Golf R - APR Stage II+

[Fab_R]

LOL. When you hitting the track?

nah, dont think i ever will Davo...

[Corey_R]

thanks for the info..
hence your reasoning behind no stage 1 tune, go right to stage 2 tune with hardware, right....

Yeah - it's basically cause I can't be bothered to drive out to Mona Vale multiple times to see Derek at European Autotech. I'll just take a single day off and get everything I want done at once

[halojump]

I think I probably underestimated the popularity of this post – I just got back from holidays.

I should probably clarify a few points

1. The dyno chart is useful really in showing how the power is being delivered, it wasn’t really meant to show a definitive top end power figure. There are way too many variables [I feel] to accurately measure this in a few short dyno runs.

2. The temperature on the day was around 29.5 (not sure why it says only 20 on the chart) with humidity in the mid 60% range. Oil temperature (after driving from Northside Brisbane over to East Brisbane) was around 91 degrees.

My reasoning (and I’m happy to stand corrected) behind going Stage II+ was that I could consistently get this power out of the Golf. The intercooler aids in providing this, by improving cooling. The exhaust (dump-pipe mostly I think) allows an [from my feel] earlier ‘on boost’. The fuel pump gives a consistent fuel delivery right through the rev range.

One of my big concerns was the cooling and effective air [exhaust and intake] flow; VW ostensibly detune the Golf R for Australia due to concerns about our hot climate. I wanted to make sure I was able to provide effective cooling and not suffer ‘heat soak’ (which I am told is an issue in smaller engines – again, happy to stand corrected).

I am planning to get out on the track very soon – if it ever actually stops raining up here . The real test is going to be 0-100 times (I am greatly encouraged by the numbers Fab seems to be getting) and overall track performance.

Thanks for the feedback to date, I will update this when I have more information.

[Corey_R]

My reasoning (and I’m happy to stand corrected) behind going Stage II+ was that I could consistently get this power out of the Golf. The intercooler aids in providing this, by improving cooling. The exhaust (dump-pipe mostly I think) allows an [from my feel] earlier ‘on boost’. The fuel pump gives a consistent fuel delivery right through the rev range.

Yeah - this and others are the reasons I'm going to Stage II (with intercooler etc) too.

[dave_r]

Mod edit by Corey_R:
For the purpose of continuity, Dave_R is responding to the the topic of Fab_R's car testing on a dyno at 194kw compared to halojump at 175kw and differences between his Stage I result and other Stage I results.Some of those results and discussions are from other threads. End of edit.

The funny thing is we have 2 different figures here, then are told to not compare because there are too many variables. But then it is "well known" that a stage 1 R/S3 should be ~185-190awkw let alone what a stage 2 "should be".

So which is it?

[Corey_R]

I personally think that there is something wrong with dyno graph supplied to halojump. He stated that it was hot (in the 30's) and humid, yet the graph states AT22. That being configured wrong alone could account for the variation here.

Usually you'd see a Stage I R/S3 get around the 185 to 190awkw, depending on the dyno (all things being equal), and you'd see the Stage II cars get 190 to 200 depending on their configuration - but the big diff with the Stage II cars is their mid range compared to the Stage I. The Stage III cars then get around 250kw...

But again, Dyno's and test conditions can vary a lot! Take Guy_H's Golf R for example. It tested on the Motor Mag challenge at 230awkw, with the exact same hardware (apart from a BETTER intake) that his Audi S3 tested multiple times at 250 to 255awkw. Then again, the other owners of non-VAG cars I've seen comments on were also complaining about lower test results! So you have to really look at each result in a case by case basis and only make comparisons where they're valid...

i.e.
1) Same car, before and after modification, on same dyno, hopefully same day and temps.
2) Different cars, same day, same dyno, whilst hopefully temps stay even.
and it should be a given that the dyno is in the same "mode" and sensors in the same places and the same gear used etc.

As halojump didn't have a before, and there is no other car, his results are really useless (sorry dude).
With your results dave_r, you have a before and after (although different days, probably slight temp variations), and you also have another car run on the same day as yours. So it's easier to make comparison to your before run, and also to the other car.

[dave_r]

Again, you quote figures and discredit others when its convenient for the argument. Pick a side and stay on it!

Ultimately, the figures aren't that important. My issue is seat of the pants, stage 1 doesn't do what it claims and what everyone else has made out it to be. My dyno runs just confirm that (however doubt is being cast on the results). I doubt an issue would magically develop on my car within a week of having the tune.

[Corey_R]

It's hard to explain.

As I said, all things being equal, the numbers "should" resemble what I quoted.

Halo's do not. However, what I was attempting to explain is that since there is no other reference point, just a single dyno run, the fact that he got 175awkw is neither here nor there, as there is no other reference point. If he was in Melbourne and ran with you and Fab_R, for all we know, he could achieve a 194awkw too. Without a comparison with a known quanity, we can't make any conclusions here.

Your dyno runs do have reference points. Your first run, and also Fab_R's runs. Whilst again, since there is not a whole bunch of other cars running on that dyno who have run on other dynos to give an indication of whether the numbers are high or low or "correct" (lol, average, median?). i.e. we have no other "known" cars who've done other dyno runs. But you are still able to draw conclusions because of the tests run. Not a conclusion like "Fab's car is definitely 194awkw, but that there's an issue with your after figures.

So I'm not discrediting some figures when convenient, and I've always stayed on the same side

[VW Central]

Corey_R:

For what it's worth, I went to RE Customs a while back and got this result:


I don't think it runs high but then again I do have a FMIC as does Fab_R which helps heaps with heatsoak etc..

Ambient temperature does make a little difference but it shouldn't be too dramatic. I would suggest that Halo goes to another Dyno and has a run, if it is similar to 175 then perhaps his dealer needs to have a look at it but if it is significantly higher the dyno may not be calibrated properly. So many bloody factors involved in dyno's but unless everyone is using the same dyno as were Fab_R, Dave_R and myself it is very difficult to compare power.

[Corey_R]

Yeah, you're right, too many bloody factors involved!

AT of 12 would help a treat... FMIC or not!