanol 50 demineralized (deionised) water, same as you are using...requires a tweak of the map. I understand 50/50 is what most are using. All my pipes and wiring are inside the car from boot through the transmission tunnel to the engine bay...nothing external.

Joe


----------



## Gazzer (Jun 12, 2010)

we are having a RR day once again in october at powerstation in tewkesbury Joe if you fancy coming along for a day of fun pi55 taking and a BBQ m8......see kevin's topic in events north south shoot out.


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

I've been reading about Power and Torque. As I understand it Torque is measured and Power is calculated and the formula is:

HP = Torque x RPM divided by 5252

My interpretation below is not that of a professional tuner, it is simply what I understand personally and may be of interest to the average TT owner in any case. My intention is not to turn this thread into Biblical proportions; simply to try and understand.

With regard to my own situation this is what my graph should have read:

(314.88) = 270 x 6,125 divided by 5252. It therefore follows that a 'glitch' could be in the rpm part of the calculation within my tuner's rolling road software.

If the HP had been calculated using 6,125 rpm then all would be as I'm experiencing in the way my TT drives.

I don't know what the spec of an F1 car is but assuming 800.59 HP:

(800.59) = 221.3 x 19,000 divided by 5252. The F1 car only has 221.3 lb ft of torque.

Consider this&#8230;my supplied graph:

(249.12) = 270 x 5,180 divided by 5252. My TT does not perform like a 249.12 bhp TT. My TT takes off through the gears like a scalded cat and keeps going&#8230;fact. I had 15 years of motor racing and I feel qualified to have a feel of how a car is performing without knowing the actual data.

This is the most important so far as I'm concerned&#8230; 
Apart from my interpretation of the formula&#8230;HP = Torque x RPM divided by 5252, my tuner is responsible for the building and development of an 800 bhp at 7,500 rpm Audi RS6 4.2 twin turbo V8 engine built and developed by him. The project was to fit it to a Silhouette TT which has been dominating the hill climb scene for a few years. I cannot see how a tuner of that status would deliberately mislead a customer to that extent and worse still not know what he is doing!!!

Performance
Approx 800bhp @ 7500rpm
0-60 approx 2.7 seconds
0-100 under 6 seconds
Quarter mile 10.6 seconds @137mph
Max speed 170mph (limited by gearing)
Braking and cornering G-Force approx 2G
Total weight approx 1000kg giving 800bhp/tonne

I believe there is an explanation for what has transpired and I'm backing my tuner until everything has been checked-out.

Have a look here:

http://www.sb-racing.com/the-car/

Joe

Postscript: I hope my maths is up to scratch :roll:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

You can see the Silhouette TT in action on You tube...setting a new course record by 2.5 secs!! Refined it is NOT...wouldn't like to travel far in that :lol: :lol:






Joe


----------



## L33JSA (Jun 30, 2010)

Joe

I'll be honest, I think you've completely got the wrong end of the stick - its not about simply picking out an RPM figure and using that to calculate things.

What it is about however is using the RPM points that you have got actual figures for which are as follows......

Starting with the notion that your torque figure is indeed correct would give you the following HP readings...

RPM LBFT	HP
1250 88.85	21.15
1500 102.16	29.18
1750 115.69	38.55
2000 126.34	48.11
2250 140.65	60.25
2500 158.39	75.40
2750 174.77	91.51
3000 176.67	100.91
3250 190.32	117.77
3500 215.79	143.80
3750 237.52	169.59
4000 253.27	192.90
4250 263.45	213.19
4500 268.44	230.01
4750 270.48	244.63
4846 *270.69* 249.77
5000 269.79	256.85
5180 266.39	262.74
5250 263.72	263.61
5500 252.11	*264.02* (252.11 * 5500)/5252
5750 234.00	256.19
6000 214.56	245.12
6250 193.96	230.82
6500 174.18	215.56
6750 106.92	137.41

Max Power @ 5500rpm = 264.02bhp

Now working the opposite way and using the notion that your HP is correct.....you would get the following torque figures

RPM HP LBFT
1250 27.28	114.63
1500 37.54	131.45
1750 49.83	149.56
2000 62.32	163.64
2250 78.86	184.08
2500 98.31	206.52
2750 118.80	226.88
3000 130.87	229.11
3250 155.39	251.12
3500 189.79	284.80
3750 223.38	312.85
4000 251.88	330.72
4250 273.87	338.44
4500 290.45	*338.99* (290*5252)/4500
4750 303.31	335.37
4846 306.89	332.60
5000 312.44	328.18
5180 *314.52* 318.89 
5250 313.89	314.01
5500 307.41	293.54
5750 293.11	267.72
6000 274.70	240.45
6250 249.67	209.80
6500 223.65	180.71
6750 137.00	106.60

Max Torque @ 4500rpm = 338.99lb/ft

Hope this makes you understand it better?

Roughly what boost pressure are you running on your hybrid setup out of interest??

Oh & with regards to your F1 example...

If it makes 800.59bhp @ 19000rpm, then at that RPM point it would be only making 221.3lb/ft - bearing in mind though that further down the rev range is where it would make its peak torque. Torque & BHP don't run linear with each other remember so its not going to be making its peak power at the same time that it makes its peak torque.

The explanation as to what has transpired is that the dyno hasnt been calibrated or setup correctly for whatever reason.

I'm not saying that he has deliberated mislead you just that his measuring equipment isnt accurate.

Any chance we can see the dyno graph for the 800bhp Audi??


----------



## dbbloke (Jan 30, 2012)

L33JSA said:


> Joe
> 
> I'll be honest, I think you've completely got the wrong end of the stick - its not about simply picking out an RPM figure and using that to calculate things.
> 
> ...


You've got a Enigma machine as well then with global warming like feedback  Christ, took you a while.
My Enigma machine was kind and didn't convert nm to lb/ft, cause that seemed way too low / cruel. I guess the cruel Enigma comes out looking like this. But at the end of the day, real logging is in fact required as all guesstimates are based on likely flawed figures.
Hope this picture is seen as helpful now.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Joe I would take Lee's post and ask your tuner to tell you why the figures don't quite add up.

The other bloke is best ignored as he just seems intent on belittling and taking the piss. :roll:

The "Silhouette" TT looks brutal to drive in the extreme.

PS Watched "Senna" last night what a film have you seen it ?


----------



## dbbloke (Jan 30, 2012)

Yeah ignore me, I came to *exactly * the same result lee did above a week or so ago (without lb/ft to NM conversion prior to calculation) cause who knows whats true when you don't stick to nm/kw etc, I'm just not at all helpful!
It's probably because some people choose to belittle me (jamman - then mirror their problem back on someone else) or get upset with something they don't want to hear. It was possible things could have gone a different way but they didn't. Maybe next time people will not be so nervous.


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

well I made this up from when Joe posted numbers before all you girls! :roll: :lol:










Its got the nm converted to ft/lbs and 
the Torque calculated from the dyno HP and 
the HP calculated from the dyno torque(ft/lbs)

Its for information only make of it what you wish.


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

You wouldn't think it to look at you but Waheed you are so clever :wink:

See you soon.


----------



## dbbloke (Jan 30, 2012)

Hey WAK, why didn't you say when I mailed you my findings / solution 
As you say its only numbers to go from and a pure maths / excel exercise. So make of it what you will (especially the headings). I'd be considering depending on how rich i was - new injectors and a trip to WAK.
Here are some excel thingies, in old and new money just in case, hopefully not modified to be incorrect. Probably a few more options to consider, like converting HP to KW, but that's probably overkill.
View attachment tqnmlbft conv weird bhp.xlsx
View attachment tqnmlbft conv weird bhp.xls
View attachment weird bhp.xlsx
View attachment weird bhp.xls


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

dbbloke said:


> Hey WAK, why didn't you say when I mailed you my findings / solution


He told me he doesn't like talking to you


----------



## Mondo (Feb 20, 2009)

jamman said:


> dbbloke said:
> 
> 
> > Hey WAK, why didn't you say when I mailed you my findings / solution
> ...


Did he tell you that, or e-mail it to you? :wink:


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Mondo said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> > dbbloke said:
> ...


Hi FB, Told me on the phone using facetime :lol: :lol:


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

jamman said:


> Mondo said:
> 
> 
> > jamman said:
> ...


It's a good thing nobody believes a word you say.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## s3tt (Jul 10, 2012)

Hi TTCOOL

Just stumbled across your thread, makes for a good read, can I ask a few questions please. Reason for my specific interest is that I've been building custom built Hybrids for a while now mainly for the S3 and some TT's and thus I am very interested in this post. Most of my work has been on the S3 base, obviously very similar to yours and thus far we have done a huge amount of testing, logging etc and therefore I know a bit about these turbo's

I saw on your first post it was a custom build unit, do you know what spec the turbo is? is it a rs6 turbine 2283 compressor? and is the turbine clipped or unclipped? do you have any Maf readings for the turbo? as these are a great way of seeing how the turbo is running. These units are like dynamite and are over engineered for the 1.8t (@ low rpm hence surge)but if tuned well can produce awesome results.

I don't doubt any of the figures that you've layed out in the thread but I have to say I am suprised by some of it and as a result curious.


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

dbbloke said:


> Hey WAK, why didn't you say when I mailed you my findings / solution


Because it was easier to wait for a few knowledgeable people to work the numbers and find the same conclusions I can see before mentioning it as I'm trying to be objective.

And I gave up when vcds data logs are considered not so important. 
There's not enough evidence to suggest injectors yet but I'm happy to review logs or log a car to check it out.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Wak said:


> jamman said:
> 
> 
> > Hi FB, Told me on the phone using facetime :lol: :lol:
> ...


 [smiley=gossip.gif] :wink:


----------



## L33JSA (Jun 30, 2010)

Wak said:


> dbbloke said:
> 
> 
> > Hey WAK, why didn't you say when I mailed you my findings / solution
> ...


Should have just said how it was and saved me a job haha!! :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## TT SMITHY (Jan 18, 2011)

s3tt said:


> Hi TTCOOL
> 
> Just stumbled across your thread, makes for a good read, can I ask a few questions please. Reason for my specific interest is that I've been building custom built Hybrids for a while now mainly for the S3 and some TT's and thus I am very interested in this post. Most of my work has been on the S3 base, obviously very similar to yours and thus far we have done a huge amount of testing, logging etc and therefore I know a bit about these turbo's
> 
> ...


S3TT you have ventured over to the dark side  lol im sure joe will correct me if im wrong ? i think
CR did him a bespoke hybrid using porsche internals ? im sure joe can elaborate


----------



## s3tt (Jul 10, 2012)

I have  I was doing some more researched and stumbled on this post.. I haven't been on here since I sold my TT 2 years ago and my old username got deleted it seems.

I'm assuming being a porsche based turbo then it was a K16 or K26 version possibly, very similar to the internals MTM use, but I could be wrong.

I'd be very interested on seeing the spec if its making that power on a stock manifold...


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Wak said:


> dbbloke said:
> 
> 
> > Hey WAK, why didn't you say when I mailed you my findings / solution
> ...


Welcome back, Wak.

Joe


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

TT SMITHY said:


> s3tt said:
> 
> 
> > Hi TTCOOL
> ...


Hi s3tt

My Hybrid K04 started its life as a brand new unit, not my old one reworked. It came from CR Turbos under the supervision of Craig, the main man there and most experienced, via my tuner's request. Craig moved from Turbo Technics. The only information I have is that it has Porsche internals and is one of only two produced.

Joe


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

jamman said:


> Joe I would take Lee's post and ask your tuner to tell you why the figures don't quite add up.
> 
> The other bloke is best ignored as he just seems intent on belittling and taking the piss. :roll:
> 
> ...


Hi James

You are the voice of reason. I will indeed ask questions when I can get booked in for another dyno run, and a further tweak of my map, due to moving to a 50/50 methanol/demineralized water mix and my desire to extract a bit more power. I'm sure the questions are justified and I will see to it that an explanation is forthcoming.

The other bloke is of no consequence. Belittling and taking the piss might be his normal disposition!

I can understand why all hell has been rained on the graph. If the graph is faulty, so be it. I know my TT inside out and it performs exactly as I've described. It matters not one iota to me what the graph says, now or in the future. It seems to me that my next visit to my tuner will clarify everything. I said earlier that I'm not a fan of the numbers game but I did indulge in this case for the sake of satisfying elements of the forum. Based entirely on the merits or otherwise of the graph, criticism may well be justified but _the graph is definitely not the whole story.
_
The "Silhouette" TT does indeed look brutal to drive in the extreme. It's weird how my tuner can build and map a complicated twin turbo V8 engine capable of crushing the opposition and yet mess up a simple TT hybrid turbo conversion :lol: .

I watched the 'Senna' film a while back. It was very interesting and moving at the same time.

Joe


----------



## Mondo (Feb 20, 2009)

TTCool said:


> Hi James
> 
> You are the voice of reason...


 

Must be another 'James'..


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Mondo said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > Hi James
> ...


I have a devilish plan FB to be good, wise and honest to other members* become a mod then create absolute havoc but don't tell admin.

* except 2 members


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Gazzer said:


> we are having a RR day once again in october at powerstation in tewkesbury Joe if you fancy coming along for a day of fun pi55 taking and a BBQ m8......see kevin's topic in events north south shoot out.


Hi Gazzer

I've just noticed your post.Thanks for the invitation but that would be a 470 mile round trip for me and I have two places locally, within 25 miles, I can have a dyno run. One is rally orientated and the other race circuit.

I hope this little misunderstanding will be well settled by October :roll: 

Joe


----------



## badger5 (Apr 19, 2003)

TTCool said:


> You can see the Silhouette TT in action on You tube...setting a new course record by 2.5 secs!! Refined it is NOT...wouldn't like to travel far in that :lol: :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


luvin this.. awesome to see.
lovely


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

badger5 said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > You can see the Silhouette TT in action on You tube...setting a new course record by 2.5 secs!! Refined it is NOT...wouldn't like to travel far in that :lol: :lol:
> ...


Hi Bill

Glad you like. Phenolic insular gasket fitted and working well. Water/meth injection bringing down turbo intake temps into the twenties. I'll be contacting you soon.

Regards

Joe


----------



## s3tt (Jul 10, 2012)

Fook me that's impressive!


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Hi Wak and welcome back

Clinging to the defunct/debunked graph may make you look as though you know what you are talking about but it won't help you to move forward.  Forget the graph and understand the tangible facts about my Hybrid K04 conversion. The original target was to get as much power out of my engine without entering the alleged troublesome world of the big turbo. My tuner has already achieved what he set out to do, although there is still a little more to come due to the fact that methanol is now in the equation which was not anticipated at the outset of his brief! That alone will allow him to push the map further. I'm experienced enough to know how good my TT is performing and the drive tallies with my tuners achievement. Think of it like this *'mission accomplished; paper work to follow' * :lol: :lol: Please don't harp on about the graph again we'll just be staying on the Circle Line. After all this palaver, the contentious figures are now dead and buried along with the graph; onwards and upwards is the order of the day. There's no point in prejudging my next dyno run and a further tweak of my map. Any deviation from the first run will not make one iota of difference. Personally I can't wait to unravel this botheration for your sake. I'll be happy whatever the outcome. If you are uncomfortable about achieving 300 bhp or over from a Hybrid K04 just say so.

The original AMD remap eats my dust.

Joe


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Come on my friend why is all this directed at Wak many people have questioned the build figures.

Now Joe hang on "if" we are talking just about facts the only thing you have posted that can be taken as fact is your tuner's RR Dyno graph the rest has to be hearsay.

I would be interested to hear what you tuner has to say.

Think I'm going to order that S.P. stuff this weekend.

Have a great weekend matey.


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Hi James

I've got a date for my next map tweak and chassis dynamometer run.

I think you should order the Snow Performance Water/methanol injection kit if you want the best setup for your TT. Are you experiencing high turbo intake temperatures? It has to be fitted in the boot since there is no room in the engine bay. Please keep us posted if you do decide to; progress and pics will be nice.

I'll be having a great weekend. My wife and I are babysitting our grandson.

Joe


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

Hi Joe,

No intake temps are fine just fancy that and some 630cc injectors.

Regards

James


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

TTCool said:


> Hi Wak and welcome back
> 
> Clinging to the defunct/debunked graph may make you look as though you know what you are talking about but it won't help you to move forward.  Forget the graph and understand the tangible facts about my Hybrid K04 conversion. The original target was to get as much power out of my engine without entering the alleged troublesome world of the big turbo. My tuner has already achieved what he set out to do, although there is still a little more to come due to the fact that methanol is now in the equation which was not anticipated at the outset of his brief! That alone will allow him to push the map further. I'm experienced enough to know how good my TT is performing and the drive tallies with my tuners achievement. Think of it like this *'mission accomplished; paper work to follow' * :lol: :lol: Please don't harp on about the graph again we'll just be staying on the Circle Line. After all this palaver, the contentious figures are now dead and buried along with the graph; onwards and upwards is the order of the day. There's no point in prejudging my next dyno run and a further tweak of my map. Any deviation from the first run will not make one iota of difference. Personally I can't wait to unravel this botheration for your sake. I'll be happy whatever the outcome. If you are uncomfortable about achieving 300 bhp or over from a Hybrid K04 just say so.
> 
> ...


 :lol: 
"Welcome Back" I never left! 

Wow, Where's this come from Joe, spending a few days pondering responses to a chart made from your data, why's it bothering you so much. :roll:

so you want to now ignore the dyno and data you posted as its "Mission accomplished" Ethan Hunt! 
Harp on.... :lol: I havent had my chance to harp on yet so let me drop it in now, I mean give me a chance!! 

The maths around the Torque and BHP dyno readings not tying up is simple black and white, night and day, even your own AmD chart actually works out correctly with the maths. So you make of it what you wish and ignore defunc it if you wish! Maybe one of the lines is correct but you pick at which makes you happier. Probably the BHP one even though you mentioned "dyno measures Torque" :-*

I'm not uncomfortable at all about what you have achieved or not... What started as a query of concern to highlight a "possible" problem for YOUR benefit to question and qualify has been overshadowed by your defensive and secretive approach and review with your tuner. Ignoring your own posted charts and data is entirely a lifestyle choice for you to make and but your responses to posters do exemplify you and your approach to this subject which are character defining.
If your happy that's all that counts as its not my car or one that I have been asked to review. :roll:

Your high power for a tiny duration at lower than typical rpm may well allow you to have an IDC % that is acceptable to your tuner and he may choose a leaner AFR as well he may rely on the theories of water/meth and egt's to define his strategy, some logic can be applied but if you want some hard data pop over and see me sometime and you'll get an objective view from recorded data and not just your butt dyno. 

Morgan has around 325bhp with his CR turbo hybrid so we're not unfamiliar to whats possible and how its achieved and We've done a few Backdraft hybrids amongst many other levels of hardware including Water/Meth and so very familiar with whats likely to happen or not. ! :roll: :lol:

No need to unravel the botheration for my sake, I'm really not that bothered, this is just an interesting, and amusing, read and if I ever get to log the car for myself It will either provide an insight into something new and/or possibly confirm what I suspect and maybe even reassure you on what you believe.

Stop worrying and just have fun and enjoy it now!


----------



## TT SMITHY (Jan 18, 2011)

TTCool said:


> Hi Wak and welcome back
> 
> Clinging to the defunct/debunked graph may make you look as though you know what you are talking about but it won't help you to move forward.  Forget the graph and understand the tangible facts about my Hybrid K04 conversion. The original target was to get as much power out of my engine without entering the alleged troublesome world of the big turbo. My tuner has already achieved what he set out to do, although there is still a little more to come due to the fact that methanol is now in the equation which was not anticipated at the outset of his brief! That alone will allow him to push the map further. I'm experienced enough to know how good my TT is performing and the drive tallies with my tuners achievement. Think of it like this *'mission accomplished; paper work to follow' * :lol: :lol: Please don't harp on about the graph again we'll just be staying on the Circle Line. After all this palaver, the contentious figures are now dead and buried along with the graph; onwards and upwards is the order of the day. There's no point in prejudging my next dyno run and a further tweak of my map. Any deviation from the first run will not make one iota of difference. Personally I can't wait to unravel this botheration for your sake. I'll be happy whatever the outcome. If you are uncomfortable about achieving 300 bhp or over from a Hybrid K04 just say so.
> 
> ...


But joe you have no proof your even over 300bhp that's the point you said stock injectors i guess with
3bar FPR what was highlighted then you said you cleared this up with your tuner and didn't share
the explanation ? provided a dyno what was wrong was again highlighted you said you were
going to question your tuner about this NOW your saying the dyno means nothing ? you refuse
to share any logs joe i really don't understand where your coming from there's no doubt a k04
hybrid will run over 300bhp with the right mods you do keep saying how rapid your car is 

by the way i hope you make bill sign a confidentiality agreement with whatever
your up to :wink:


----------



## L33JSA (Jun 30, 2010)

Joe

Out of interest - how much power does your 'experienced arse dyno' tell you that you have...roughly of course as I know it might not have been calibrated for a while


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

I'm booked in for Tuesday the 14th of August.

Joe


----------



## tony_rigby_uk (Nov 27, 2008)

Don't people forget that my stock K04 got 309BHP.. at powerhouse, running back to back with most of you lot.. with everyone watching in amazement !!! :lol: :lol: (Except me as i was hiding outside incase it blew up !!  )

Fact is my car didn't get those figures again at my usual rolling road, hense the 300BHP for me has yet to be achieved.. don't care what anyone says you've got to take 10BHP off your powerhouse figures.. therefore i wonder if everyone (including the BT's and stage 2's are happy to do that???) I guess some will be running 250BHP with a stage 2 if that is the case... :? or 304BHP on a GT28???

I've given up trying to explain rolling roads. or guess how things are going to go.. as said before it's a lottery.. if the graph adds up at least you know your on the right track.. but if it's meeting away from the maths. then something isn't quite right..

don't rely on dyno's in my experience, show up win your throphy for stage 2, for 2 years in a row.. and just put.. "Drives Well" in your signiture... not point talking about the figures. as there's always an excuse for people who run low.. and nobody belives the people who run high.. so may as well forget it and wait for next year :roll:

Unfortuntly your not joining us Joe. which is not a dig at you, but there is no comparison of your results to anyone elses... (but trust me even when there is a comparison it still never sits well with people) just enjoy the motor...


----------



## jamman (May 6, 2002)

tony_rigby_uk said:


> Fact is my car didn't get those figures again at my usual rolling road, hense the 300BHP for me has yet to be achieved.. don't care what anyone says you've got to take 10BHP off your powerhouse figures.. therefore i wonder if everyone (including the BT's and stage 2's are happy to do that???) I guess some will be running 250BHP with a stage 2 if that is the case... :? or 304BHP on a GT28???


Without a doubt Tony my BHP figure (370) was 17-20 over.


----------



## Diveratt (Aug 31, 2009)

tony_rigby_uk said:


> Don't people forget that my stock K04 got 309BHP.. at powerhouse, running back to back with most of you lot.. with everyone watching in amazement !!! :lol: :lol: (Except me as i was hiding outside incase it blew up !!  )
> 
> Fact is my car didn't get those figures again at my usual rolling road, hense the 300BHP for me has yet to be achieved.. don't care what anyone says you've got to take 10BHP off your powerhouse figures.. therefore i wonder if everyone (including the BT's and stage 2's are happy to do that???) I guess some will be running 250BHP with a stage 2 if that is the case... :? or 304BHP on a GT28???
> 
> ...


You wern't the only one hiding I thought you would wet yourself when the numbers came up . I'm sorry Joe wont be turning up too, it was a good day last time with a nice mix of TTs in various levels of tune.

To be honest I feel much the same about the numbers but running a number of cars on the same RR is interesting to see the comparisons rather than the over all numbers. I think I was the only one who was a bit disapointed as I had seen better on the Liquid TT .


----------



## badger5 (Apr 19, 2003)




----------



## Mondo (Feb 20, 2009)

jamman said:


> Without a doubt Tony my BHP figure (370) was 17-20 over.


Do you have a log we can verify that against, DB? Or does BHP stand for Butt Holistic Power? After all, if it feels right, it must be right, regardless of what logged figures say. :roll:

Mods, can a thread be marked as 'not updated'? I no longer want a little red tick mark next to this thread to tell me it's been updated. What started out as congrats to thinking differently and getting good results, then having those results being cast into doubt because the figures don't match up, followed by arguments for/against actual facts as opposed to 'butt dyno' values, has left me decidedly uninterested in What Happens Next. I no longer care. :?

Agent Mondo, signing (permanenty) off this thread.


----------



## FinTTq (Sep 23, 2010)

TTCool said:


> I'm booked in for Tuesday the 14th of August.
> 
> Joe


So what happened here???


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

FinTTq said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > I'm booked in for Tuesday the 14th of August.
> ...


I was wondering that myself wonder if it was not the result Joe was hoping for :?:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

YELLOW_TT said:


> FinTTq said:
> 
> 
> > TTCool said:
> ...


Sorry to disappoint yellow boy :lol: Great result as expected.

TTFN


----------



## L33JSA (Jun 30, 2010)

TTCool said:


> Sorry to disappoint yellow boy :lol: Great result as expected.
> 
> TTFN


Infact its that good you're keeping it to yourself!!! :lol:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

L33JSA said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to disappoint yellow boy :lol: Great result as expected.
> ...










Yes you got it in one...clever boy.

TTFN


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

TTCool said:


> Sorry to disappoint yellow boy :lol: Great result as expected.
> 
> TTFN


No disappointment here was just talking to Phil at Elite and we got on to your recent work and waiting to see the results so come on we want to see how well you did


----------



## Guzi (Jun 13, 2010)

Nice one Joe sounds great!
Was it Mark who did the install for you?. I'm seriously thinking of a KO3 hybrid in the future.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk


----------



## s3tt (Jul 10, 2012)

I personally don't care if you're running 280 or 314 bhp..what the setup is or how you got it but from a semi professional point of view I'd love to see the supporting data as it just blows most builds out the water! And I'm properly intrigued because if it can be backed up then there are some serious achievements being made there in hybrid building and mapping!


----------



## L0z (Sep 8, 2011)

What's with all the cloak and dagger?

L


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Guzi said:


> Nice one Joe sounds great!
> Was it Mark who did the install for you?. I'm seriously thinking of a KO3 hybrid in the future.
> 
> Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk


You know Mark, then, since you are in his vicinity. Yes it was Mark. He does everything connected with my TT. He's brilliant in every way. He's no armchair tuner and prepares cars for racing. Any one who thinks they know more about tuning is deluded.

Joe


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

YELLOW_TT said:


> TTCool said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry to disappoint yellow boy :lol: Great result as expected.
> ...


yellow, I've already told you. Try and keep up. You can tell Phil that if he or anyone else thinks they know more than Mark about tuning ...they are deluded.

TTFN


----------



## Guzi (Jun 13, 2010)

Yeah Mark did my remap which I'm really happy with!

Sent from my BlackBerry 9780 using Tapatalk


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

TTCool said:


> YELLOW_TT said:
> 
> 
> > TTCool said:
> ...


You have already told me what :?: sorry if you are not happy about Phil and me chatting about you recent work sure we can find better things to talk about 
As for being deluded you would have to know everyone in the tuning industry to know that no one knows more than your man so who is being deluded

FYTP


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

This thread just goes from bad to worse.
Here is my build thread, I am having this stuff done - as long as you don't ask for facts or information you are welcome to comment.


----------



## E3 YOB (Mar 2, 2010)

This is a great Bilge Thread - One of the best [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## FinTTq (Sep 23, 2010)

Matt B said:


> This thread just goes from bad to worse.
> Here is my build thread, I am having this stuff done - as long as you don't ask for facts or information you are welcome to comment.


+1

i don't know what to say really... I'm new here and thought this was a really interesting thread... turned out to be completely different..

TTCool: I think no one actually cares how much your car makes power. Facts talk and bullshit walks!


----------



## badger5 (Apr 19, 2003)

TTCool said:


> Guzi said:
> 
> 
> > Nice one Joe sounds great!
> ...


So long as you are happy with the car... and enjoy whatever power it is or is'nt making


----------



## StuartDB (Feb 10, 2018)

Damn...

I just read this whole thread over 90 minutes... I should have started at the end...


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

StuartDB said:


> Damn...
> 
> I just read this whole thread over 90 minutes... I should have started at the end...


I enjoyed re-reading it. :lol:


----------



## HOGG (Mar 30, 2018)

Any cliff notes

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## StuartDB (Feb 10, 2018)

just dont expect an ending.

but do expect lots of clever people showing facts and discussing how HP is calculated from Torque and how they relate to each other and why they cross over at 5225- but I am not sure anyone answered the query over an F1 car red-lining at 19000 RPM but only being 800 bhp(although I reckon they idle at 4K, and various members (obviously wak included) being able to create similar looking in shape but accurate in figures charts based on the minimal information provided. it's weird because so many people on here with these "on the edge" setups do some occasional logging rather than simply relying on a piece of paper - for safety at least. but nothing of the like provided.

I remember when discussing my 2 stoke motorbike in the olden days that there is a beautiful moment of mega power, just for a moment before it smashes to pieces due to being 95% air and possibly where not enough oil added to the mixture etc lean hot dead. it's all about enrichment.


----------

