GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV
FORUM OPTIONS
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   GOLFMK7 - VW GTI MKVII Forum / VW Golf R Forum / VW Golf MKVII Forum > Technical Topics > Golf Engine / Drivetrain / Exhaust / Tunes


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-02-2018, 04:25 PM   #52
Armchair Racer
Senior Member
 
Drives: 2015 A3 2.0T
Location: Florida
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 170
Does that second paragraph mean it was his car which suffered the piston failure?

Not to knock the guy or anything but a major reason why he was able to achieve the times he did is because he essentially turned his car into a race car. You know, running no exhaust and an open downpipe. Running full blown slicks on the front. Gutting the entire interior. Things like that which sort of defeat the purpose of a fast grocery getter family station wagon. To me, that's not really "pushing the platform." Pushing the platform would be running those numbers with an actual exhaust, interior, street tires etc. That would be more impressive than turning a nice new wagon into a gutted single purpose race car. Anyone can do that and go fast. It's been done a million times on all sorts of different makes and models.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boomvw View Post
I’ll share my 2 cents...

First, Chucks car is amazing, and what he has accomplished and brought to the 1.8 community through how he’s pushed his car is amazing.

Some of us that are more personally connected with him off of the forums, know a bit more about the specifics of what happened, and can absolutely confirm that this engine could be pushed further with better fueling.

One thing that bugs me now though that I’ve seen happen multiple times, since he has gone deep into the 11’s, is people strapping on an is38 and claiming they have a mid 11 second car and how it traps 119 just because he did it. The reason Chuck helped push the platform so far, is due to the countless weekends he has spent at the track, and the hundreds of passes he’s made and documented.

We need to have more people get to the track and report back actual data and time slips. Or everyone just go get a draggy and we can compare a little better. What I’ve learned from chuck, and my days at the track is that there are so many factors that play into your et and trap. You can go to the track and with some minor tweaks, gain or lose 3-5 mph and 1/2 second.

I’m interested in still seeing how far we can get on the is20 as with only a couple weekends at the track I was able to get it to a 12.1, and I’ve trapped as high as 110.9.

TLDR:
Everyone go to the track and come back with slips before posting again lol
Armchair Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2018, 04:29 PM   #53
Armchair Racer
Senior Member
 
Drives: 2015 A3 2.0T
Location: Florida
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 170
As a side note, did you see the GTI that ran 11.697 @ 116.29 with an IS20? Pretty impressive. Further proof that the 2.0T makes more power than the 1.8T.
Armchair Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2018, 04:32 PM   #54
TwinDad
Senior Member
 
Drives: 2016 sportwagen
Location: WNY, NJ
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armchair Racer View Post
You totally ignored the posts where I already proved it to you lol. The A3, for example which went faster despite pump/no meth/full exhaust/more weight vs Chuck's race fuel/meth/open exhaust/gutted 1.8T. Those are HUGE differences yet he still trapped higher than Chuck's car.

Then there are 2.0T cars like RJ's (go back to page 1 of this thread for more info) which went 11.1 and trapped mid 120's.

I'm not saying the difference between the 1.8T and 2.0T is huge. It isn't. But the 2.0T will always make that 10-15% or so more power with all else equal. But what you said about the 1.8T "proving to make more power than the 2.0T is just blatantly false. And what prompted you to make such a ridiculous assertion? Because one guy with a 1.8T ran 11.4@119 with his car completely gutted, no exhaust, slicks, race fuel and meth? Lol.
The A3 you speak of is not on this list. If we are going to use Chuck's car as an example, then let's stick with awd. The fastest and quickest 2.0 with awd was done with race fuel etc. It's apples to apples with mods and weight reduction and he is running the same et and same trap speed with a 1.8 and what he can do with an ots tune.
__________________
2016 GSW- JB4-IS20-CTS TIP-Piggie pipe-K&N filter
TwinDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2018, 04:55 PM   #55
Armchair Racer
Senior Member
 
Drives: 2015 A3 2.0T
Location: Florida
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 170
Not on THIS site's list but neither is Chuck G. He's on the Audizine MQB 1/4 mile list. Here's the link to his post:

https://www.audizine.com/forum/showt...1#post12386802

So he trapped 120 to Chuck's 119 despite the following:

He was running a BONE STOCK catback compared to Chuck running an OPEN DOWNPIPE, ie no exhaust.

He was running pump gas, no meth compared to Chuck running race fuel/ethanol and meth.

He has less mods. Considerably more weight.

All that yet he still trapped a little bit higher.

Again, AWD to AWD just like how you wanna compare it.

So please explain with all that said the 1.8T has "proven to make more power than the 2.0T?" What's being proven is your statement is complete and utter bullshit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TwinDad View Post
The A3 you speak of is not on this list. If we are going to use Chuck's car as an example, then let's stick with awd. The fastest and quickest 2.0 with awd was done with race fuel etc. It's apples to apples with mods and weight reduction and he is running the same et and same trap speed with a 1.8 and what he can do with an ots tune.
Armchair Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2018, 04:59 PM   #56
George Smooth
Senior Member
 
George Smooth's Avatar
 
Drives: Golf 7 R
Location: South Africa
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armchair Racer View Post
Did you see the last photo he posted? That's not a melted piston! That's a fatigued/failed piston. Here's what a melted piston looks like:

http://i1053.photobucket.com/albums/...ps166c6f9a.jpg

There are no signs of hot spots or a meltdown condition in any of the piston photos that have been posted of the failed 1.8T thus far. The photos are consistent with George Smooth's post that it failed from too much stress over time.
After removing its confirmed it melted. Seems this has happened over time most likely when the car wasn't logged and on a quarter mile run managed to push through.

George Smooth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2018, 05:07 PM   #57
Armchair Racer
Senior Member
 
Drives: 2015 A3 2.0T
Location: Florida
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 170
With all due respect, that's not a melted piston from a lean condition. That's a warped piston that couldn't withstand the pressure/heat of the longterm abuse.

Just a heads up, pistons don't typically melt from a leanout condition over time. It happens immediately the first time the engine goes lean and goes boom in a matter of seconds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by George Smooth View Post
After removing its confirmed it melted. Seems this has happened over time most likely when the car wasn't logged and on a quarter mile run managed to push through.

Armchair Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2018, 05:39 PM   #58
Sparky589
Senior Member
 
Sparky589's Avatar
 
Drives: Mk7 Golf TSi
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 191
Slightly deviating from the current line of debate, but blade if you're looking to get stronger engine/transmission mounts BFI sells replacement stage 2 inserts for their mounts. They're only $40 or so, which assuming you're on stage 1 mounts is probably your most cost-effective option.

From experience unless this is going to become a true track car I wouldn't take the mounts further than that. Would just be a pain to live with on the commute.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
__________________
2016 TSI | Platinum Gray | 6-spd slush | APR IS20 w/DP | APR Downpipe | AWE Track Exhaust | Vibrant 17930 | VWR R600 | BFI Stage 2 Mount Kit | BC BR Coilovers | Konig Ampliform | 034 Front + Rear Sway Bar | Michelin P4s
Sparky589 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2018, 10:39 PM   #59
Blade3562
Senior Member
 
Blade3562's Avatar
 
Drives: '15 Golf, '17 GSW 4Mo
Location: Garfield Heights, OH
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 739
Sparky I thought about the stage 2 mounts, but what failed in the trans mount isn't fixed by either BFI mount. They leave the upper portion of the mount as OEM rubber, and this is where all the flex is. NVH is ok by me as long as it isn't a solid mount lol
Blade3562 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2018, 07:42 AM   #60
H2OVWRacr
Member
 
Drives: 2017 GSW 4motion
Location: Socal
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armchair Racer View Post
Are you joking with that first sentence? How do figure that the 1.8T is "proving" to make more power than the 2.0T? You're correct that Chuck had great results but his car is also completely gutted running an open downpipe with no catback, front slicks etc. Even still, he's nowhere near the 125+ traps that both 2.0T Golf Rs and GTIs have ran with OEM IS38 turbos. With all else equal the 2.0T will always make more power than the 1.8T due to the better cam profile, larger displacement among other reasons. That is just a fact.
I've gotta tell ya, you absolutely live up to your screenname. lol

I do agree with you that the 2.0t makes more power than the 1.8, but can you please show me a single stock is38 R that is trapping 125+? All of the quickest confirmed stock turbo Rs are in the 116-119 region. No stock is38 R is coming close to 125+ without some serious weight reduction. And I mean serious weight reduction, because all those 116-119mph Rs already have the seats pulled, just like Chuck.

That being said, there's absolutely no proof that the 1.8 makes more power than the 2.0. The extra displacement and extra lift on the exhaust valves gives the 2.0 a big advantage. The only possible advantage the 1.8 would have would be less stroke allowing it turn more rpm. But that's just not relevant here as the motors are being taken to the same rpm because a)the valvetrain is limiting rpm before the bottom end is and b) the is38 is already done working at those rpms anyways.

I started doing some research after Chuck ran those impressive numbers. And the 1.8 making more power isn't the reason why he was able to beat all those R times. It was weight, or lack of it. Some fun facts about the GSW 4motion that I dug up. It's actually 54lbs LIGHTER than the Golf R. And it has a slightly lower drag coefficient. You combine that with the fact that he had about an extra 50lbs of exhaust removed that the Rs didn't and that he appears to be a pretty lightweight driver and it adds up to around 200 pounds lighter than the Rs. That makes a big difference in trap. Enough that he could trap the same with slightly less power. Combine that with the effort to get the car dialed and working right all the way down the track and you get the similar times.

Regardless, what Chuck accomplished was super impressive to me. So much so that I went out and bought a GSW 4motion. It's going to be doing family duty for a little bit but I hope to help push the platform and see what it's capable of in the next couple years. I already have an is20 that was donated to me to keep me happy for the short term so it looks like I'll be messaging George again soon...lol. BMS is going to be getting a 3rd JB4 out of me.
H2OVWRacr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2018, 11:23 AM   #61
Armchair Racer
Senior Member
 
Drives: 2015 A3 2.0T
Location: Florida
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 170
Well you may want to get back to your research because the GSW 4 Motion is NOT 54lbs lighter than the R. As a matter of fact, it's not lighter at all; it's actually heavier. The 2017 GSW 4Motion DSG is 3358 and the 2015 Golf R DSG is 3340. I'm using 2017 and 2015 because these are pretty much the years of the specific cars we're comparing.

Also, Chuck himself is no lightweight by any stretch of the imagination. In his video descriptions he lists his own weight as 190 pounds. I'd say that's about average for a driver's weight, if not a little higher than average.

I just don't think any of the stock turbo Golf Rs listed in the 1/4 mile spreadsheet were pushed as hard as Chuck's wagon; specifically they weren't maxed out on boost and weren't running an open exhaust like Chuck's SW. It's such a limited sampling and none of them are a good comparison to Chuck. The A3 and GTI, both of which were previously discussed in this thread, are a much better representation of what the 2.0T is capable of. But neither is a Golf R. Which is interesting because the 2.0T in the Golf R has engine enhancements over the "standard" 2.0T of the A3/GTI along with shorter gearing. It also has a lower compression ratio though which will undoubtedly hurt power...

Quote:
Originally Posted by H2OVWRacr View Post
I started doing some research after Chuck ran those impressive numbers. And the 1.8 making more power isn't the reason why he was able to beat all those R times. It was weight, or lack of it. Some fun facts about the GSW 4motion that I dug up. It's actually 54lbs LIGHTER than the Golf R. And it has a slightly lower drag coefficient. You combine that with the fact that he had about an extra 50lbs of exhaust removed that the Rs didn't and that he appears to be a pretty lightweight driver and it adds up to around 200 pounds lighter than the Rs. That makes a big difference in trap. Enough that he could trap the same with slightly less power. Combine that with the effort to get the car dialed and working right all the way down the track and you get the similar times.
Armchair Racer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2018, 12:12 PM   #62
Ironshade
Senior Member
 
Drives: 2015 GSW 1.8tsi 5MT APRis38+jb4 (28psi) on W\M
Location: Atlanta Ga
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 194
I lost intrest in arugung with armchair racer when he said fwd has same drive train loss as awd car lol. When gti’s on is38 are doing 5-6mph traps higher than Rs on same setup

On side note my s model weighed 3110 on scales with towhitch/stock exhaust and spare/tools and full tank of gas. With some weight removal low 2900lbs sound reasonable? I gotta gut it and and turn it loose on apr100 flash for the stack. With 17’ timing request vs my current 12 to see how she does.

Weight photo - https://drive.google.com/open?id=1D0...qXlAj9MkyjLGz1

As far as boost goes me and chuck are running idential boost currenty. But anyway i’ll be at track soon. Currently scoping on a wheel/tire setup.

The 60-100mph video i posted was loading 3rd. Not reving 2nd out to ~73mph (powerband) then getting back in the (powerband) till end of 3rd at 119mph. But anyway
your s6 definitely moves. But i’m not bench racing. I’m basing my performance off cars i’ve raced that have gone to the track. I don’t think i’m streaching it saying its a low120mph car.

5mt 2-3 shift end up at ~4500 and 3-4shift ends up at ~4800 how is that out of the power?

Fyi we all owe chuck a cookie for pushing platform and getting more vendors involved

Last edited by Ironshade; 06-04-2018 at 01:15 PM.
Ironshade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2018, 03:00 PM   #63
ErBall
Senior Member
 
Drives: A3 MQB
Location: Elkhart, IN
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironshade View Post
I lost intrest in arugung with armchair racer when he said fwd has same drive train loss as awd car lol.
That's assuming the AWD system is always on, which it isn't. While it absolutely will suffer more drivetrain loss, when you look at load vs. time the amount of additional loss is appreciably smaller than I think you're accounting for. This is the whole reason haldex systems exist, and are becoming as prevalent as they are. Otherwise it's just spinning the driveshaft, which again is more drivetrain loss, but not much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironshade View Post
When gti’s on is38 are doing 5-6mph traps higher than Rs on same setup
Weight. AWD setupts add about 3-400lbs, when you start looking at HP/Weight it makes sense.
__________________
A3 - ED STG2/DSG - BB DP - EBM IC - BFI Mounts - Fluidampr - BC BR/Swift
ErBall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2018, 03:23 PM   #64
Ironshade
Senior Member
 
Drives: 2015 GSW 1.8tsi 5MT APRis38+jb4 (28psi) on W\M
Location: Atlanta Ga
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 194
Seen plenty of dynodays gti and golf Rs. Mod for mod Gti always put more power down. Its never a percect world where the haldex goes.. ok after 60 mph i’m going to go completely fwd. from what i hear.. it only does 90:10 and that in on highway once car has been crusing in 6th
Ironshade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2018, 03:54 PM   #65
H2OVWRacr
Member
 
Drives: 2017 GSW 4motion
Location: Socal
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Armchair Racer View Post
Well you may want to get back to your research because the GSW 4 Motion is NOT 54lbs lighter than the R. As a matter of fact, it's not lighter at all; it's actually heavier. The 2017 GSW 4Motion DSG is 3358 and the 2015 Golf R DSG is 3340. I'm using 2017 and 2015 because these are pretty much the years of the specific cars we're comparing.

Also, Chuck himself is no lightweight by any stretch of the imagination. In his video descriptions he lists his own weight as 190 pounds. I'd say that's about average for a driver's weight, if not a little higher than average.

I just don't think any of the stock turbo Golf Rs listed in the 1/4 mile spreadsheet were pushed as hard as Chuck's wagon; specifically they weren't maxed out on boost and weren't running an open exhaust like Chuck's SW. It's such a limited sampling and none of them are a good comparison to Chuck. The A3 and GTI, both of which were previously discussed in this thread, are a much better representation of what the 2.0T is capable of. But neither is a Golf R. Which is interesting because the 2.0T in the Golf R has engine enhancements over the "standard" 2.0T of the A3/GTI along with shorter gearing. It also has a lower compression ratio though which will undoubtedly hurt power...
More incorrect armchair racing. You used 2015 and 2017 so you could use google numbers. Go to vw.com and compare the 2017s side by side. Turns out I misremembered the numbers. The GSW is actually 94lbs lighter...my bad. 2017 Golf R=3340, 2017 GSW 4motion=3246. Both those weights are with DSG.

And I can assure you that the Rs on the list are most definitely pushing the limit of the is38. You see, the R at the top of that is38 list was mine. The day I ran that number the car was running 100oct in the tank plus watermeth with jb4 stacked over a UM flash and full bolt ons. Seeing 30psi in 4th with 17 degrees of timing. Seats pulled out, open downpipe with an electric cutout and Hoosier drag radials. Pretty much identical setup to what Chuck was running. The only real difference is that he had his exhaust pulled, saving around 50lbs and he weighs 190 to my 285. That, combined with the lighter weight of the GSW adds up to around 250lbs lighter. And his air was better. 0DA to my 1000DA. Other than that, our setups are almost identical. In fact, I would say the biggest common factor in our setups is that George had a hand in both our cars helping us wring every last bit out of the is38. You know, the guy you're arguing with about piston failures.

If we've established that the 1.8 makes less power than the 2.0, and that the Rs at the top of the list are pushing just as hard as Chuck is, then the difference is weight. That's all that's left. Which is the same reason that the IS38 GTIs are trapping in the 120s. They are significantly lighter than the R. And that's how a 1.8 making less power than the 2.0 is trapping the same. Less weight.
H2OVWRacr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2018, 03:59 PM   #66
TwinDad
Senior Member
 
Drives: 2016 sportwagen
Location: WNY, NJ
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,742
I’ve seen lots of dynos from both IS38 gti and stage 2 golf R. Seems like the majority of the golf R are around 335whp and the gti are usually 350+. I’ve seen as higher in the gti and also the R, but that seems to be the norm. The torque difference is also usually a greater spread as well going in favor to the gti
__________________
2016 GSW- JB4-IS20-CTS TIP-Piggie pipe-K&N filter

Last edited by TwinDad; 06-04-2018 at 05:37 PM.
TwinDad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2018, 12:36 PM   #67
Slick99
Senior Member
 
Drives: 2015 A3 1.8TFSI DSG7 Sedan
Location: Karachi, Pak
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2OVWRacr View Post
More incorrect armchair racing. You used 2015 and 2017 so you could use google numbers. Go to vw.com and compare the 2017s side by side. Turns out I misremembered the numbers. The GSW is actually 94lbs lighter...my bad. 2017 Golf R=3340, 2017 GSW 4motion=3246. Both those weights are with DSG.

And I can assure you that the Rs on the list are most definitely pushing the limit of the is38. You see, the R at the top of that is38 list was mine. The day I ran that number the car was running 100oct in the tank plus watermeth with jb4 stacked over a UM flash and full bolt ons. Seeing 30psi in 4th with 17 degrees of timing. Seats pulled out, open downpipe with an electric cutout and Hoosier drag radials. Pretty much identical setup to what Chuck was running. The only real difference is that he had his exhaust pulled, saving around 50lbs and he weighs 190 to my 285. That, combined with the lighter weight of the GSW adds up to around 250lbs lighter. And his air was better. 0DA to my 1000DA. Other than that, our setups are almost identical. In fact, I would say the biggest common factor in our setups is that George had a hand in both our cars helping us wring every last bit out of the is38. You know, the guy you're arguing with about piston failures.

If we've established that the 1.8 makes less power than the 2.0, and that the Rs at the top of the list are pushing just as hard as Chuck is, then the difference is weight. That's all that's left. Which is the same reason that the IS38 GTIs are trapping in the 120s. They are significantly lighter than the R. And that's how a 1.8 making less power than the 2.0 is trapping the same. Less weight.
https://www.caranddriver.com/volkswa...rtwagen/387798

C&D shows curb weight of GSW 3358lbs manual and 3415lbs dsg.
__________________
BMS JB4/Revo catless DP/modded oem airbox/Revo inlet hose/aFe drop-in filter with snow grate removed/Revo Intercooler/Revo turbo muffler delete/CTS TIP/GFB dv+/034 dog mount/NGK RS7 plugs/OBDeleven

VCDS tweaks visual parking aid, needle sweep & oil temp on DIS
Slick99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2018, 12:45 PM   #68
Faceman
Senior Member
 
Drives: 2017 GSW S 4Mo
Location: Long Island
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slick99 View Post
https://www.caranddriver.com/volkswa...rtwagen/387798

C&D shows curb weight of GSW 3358lbs manual and 3415lbs dsg.
In which trim?



They list the DSG 4Motion as 3325lbs.
Faceman is online now   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.