Discussion about VTT continued

[pieguy]

1/4 times are up to the track,drivers,weather etc. While dyno #'s are not necessarily accurate trap speeds are. and 126-127 mph in a mk7 are not representative of 530whp. more like 450-470 whp

Okay, that's a good argument, but has anybody trapped higher than his 126.21 in a GTI on a turbo that's less $$$ than the EFR7163? I don't see any results showing so, so he still holds one of the better if not best GTI trap speeds and times for hybrids.

 

[THEREALVRT]

Okay, that's a good argument, but has anybody trapped higher than his 126.21 in a GTI on a turbo that's less $$$ than the EFR7163? I don't see any results showing so, so he still holds one of the better if not best GTI trap speeds and times for hybrids.

you have to stop looking at only the cost of the turbo but look at all the mods on the car to get there. since we have fwd and awd in the mqb platform so we need to focus on power. lets debate fwd vs awd elsewhere. 500hp is 500hp wether its 2 or 4 motion lol.
dvb2 for instance has awd cars in the 10s without requiring mpi and e85 tune costs. also with oem catbacks so no exhaust $$ either. remove those 2 things and the extra cost of the dbv2 is offset.
the only person i know to have pushed a boss500 on a stock fuel system with pump gas went 124ish mph. thats about 3mph (or about 30-40whp) less than vtt. thats a smaller turbo on pump gas in a heavier car.

 

[pieguy]

you have to stop looking at only the cost of the turbo but look at all the mods on the car to get there. since we have fwd and awd in the mqb platform so we need to focus on power. lets debate fwd vs awd elsewhere. 500hp is 500hp wether its 2 or 4 motion lol.
dvb2 for instance has awd cars in the 10s without requiring mpi and e85 tune costs. also with oem catbacks so no exhaust $$ either. remove those 2 things and the extra cost of the dbv2 is offset.
the only person i know to have pushed a boss500 on a stock fuel system with pump gas went 124ish mph. thats about 3mph (or about 30-40whp) less than vtt. thats a smaller turbo on pump gas in a heavier car.

dvb2 for instance has awd cars in the 10s without requiring mpi and e85 tune costs. also with oem catbacks so no exhaust $$ either. remove those 2 things and the extra cost of the dbv2 is offset.


Okay, now you're back on the argument of drag times instead of mph, but you're trying to compare a AWD and FWD which is not a fair comparison once again. What is VTT to do exactly? Go buy an R then use race fuel in order to meet that situation? What does a DBV2 in a GTI with the same setup trap then? Is that better? You can't keep trying to change a situation with a different car and different fueling while making comparisons to different turbos. You're skewing the situation severely to try and come up with an argument.

the only person i know to have pushed a boss500 on a stock fuel system with pump gas went 124ish mph. thats about 3mph (or about 30-40whp) less than vtt. thats a smaller turbo on pump gas in a heavier car.

Okay, this is still not a great argument but closer. Is this an R or a GTI? Is pump gas 91 or 93? Cost wise, the VTT is much cheaper in this situation so if a BOSS 500 in a GTI wants to show up and dyno, and does significant better than the GTI, that's the only telling way to reach a conclusion the boss is much better cause it sure as hell ain't cheaper, and the fitment sure isn't better .

 

[PacDawg]

you have to stop looking at only the cost of the turbo but look at all the mods on the car to get there. since we have fwd and awd in the mqb platform so we need to focus on power. lets debate fwd vs awd elsewhere. 500hp is 500hp wether its 2 or 4 motion lol.
dvb2 for instance has awd cars in the 10s without requiring mpi and e85 tune costs. also with oem catbacks so no exhaust $$ either. remove those 2 things and the extra cost of the dbv2 is offset.
the only person i know to have pushed a boss500 on a stock fuel system with pump gas went 124ish mph. thats about 3mph (or about 30-40whp) less than vtt. thats a smaller turbo on pump gas in a heavier car.

I'm assuming those cars running 10s that are not tuned for E85 are on race gas. That is an important tid bit since race gas requires less volume to run so MPI might not be needed. 10s can possibly be done with a VTT as well with race gas and no MPI but time will only tell when these units finally get to 3rd party hands. I do agree though that his traps does not equate to how much power it is showing on the dyno. Something is definately up there but can't deny that setup is performing well for the $$$$.

 

[WhyNotZoidberg?]

you have to stop looking at only the cost of the turbo but look at all the mods on the car to get there. since we have fwd and awd in the mqb platform so we need to focus on power. lets debate fwd vs awd elsewhere. 500hp is 500hp wether its 2 or 4 motion lol.
dvb2 for instance has awd cars in the 10s without requiring mpi and e85 tune costs. also with oem catbacks so no exhaust $$ either. remove those 2 things and the extra cost of the dbv2 is offset.
the only person i know to have pushed a boss500 on a stock fuel system with pump gas went 124ish mph. thats about 3mph (or about 30-40whp) less than vtt. thats a smaller turbo on pump gas in a heavier car.

Hmm.. fueling is in a way a measure of power made. If you NEED extra fueling that's pretty much because you make too much power to be supported by stock fueling, and you'd blow up your engine from running lean.

If you don't make any extra power, then any extra fueling is not going to do jack shit. You can fill your tank with extra fuel pumps and put big Supra injectors in, you're not gonna make more power from that, you'll just make lots of black smoke

So you saying a VTT turbo really NEEDS the extra fueling, while other turbos don't, that to me means the VTT is likely making more power. I'm sure you could turn the boost down and make due with stock fueling for less power without the risk of leaning out.

If any of this is wrong, please let me know.

P.S. I do think AWD makes a difference vs FWD, and just arguing about this seems pointless at best.

 

[PacDawg]

^^ Read what I just posted regarding the fueling. Also I do think it is important to distinguish FWD to AWD in terms of the 1/4. AWD due to they being easier to cut better 60s will usually post better ets but FWD with the lighter weight typically traps better.

 

[THEREALVRT]

Hmm.. fueling is in a way a measure of power made. If you NEED extra fueling that's pretty much because you make too much power to be supported by stock fueling, and you'd blow up your engine from running lean.

If you don't make any extra power, then any extra fueling is not going to do jack shit. You can fill your tank with extra fuel pumps and put big Supra injectors in, you're not gonna make more power from that, you'll just make lots of black smoke

So you saying a VTT turbo really NEEDS the extra fueling, while other turbos don't, that to me means the VTT is likely making more power. I'm sure you could turn the boost down and make due with stock fueling for less power without the risk of leaning out.

If any of this is wrong, please let me know.

P.S. I do think AWD makes a difference vs FWD, and just arguing about this seems pointless at best.

i guess what i am saying is that a $1500 turbo that runs 10s is not giving you the full picture. i does not represent the full picture at all. maybe some people see $1500 and 10s i see $6000 and 10s.
also if you think fwd on slicksis at a disadvantage than compare the 60ft and 330 ft timesof the vtt gti to the 10.9 4 motion cars out there the difference is not nearly as big as you may think.

 

[WhyNotZoidberg?]

Also I do think it is important to distinguish FWD to AWD in terms of the 1/4. AWD due to they being easier to cut better 60s will usually post better ets but FWD with the lighter weight typically traps better.

I guess that's why I always think of short sprints like 1/4 as more of a traction test, especially with a bigger turbo.

But what do I know about drag, I only like going fast around turns

 

[Reggie Enchilada]

Hmm.. fueling is in a way a measure of power made. If you NEED extra fueling that's pretty much because you make too much power to be supported by stock fueling, and you'd blow up your engine from running lean.

If you don't make any extra power, then any extra fueling is not going to do jack shit. You can fill your tank with extra fuel pumps and put big Supra injectors in, you're not gonna make more power from that, you'll just make lots of black smoke

So you saying a VTT turbo really NEEDS the extra fueling, while other turbos don't, that to me means the VTT is likely making more power. I'm sure you could turn the boost down and make due with stock fueling for less power without the risk of leaning out.

If any of this is wrong, please let me know.

P.S. I do think AWD makes a difference vs FWD, and just arguing about this seems pointless at best.

The reason that the VTT needed the fueling upgrade to achieve the results listed isn't because it's making more power. It's simply because it takes 30% more E85 by volume to make the same power as pump gas. Keep in mind that E85 is roughly equivalent to 110oct gasoline. When comparing E85 to 93oct, the difference is around 20% more E85 by volume to get the same energy produced.

When you consider that the fueling upgrades that VTT has (1200cc MPI, 2x Walboro 450's, 4 bar maps, HPFP, fuel lines) cost $2850, you come to the conclusion that their $2k turbo needs ~$2850 in fueling system upgrades to achieve the same results on E85 that a $2700 DBV2 achieves on stock fueling with MS109 race gas.

That's a price difference of $2150 to get the same results. That $2150 would buy you about 179gals. of MS109 race gas at $12/gal.

Another thing to consider is the fuel that you would use when daily driving, and that's assuming that your MK7 is your daily driver. Since nobody in their right mind would use MS109 daily, you'd need to compare E85 and 93oct.
I'm not sure what the cost difference is in the rest of the country, but around where I am there's a $1/gal difference between E85 and 93oct. (~$2.60/gal E85, ~$3.60 93oct.)

The stock fuel system is good for about 450whp on 93, maybe a bit more. To make 450whp on E85, you'd still need to upgrade the fueling system because of the additional fuel flow needed. You would need to spend about $1580 for the 850cc MPI, 1x Walboro 450, and HPFP in that scenario.

It's very obvious that E85 is a better performing fuel than 93oct, it's almost like getting race gas for 1/5th of the price. The biggest downside to it is the initial investment that's required to be able to use it effectively.

 

[wy2sl0]

The fact is GTI people in general are poor.

I would have been in the 10's already if I owned a DSG car, you better believe it. I might have even been on just an IS38.

The R is where the money is at, it makes sense. Those who have $ and performance in mind want shorter gears and AWD. Who wouldn't? The amount of people who invest $1200 in a proper slick setup and prep the suspension properly is next to zero.

Trap speeds translate for AWD and FWD cars. The EQT will perform as well as the VTT turbo. The point of these larger turbos really shows when you take into account the power across the entire curve, and the efficiency at higher boost when proper hotside design really comes into play. No GTI's are really pushing this with a built motor - again, it is the poorer persons car, plain and simple.

Reggie made the point above also. You can run the EFR on pump gas into the 10's. The VTT is using full E85 and 15mpg.

 

[WhyNotZoidberg?]

The reason that the VTT needed the fueling upgrade to achieve the results listed isn't because it's making more power. It's simply because it takes 30% more E85 by volume to make the same power as pump gas. Keep in mind that E85 is roughly equivalent to 110oct gasoline. When comparing E85 to 93oct, the difference is around 20% more E85 by volume to get the same energy produced.

When you consider that the fueling upgrades that VTT has (1200cc MPI, 2x Walboro 450's, 4 bar maps, HPFP, fuel lines) cost $2850, you come to the conclusion that their $2k turbo needs ~$2850 in fueling system upgrades to achieve the same results on E85 that a $2700 DBV2 achieves on stock fueling with MS109 race gas.

That's a price difference of $2150 to get the same results. That $2150 would buy you about 179gals. of MS109 race gas at $12/gal.

Another thing to consider is the fuel that you would use when daily driving, and that's assuming that your MK7 is your daily driver. Since nobody in their right mind would use MS109 daily, you'd need to compare E85 and 93oct.
I'm not sure what the cost difference is in the rest of the country, but around where I am there's a $1/gal difference between E85 and 93oct. (~$2.60/gal E85, ~$3.60 93oct.)

The stock fuel system is good for about 450whp on 93, maybe a bit more. To make 450whp on E85, you'd still need to upgrade the fueling system because of the additional fuel flow needed. You would need to spend about $1580 for the 850cc MPI, 1x Walboro 450, and HPFP in that scenario.

It's very obvious that E85 is a better performing fuel than 93oct, it's almost like getting race gas for 1/5th of the price. The biggest downside to it is the initial investment that's required to be able to use it effectively.

Thanks for the fuel type notes, I completely forgot that was a factor (I only run straight 93 and have zero interest in corn).

But going back to the turbos, they're just air pumps, if the wheels are bigger they make more boost and power further in the rpms, if they're smaller they spool faster; in the end it's those two factors shifting around the turbo's efficiency, and the area below the curve.

I find it hard to believe that slapping together some big wheels with mismatched housings (made for smaller wheels and with various restrictions for emissions reasons) would outperform a bespoke engineered package. (I'm not talking about EFRs and GTXs, which are in a different category, with the price to match, even though both VTT and lots of posters here lump them in with the <$2000 'budget' stuff)

It just seems to me it's less about the turbo's performance and more about 'feelings', which I find hilarious in a car enthusiast's forum rather than in Oprah's book club

 

[PacDawg]

i guess what i am saying is that a $1500 turbo that runs 10s is not giving you the full picture. i does not represent the full picture at all. maybe some people see $1500 and 10s i see $6000 and 10s.
also if you think fwd on slicksis at a disadvantage than compare the 60ft and 330 ft timesof the vtt gti to the 10.9 4 motion cars out there the difference is not nearly as big as you may think.

Why are you stuck on how much money was spent for fueling for the vtt to get into 10s. 10s could very well be a possibility with an R running just a lpfp and race gas with a vtt turbo. We need to wait and see when units finally become available to folks.

Also i understand personally how difficult it is to cut 60s like Rs. I was the second gti to run full slicks ever and have never cut a 1.6x, let alone even sniff a possible 1.5x. Just take a look at the 1/4 mile list and compare the 60s with the Rs to the gtis and then look at the ets. If I was able to cut a 1.6 id probably be in the 10s by now. When i was on drag radials i was cutting 2.0 60s. When i switched to slicks i started cutting 1.8 60s and shaved 1/2 second from my et.

 

[Reggie Enchilada]

Thanks for the fuel type notes, I completely forgot that was a factor (I only run straight 93 and have zero interest in corn).

But going back to the turbos, they're just air pumps, if the wheels are bigger they make more boost and power further in the rpms, if they're smaller they spool faster; in the end it's those two factors shifting around the turbo's efficiency, and the area below the curve.

I find it hard to believe that slapping together some big wheels with mismatched housings (made for smaller wheels and with various restrictions for emissions reasons) would outperform a bespoke engineered package. (I'm not talking about EFRs and GTXs, which are in a different category, with the price to match, even though both VTT and lots of posters here lump them in with the <$2000 'budget' stuff)

It just seems to me it's less about the turbo's performance and more about 'feelings', which I find hilarious in a car enthusiast's forum rather than in Oprah's book club

So lets look at the hybrid turbo options in the sub-$2000 category. That's the L450, EQT, IHX475, and VTT.

We'll start with ranking them by normal price, no sales, specials, or packages. Just the turbo's by themselves.

L450 $1600
EQT $1800
IHX475 $1900
VTT $2000

The only one that comes with a wastegate is the L450. The IS38 wastegate costs between $167.50-$200 depending on the source. If you've already got an IS38 wastegate lying around you can ignore that additional cost, but let's assume that you don't and factor it in. I'll use the cheapest wastegate price of $167.50 for that.

That brings the cost for a complete unit that's ready to bolt in up to:

L450 $1600
EQT $1967.50
IHX475 $2067.50
VTT $2167.50

Next, lets look at the housings that they use. They all use a modified IS38 turbine housing. The various pictures of the turbo's clearly show that. The compressor housings for the L450, EQT, and IHX475 are all very similar. They're using replica IS38 compressor housings, with modified dimensions. The VTT uses a proprietary compressor housing.

Now let's look at the wheel sizes, and by extension, the max power ratings. Ranked from smallest to largest looks like this:

L450
IHX475
EQT
VTT


As for spooling time, the ranking is the same as the wheel size and max power ranking. It's just like you said, smaller turbo's spool faster but make less power compared to the larger turbo's.

None of the hybrid turbo's available for the MK7's are bad options. They've all got their pro's and con's. In the end, the decision comes down to which option best fits your goals, needs, and budget.

 

[psychonosspaz]

So lets look at the hybrid turbo options in the sub-$2000 category. That's the L450, EQT, IHX475, and VTT.

We'll start with ranking them by normal price, no sales, specials, or packages. Just the turbo's by themselves.

L450 $1600
EQT $1800
IHX475 $1900
VTT $2000

The only one that comes with a wastegate is the L450. The IS38 wastegate costs between $167.50-$200 depending on the source. If you've already got an IS38 wastegate lying around you can ignore that additional cost, but let's assume that you don't and factor it in. I'll use the cheapest wastegate price of $167.50 for that.

That brings the cost for a complete unit that's ready to bolt in up to:

L450 $1600
EQT $1967.50
IHX475 $2067.50
VTT $2167.50

Next, lets look at the housings that they use. They all use a modified IS38 turbine housing. The various pictures of the turbo's clearly show that. The compressor housings for the L450, EQT, and IHX475 are all very similar. They're using replica IS38 compressor housings, with modified dimensions. The VTT uses a proprietary compressor housing.

Now let's look at the wheel sizes, and by extension, the max power ratings. Ranked from smallest to largest looks like this:

L450
IHX475
EQT
VTT


As for spooling time, the ranking is the same as the wheel size and max power ranking. It's just like you said, smaller turbo's spool faster but make less power compared to the larger turbo's.

None of the hybrid turbo's available for the MK7's are bad options. They've all got their pro's and con's. In the end, the decision comes down to which option best fits your goals, needs, and budget.

Seeing a lot of real world data of the EQT spoiling faster than expected - hitting full boost by 3k....I think it may be a bit more complex than you make it, but good writeup

 

[THEREALVRT]

Why are you stuck on how much money was spent for fueling for the vtt to get into 10s. 10s could very well be a possibility with an R running just a lpfp and race gas with a vtt turbo. We need to wait and see when units finally become available to folks.

Also i understand personally how difficult it is to cut 60s like Rs. I was the second gti to run full slicks ever and have never cut a 1.6x, let alone even sniff a possible 1.5x. Just take a look at the 1/4 mile list and compare the 60s with the Rs to the gtis and then look at the ets. If I was able to cut a 1.6 id probably be in the 10s by now. When i was on drag radials i was cutting 2.0 60s. When i switched to slicks i started cutting 1.8 60s and shaved 1/2 second from my et.

because vtt likes to make it seem he runs 10s for way less than an apr kit or any other turbo. my point is that his 10 sec slips cost him WAY more than a $1500 turbo.
excluding slicks by the time you add you UM e85 tunes costs and the mpi costs and the intercoooler piping and the catback exhaust and the downpipe what it cost him to achieve this time is pretty close to the $7000 it costs for a stg 3+ apr kit that traps the same ( or more) than what he run, and,lets be totally honest here, i'd take an EFR turbo over a no name chinese hydrid 110 times out of 100