2001 GT-S vs Bora 1.8T

[SpeedHawk]

My friend drives a 2001 Jetta 1.8T 5-speed, so we've had the opportunity to race a number of times. Its safe to say that he has never beaten me and my 2001 GT-S. On one occassion I started a race from directly behind him at a light and passed him before we were even going 60 mph. 1.8T's are listed at 155 hp, but that is hp at the wheels. So in reality the engines are almost equals stock, although Jettas weigh 400lbs more. A Split Second turbo boost upgrade will put him at nearly 200hp at the wheels. Hopefully an I/E for me will equal things out after that.

[DigableGTS]

the 1.8T is a great engine... u gotta love all the torque it puts out.

My friend's Jetta is chipped, exhuast and I have intake and exhuast... it's pretty much a drivers race between us

I may be slightly faster :)

[discoz]

APR Chipped 2002 GTI 1.8T (at the Crank)

215HP/247Lb-ft of Torque

The car suffers from traction issues, big time. Especially with a chip. An APR chipped '02 GTI 1.8T with a K&N filter should run mid-high 14s.

[larryd]

what most people forget when adding lots of power is traction is a key player in speed.. gotta get the power to the ground which becomes more and more difficult :)

[Masayver]

Originally posted by SpeedHawk
...1.8T's are listed at 155 hp, but that is hp at the wheels. So in reality the engines are almost equals stock, although Jettas weigh 400lbs more.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that 155hp at the flywheel? I've raced many a time against a friend who has a 2001 Jetta(Bora badge :)) 1.8T and he barely beats me (we've gone till 80-85 mph from a stop) and I have a GT with I/E (he is stock).

[discoz]

Originally posted by Masayver


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that 155hp at the flywheel? I've raced many a time against a friend who has a 2001 Jetta(Bora badge :)) 1.8T and he barely beats me (we've gone till 80-85 mph from a stop) and I have a GT with I/E (he is stock).

Depends upon the engine code. There are 3 for the 1.8T motor (AWD, AWW, AWP). The AWW and AWPs rated Torque is at the wheels. E.g. VW claims 174lb-ft of Torque for the 2002 1.8T (AWP)-constant from 1950-5000rpm. However, according to many dynos, the car puts out about 170lb-ft to the wheels between that rev-range. The HP figure is also rumoured to be under-rated, for all 1.8Ts, but I have no proof of that as most Dynos I see have a lower HP figure b/c of drivetrain power-loss. I do know that the older Torque figure was to the wheels on the AWW as well, not sure about the AWD.

Larry, I hear you about traction. Stock, my cars tires break loose in 1st, from a roll, if I punch it. I have not chipped mine yet, it is the next mod. I have driven a chipped 2001 GTI with a few other mods, I believe it was dynoing 213hp/250lb-ft of Torque at the wheels, and holy ****! That thing had balls! Even with good rubber it would let out a nice big screech in almost every gear. What is the Torque figure on your ride? Also, where in the rev range do you make your 210hp?

[larryd]

thats a good ? that i dont know the answer too.. I gotta get this puppy on a dyno.. with the mods ive done and boost im running Im prolly close to 260+hp now.. figure around 220whp.. dyno soon :)

[discoz]

Originally posted by larryd
thats a good ? that i dont know the answer too.. I gotta get this puppy on a dyno.. with the mods ive done and boost im running Im prolly close to 260+hp now.. figure around 220whp.. dyno soon :)

You definately need to dyno your ride. How much Toque does your car put out stock (and when)? I love boost! :D

[SpeedHawk]

The VW power band is so drastically different from from the Celica that even if a Jetta is running with over 200 hp, if he gets a bad launch the celica will take it. I've taken stock 1.8Ts off of the line, but once I get into the high rpms where the Celica's power curve spikes, its not even close. For the VW, if you know how to drive, traction shouldn't be an issue, especially since the sport package has 17-225s tires.

[CAMmed]

do the jetta and gti's with the 1.8t's have an intercooler? and even if they do i would think they would be wearing out there turbo quick by chipping it with more boost without adiquate cooling(bigger intercooler)...am i right? that goes for you too larry... do you have a front mount?

[discoz]

Originally posted by SpeedHawk
The VW power band is so drastically different from from the Celica that even if a Jetta is running with over 200 hp, if he gets a bad launch the celica will take it. I've taken stock 1.8Ts off of the line, but once I get into the high rpms where the Celica's power curve spikes, its not even close. For the VW, if you know how to drive, traction shouldn't be an issue, especially since the sport package has 17-225s tires.

2002 GTI 1.8T with sports suspension (still sucks, I have changed mine) 174lb-ft of Torque (to the wheels) from 1950-5000 rpm. 180bhp @ 5500 rpm. The car holds boost well upto 6K rpm (especially with a chip and aftermarket diverter valve-stock ones suck).

If a Jetta or GTI is 5spd and chipped, it will take a stock GT-S 6spd, regardless of whether he/she has had a bad launch (unless REALLY bad!) or not. Traction is a big issue, even if you 'know' ':o' how to drive. the worst times for chipped GTI/Jettas are in the high 14s, and these are not just one or two people, it is a lot of people doing it.

I can 'chirp' my GTIs wheels (with ****ty tires, granted) in 3rd gear without even trying (with traction control of, of course). I have owned a GT-S 6spd, so I know it's powerband very well. While a very quick car @ high rpms, it is anemic off the line. Don't get me wrong, I still love the car, which is why I am here. As for thh hwy, I hung with my buddies S2000 upto about 120, where we shut if off. The '17 wheels are nice, but the tires are even worse than those with the Celica GT, and mine are worse then those.

Yes, Turbo GTIs and Jettas come with a stock IC. There is no issue with it's size unless a larger Turbo is uses (like the Borg Wagner KKK04, or a T3/T4 setup), even with higher boost. The stock K03 'sport' (b/c it is different from the older K03s) doesn't really need a bigger IC for (obviously always helps) increased boost. The Turbo can handle 1 bar (with 1.1-1.3 bar spikes) very easily, which is what the majority of chips put it upto.

Peace.

[Kit99bar]

14's are not exactly hard to do in a celica either.

my 2nd choice for a car was the GTI
it's very nice looking

driving with torque is sweet too.

Can you tell me honestly about the reliability of GTIs?
I keep hearing stuff. and I know you read more about VW than I do, so can you tell me about it?

Originally posted by discoz


the worst times for chipped GTI/Jettas are in the high 14s, and these are not just one or two people, it is a lot of people doing it.

[discoz]

Originally posted by Kit99bar
14's are not exactly hard to do in a celica either.

my 2nd choice for a car was the GTI
it's very nice looking

driving with torque is sweet too.

Can you tell me honestly about the reliability of GTIs?
I keep hearing stuff. and I know you read more about VW than I do, so can you tell me about it?



Hey, the GTIs have pretty good reliability. The motor/tranny itself is near indestructible. However, you will have small knicks and knacks eventually die out on you, especially with the older ones.

Dunno about the 2002s yet (as they apparently incorporate a few fixes). For instance, the window regulators are an issue. However, since the comprehensive warranty is 4 years as opposed to the usual 3, and the powertrain is 5 or 6 years (not sure) you are covered. The 1999 Jettas had a few teething issues and those were b/c they were the first batch out of their new factory in Mexico.

There are no big current issues to date, besides a few rattles (I had a few, dealer fixed them-my door rubber lining also squeaks, like the Celica, easily fixed with some tire dressing) and the good old window regulator bugs (which also seem to strike BMWS, my GFs 1999 3 series had the same issue). Of course, there are always a few that have problems here and there, but that goes for all cars. I like the fit and finish of the interior. I also love the small touches, such as the smoothness with which many things in the car operate (handles, glove compartment, the interior lighting, moonroof operates without any noise... et cetera).

[Tikked Again]

I've raced my friends 2001 1.8t golf gti quite often in my 86 mk2 supra (160 hp, 170 ft/lbs). My car weighs about 3050lbs and probly puts about 135 or less hp to the ground. On the highway we are even up to 130 (my top speed). But in almost every race we've ever had it's been neck and neck so I'm going to assume the golf has 155 at the flywheel.

On a side note, are the 1.8t gti's faster than the vr6 to 60?

[discoz]

Originally posted by Tikked Again
I've raced my friends 2001 1.8t golf gti quite often in my 86 mk2 supra (160 hp, 170 ft/lbs). My car weighs about 3050lbs and probly puts about 135 or less hp to the ground. On the highway we are even up to 130 (my top speed). But in almost every race we've ever had it's been neck and neck so I'm going to assume the golf has 155 at the flywheel.

On a side note, are the 1.8t gti's faster than the vr6 to 60?

The older ones (pre 2002) are not, I feel the newer ones are (according to the butt dyno, the numbers point to the same conclusion too). This is the 12V VR6 of course. Once the 24V GTI comes out here, the GTI 1.8T will probably have to be chipped to keep up with one.

[JimGTIVR6]

Originally posted by SpeedHawk
My friend drives a 2001 Jetta 1.8T 5-speed, so we've had the opportunity to race a number of times. Its safe to say that he has never beaten me and my 2001 GT-S. On one occassion I started a race from directly behind him at a light and passed him before we were even going 60 mph. 1.8T's are listed at 155 hp, but that is hp at the wheels. So in reality the engines are almost equals stock, although Jettas weigh 400lbs more. A Split Second turbo boost upgrade will put him at nearly 200hp at the wheels. Hopefully an I/E for me will equal things out after that.


Okay first of all, 2001's do not have 155hp to the wheels. They are rated at 150 to the flywheel. It is true that SCC dynoed it at 145 to the wheels. But either way the rating stays at 150 at the flywheel becuase every engine vw seems to put out have slight differnces in power. Also 2002 1.8t's have 180 as the 2002.5 VR6's will have 201hp ...again, they claim at the flywheel, but im sure it will be more.

I myself have a gti vr6, with intake exhaust and a chip. I recently dynoed at 170.8hp, 169.7 trq. I myself seem to have a very strong motor for a VR6 for people with cams put down the same ammount., anways..

i have run a couple GTS celica's in my time and taken them down.

Also remeber street racing is different in asspect to the track. You may be fast at the track but how fast areu on the street?

[noR]

Honestly, I don't think a stock vs stock gt-s vs 1.8t would be too much competition for the celica.

Now the GT vs 1.8t would be pretty close. Still being stock of course.

Personally, I'd like to take my modded 1.8t against a GT-S, just to really see. (exhaust, chip, clutch) Supposedly that puts me around the 190hp mark. Which I guess would be a little advantage, but yea, whatever. ;p

Right now still lookin' & waiting for an aftermarket for that GT. ;p I'd love to put in a SC. Possibly NOS, but I'd like to stay away from the bottle really.

CAMmed,
The KKK03 turbo they use on 1.8ts does come with a (crappy little) intercooler. The chipping brings boost from stock(8lbs) to about 14lbs. It's still within the KKK03 specs though. No clue why vw has the boost set so low. Maybe for longevity? Maybe to make Audi's TT look more pallatable? I dunno.


noR

[discoz]

Originally posted by noR
Honestly, I don't think a stock vs stock gt-s vs 1.8t would be too much competition for the celica.

Now the GT vs 1.8t would be pretty close. Still being stock of course.

Personally, I'd like to take my modded 1.8t against a GT-S, just to really see. (exhaust, chip, clutch) Supposedly that puts me around the 190hp mark. Which I guess would be a little advantage, but yea, whatever. ;p

Right now still lookin' & waiting for an aftermarket for that GT. ;p I'd love to put in a SC. Possibly NOS, but I'd like to stay away from the bottle really.

CAMmed,
The KKK03 turbo they use on 1.8ts does come with a (crappy little) intercooler. The chipping brings boost from stock(8lbs) to about 14lbs. It's still within the KKK03 specs though. No clue why vw has the boost set so low. Maybe for longevity? Maybe to make Audi's TT look more pallatable? I dunno.


noR

Understating your car dude. Anyway, yours is AWD, with the older K03 and before the Variable cam timing. Stock for stock, a 2002 GTI 1.8T puts out 180bhp (@5500rpm) and 174lb-ft of Torque from 1950-5000rpm (which is to the wheels).

I see a drag race between a GTI/Jetta (with "sport package") 1.8T with a Celica being about the same, a drivers race. On a track, the Celica will destroy it, unless it is modded. With a chip (APR, Upsolute, GIAC... etc) the AWP 1.8T will be hitting 210-215hp and 245-247lb-ft of Torque. Then, once traction problems are resolved.... a drag race will not be close. Btw, what kind of chip do you have, your car sounds a little underpowered, only 190hp with all those mods, even for an AWD.

[SpeedHawk]

A drag race between a 1.8T Jetta 5M and a GT-S 6M are not about the same. I beat the 1.8T again. Three times in a row. The first race the 1.8T pulled out in front, as I had to much wheel spin. But I closed in on each gear and 3rd gear put me way past the 1.8T. The other two races, one from a slow roll the other other from a stop, the 1.8T never led. Both cars are stock.

[RedBoraTurbo]

Okay Im the 1.8T driver.. And Speedhawk is a bit dillusional on his driving.. Way ahead is a stretch.. He got me by no more than a car length, and he forgot to say that he was a good 2 or 3 car lengths behind at about 50 mph.. The GT-s is really lacking in low range torgue, the thing leaves the line like a Civic...Also once he pulled a car length a head i decided to call it off, he might have continued going up to 90 mph or whatever but thats up to him, i didnt see the use.. Also off the line, I dont recall hearing much wheel spin from him, i think its a matter of having no low range torque... But im not making excuses he won.. NICE KILL, RICE BOY!!

MIke

P.S. Speed Hawk has about two weeks of **** talking.. He knows my 1.8 is getting a new airfilter and Boost Controller, so He wants to live it up for the last two weeks before, he gets thrashed!

[SpeedHawk]

The race was called at about 70mph after I started to slow down because he had clearly been beaten. He did have me by one car length from start, which just goes to show how great the GT-S is in the high rpm ranges. Superb closing speed. As for the poor TORQUE, the other two races I won from start to finish. My girlfriend (in her GT-S Action Package) also punked him so badly that the BORA gave up before hitting second gear. True, after he makes his mods he SHOULD beat me, but stock vs stock I am 5-0. Undefeated!

[discoz]

Originally posted by SpeedHawk
A drag race between a 1.8T Jetta 5M and a GT-S 6M are not about the same. I beat the 1.8T again. Three times in a row. The first race the 1.8T pulled out in front, as I had to much wheel spin. But I closed in on each gear and 3rd gear put me way past the 1.8T. The other two races, one from a slow roll the other other from a stop, the 1.8T never led. Both cars are stock.


Yes, stock, you should pull on him once lift kicks in. Also remember that he has an unchipped AWW motor. An AWP (more boost from the factory and bigger exhaust piping) could probably take you as both cars are very evenly matched, I know as I have had both cars, have an AWW 1.8T now, and had a GT-S 6spd before.

[discoz]

Here is a link to a thread on VwVortex with a baseline dyno (to the wheels of course) of a 2002 1.8T... pretty impressive #s... seems to tie in with others... VW has once again understated the performance #s of the car.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=208705

[Dave B]

My understanding is that VW/Audi pretty much just increased the boost of the motor for 2002, right? So the gains realized with a chip for the 2002 won't be as good as the prior models.

165fwhp and 170fwtq is nice, but VWs are awefully heavy. A freaking GTi weighs more than my 96 Maxima (Max weighs 2980lbs). I'd say a 2002 GTi 1.8T is probably good for lower 15s considering that a stock 95-99 Maxima 5 speed puts down 165fwhp and 175fwtq. Another thing to note is that they sprayed the IC with water during the run. That's a nice litle trick which does add some power.

The problem with the 1.8T is it's turbo. Too many of these VW/Audi guys push these turbos way too hard. If you've ever seen a dyno of chipped 1.8T, you'd know what I was talking about. The torque curves become really high in the low rpms and then drop like an anvil as the rpms rise. Sure, the chipped 1.8Ts make big numbers, but their powerbands are short which doesn't make for great acceleration in the topend. You want your hp curve to be long and linear and the torque should be very flat. The chipped 1.8Ts have funky powercurves.


Dave

[discoz]

My understanding is that VW/Audi pretty much just increased the boost of the motor for 2002, right? So the gains realized with a chip for the 2002 won't be as good as the prior models.

Actually, they did more than just increase the boost. The exhaust piping has been reworked and apparently it doesn't just stop at that. There have been many debates on this topic @ VwVortex and people have tried inserting a AWP (Current) ECU into a AWW (Previous iteration). Curently the Chips seem to give the current AWP powerplant as much power as the AWW, except for APR which has managed to squeeze out 5 more hp and 2 more ft/lbs of torque than the competition.

165fwhp and 170fwtq is nice, but VWs are awefully heavy. A freaking GTi weighs more than my 96 Maxima (Max weighs 2980lbs). I'd say a 2002 GTi 1.8T is probably good for lower 15s considering that a stock 95-99 Maxima 5 speed puts down 165fwhp and 175fwtq. Another thing to note is that they sprayed the IC with water during the run. That's a nice litle trick which does add some power.

Actually, a fully laden GTI 1.8T weights 2930lbs or so. that Dyno was also 167.5hp and 171.1 tq at best on each of the runs. People have weighed their GTIs and they weigh less than that figure as VW apparently lists the curb weight with all options, all of this information is on their web-site, btw. What you have to understand is that the car is Turbocharged and has a sustained-almost horizontal torque curve, as compared to a NA car whihc might have the same torque at a higher 'peak'. Spraying the IC with water is not a "trick", it is to stimulate a real world driving environment. If your argument were to be true, then all dyno tests of all cars are inaccurate as they include the use of fans, et cetera. The GTI has a side mount IC, so a fan would not help it much anyway.

The problem with the 1.8T is it's turbo. Too many of these VW/Audi guys push these turbos way too hard. If you've ever seen a dyno of chipped 1.8T, you'd know what I was talking about. The torque curves become really high in the low rpms and then drop like an anvil as the rpms rise. Sure, the chipped 1.8Ts make big numbers, but their powerbands are short which doesn't make for great acceleration in the topend. You want your hp curve to be long and linear and the torque should be very flat. The chipped 1.8Ts have funky powercurves.

Well, wrong again, I'm afraid. The Borg-Wagner KKK03 "Sport" Turbo in the GTI 1.8T comes from the factory using less than the max amount of boost that it can handle (usually 0.6 or 0.7 bar or so). Which is why there are people running >= 1 bar of boost on stock Turbos with over 50K miles and no problems. Turbos are never a problem, they are a dream. I have seen many dynos of chipped 1.8Ts and they hold boost very well into the upper rev range, even more so with a K04. I wouldn't call a powerband which usually starts from 1950rpm (when the Turbo spools up) till 5500rpm (where max HP is apparently reached, most shift @ 6K though-after a chip people shift higher, depending upon the type of prgram on the chip) a "short" power curve. The current dyno (and you can find more @ vwvortex.com and 1.8turbo.com) itself shows exactly what I am talking about.

~Omar

[discoz]

Originally posted by Dave B
I'd say a 2002 GTi 1.8T is probably good for lower 15s considering that a stock 95-99 Maxima 5 speed puts down 165fwhp and 175fwtq.
Dave

Actually, people on the VW boards are putting down flat 15s (and a few 14.9s) with the crappy azz stock Contis (tires).

[Dave B]

Omar-

I've spent a lot of time over a Vortexx. I know a lot about these motors. Too many people get caught up in the "numbers", but they pay little attention to the powerband. The 1.8Ts in modified form (chipped) tend to have funky powercurves. The KKK spins up very fast, but it lacks the ability to breath well past 5000rpms. When you add a chip, the hp and tq curves become even more exagerated. It's almost like adding a smaller pulley to a Roots style SC. It builds a TON of tq and hp fast, but it's not able to sustain the power for very long. Turbos will never match the linear power delivery of a NA motor. EX: My NA 3.0 is making 170fwtq from 2000-5400rpms with max torque (194) occuring at 4400rpms. That's what you call a torque curve flat as Kansas. The HP curve is very linear with peak occuring at 5600rpms (175fwhp).

[iwantaferrari]

you can make any layout have a flat torque curve... my N/A curve sucks, damn thing drops 100lbft from just after the peak (more like a platea from 3k-3.8k) to redline at 6k
factory turbo cars are alot better than N/A cars for light modding. bump up boost, intercooler, maybe bigger turbo etc. and your car will be fast as sh!t, you will be alot faster for less $$ in mods

[discoz]

Originally posted by Dave B
Omar-

I've spent a lot of time over a Vortexx. I know a lot about these motors. Too many people get caught up in the "numbers", but they pay little attention to the powerband. The 1.8Ts in modified form (chipped) tend to have funky powercurves. The KKK spins up very fast, but it lacks the ability to breath well past 5000rpms. When you add a chip, the hp and tq curves become even more exagerated. It's almost like adding a smaller pulley to a Roots style SC. It builds a TON of tq and hp fast, but it's not able to sustain the power for very long. Turbos will never match the linear power delivery of a NA motor. EX: My NA 3.0 is making 170fwtq from 2000-5400rpms with max torque (194) occuring at 4400rpms. That's what you call a torque curve flat as Kansas. The HP curve is very linear with peak occuring at 5600rpms (175fwhp).

Absolutely, people do get caught up in numbers, but how do you explain people running mid 14 sec 1/4 miles with only a chip and a drop in filter (about a US$350 investment)? The 1.8Ts spool up a little before 2K rpm, with a lot of torque then being available till about the mid 5Ks. I still do not understand what you mean about the powerband, as I am obviously on VwVortex and the other VW forums all the times, and every dyno that I have seen seems to be completely the opposite of what you are talking about.

This dyno and every other dyno for the car proves exactly what I am talking about, chipped is not much different, except that car can rev higher and hold boost a little longer. Peak HP is hit around the mid 5K rpm range. The stock K03 sport turbo cannot really breathe very well after 6.3K rpm or so, but that is why one can get a K04 for about $850.

Obviously, traction is a major issue in the low gears, but that is a problem that can be controlled, especially with the 2002s, which have a taller axle ratio. Anyway, the 1.8Ts seem to run great times even on stock rubber when chipped. Obviously, the power delivery of a NA motor is always smoother and continous, as compared to a Turbo, but the Torque curve of a turbo-charged motor is often very, very flat, AND it is very easily moddable.

[KleeftonSi]

Originally posted by Dave B
Omar-

I've spent a lot of time over a Vortexx. I know a lot about these motors. Too many people get caught up in the "numbers", but they pay little attention to the powerband. The 1.8Ts in modified form (chipped) tend to have funky powercurves. The KKK spins up very fast, but it lacks the ability to breath well past 5000rpms. When you add a chip, the hp and tq curves become even more exagerated. It's almost like adding a smaller pulley to a Roots style SC. It builds a TON of tq and hp fast, but it's not able to sustain the power for very long. Turbos will never match the linear power delivery of a NA motor. EX: My NA 3.0 is making 170fwtq from 2000-5400rpms with max torque (194) occuring at 4400rpms. That's what you call a torque curve flat as Kansas. The HP curve is very linear with peak occuring at 5600rpms (175fwhp).


Yeah?
But I can guarantee you that a chipped 1.8T with a decent exhaust and a downpipe will pull away from you at any speed, especially on the highway. Linear powerband or not, these things will kick your ass, so I wouldn't talk too much.

[discoz]

Originally posted by KleeftonSi



Yeah?
But I can guarantee you that a chipped 1.8T with a decent exhaust and a downpipe will pull away from you at any speed, especially on the highway. Linear powerband or not, these things will kick your ass, so I wouldn't talk too much.

Hear, hear!!!

I love my 1.8T.... but now I have an opportunity to buy a really hooked up WRX (300+hp) for less than the price of a new one, and it only has 4K miles.... I am really tempted, even though I just got the 1.8T, gonna lose money on the 1.8T, but will gain money on the WRX. What would you do?

[DaksGT]

Originally posted by discoz


Hear, hear!!!

I love my 1.8T.... but now I have an opportunity to buy a really hooked up WRX (300+hp) for less than the price of a new one, and it only has 4K miles.... I am really tempted, even though I just got the 1.8T, gonna lose money on the 1.8T, but will gain money on the WRX. What would you do? I'd cut off my balls and call my self Suzie
But personally i'd keep the 1.8 I'd never buy a done up car just cause someone else did work to it and raped it, u hade the golf ever since it came into existance.

[discoz]

Originally posted by DaksGT
I'd cut off my balls and call my self Suzie
But personally i'd keep the 1.8 I'd never buy a done up car just cause someone else did work to it and raped it, u hade the golf ever since it came into existance.

I know the guy, he's a friend of mine..... and I know that it's in pristine condition, otherwise I wouldn't buy a done up car either.

He has to leave the country (foreign student) and he's only had the car for 6 months... it's just a toy for him (rich kid).

[Hapa88]

Hi guys. I'm a 2001 VW Jetta owner and would like to shed some light here on the subject. My 2001 Jetta with the AWW Engine put out (VW claims) 150 HP and 161 ft-lbs torque, the car weighs 3,000 lbs. To my knowledge these values were at the crank. Since I've had the car, I've had it Chipped with a GIAC chip (version 10) and a Evolution Motorsport Cold Air Intake. These are the only modifications with a net cost of $700. The car has been dynoed at Eurosport Accessories in Anaheim, CA. The results were 185 wheel HP (217 crank HP) and 220 ft-lbs (258 crank). With an exhaust and downpipe there should be an additional 20 hp and 20 ft-lbs at least. I have also ran my friend with a Celica GT-S a number of times (probably close to a dozen or more) both before and after the modification. He is on this board and shall remain nameless unless he would like to reveal himself.

We have also both driven each others cars and the power delievery is a night and day difference. All my power falls between 2,000 and 5,000 RPM. Above 5,500 there's very little power. My car is definitely not high reving. . The Celica on the other hand.. All fun begans at 6,000 RPM almost no fun below that. If you could somehow merge the two, I think we'd have the ultimate car!

Lets break down our races:

*Stock 1.8T vs Celica GT-S with intake and exhaust. *
Off the start we are both equal and remain the same until his VVTL-I kicks in and he'll pull about a car lengh. (even though I have a 5spd and he has a 6spd, our first gears are about the same, i.e. we shift at the same time. His is obviously longer as he shifts at 8100RPM and I shift about 6000RPM). If he gets a bad 1-2 shift, I'm staying about a car behind, he's not pulling. . . Again as soon as his lift comes in he pulls about another 1/2 car in second. Same with 3rd. By about 80 mph, he's about 2.5 cars ahead and pulling in the VVTL-I. Basically if there were no VVTL-I the race would be neck and neck, from my point of view.

*1.8T with Chip & Intake vs. Celica GT-S with I/E*
If I can get a good start (not pealing out all day) I'll usually pull about a half a car ahead. From then on I'll pull about a car length and by the end of the 1/4 mile I'm about 2.5 cars ahead. Timeslips reveal that I'm 0.3-0.4 seconds faster in the end of 1/4 mile. Looking at the 1/8 mile times, etc. it shows I'm pulling on him all the way through. With practice and good tires I'm expected to be in the mid to high 14 sec range (though I've haven't been there personally, I've only been to the track once in my life). I believe he could be in the high 14s too with practice and good starts.

My favorite race we had was when I had 4 people (myself and 3 friends) in my car and he had 2 (himself and a fellow Celica owner). This when I was first chipped. We took off and were neck and neck all the way til 80 mph when we both shut down. I was sitting right next to him. Both of the Celica owners were pretty shocked the Jetta could hang.

**To summarize: If we both get equally good starts I do not believe the GT-S could beat me. (I have a tendency to leave the traction control on, if I spin the tires, the traction control take over and the race is done. . he's about 4 cars ahead) The races are close and it not usually til I get above 70 mph before I start really pulling away (I figure thats when the torque starts taking over). I get most of the jump early in the race (torque again). Stock, a Celica GT-S will pull on me all day long. I've never ran on the freeway, however and am very curious to see how we'd do against each other.

In a street start (rolling in 1st or 2nd) he'll usually pull on me. Its all because of my turbo lag, though its small it take about a second to spool up. By that time he's gotten a car length ahead and pulling. It'll take a while before I can start making up ground and we usually shut down before I get ahead.

All in all, don't underestimate the power of the 1.8T or VWs for that matter. Everyone always does and they always come back surprised when the 1.8T puts it down or at least hangs. . You (Celica) guys can take stock ones no problem, but a Chipped one will give you a run for your money, guranteed.

[My2ktoy]

Okay-
One of my friends has a 2001 wolfsberg jetta, 1.8T, completely stock. I've raced the jetta many times, (before and after my mods), and he's never been able to beat me. It usually pretty close up to about 5K rpm, but above that i usually pull ahead. By third gear i'm usually 1-2 car lengths ahead. Since i got my i/e/h its much, much more than that. I really need to get my car dynod, or take it to the track. I swear i have more power than i should. Another friend has a 92 3000GT, before my exhaust we are basically neck and neck all the way through second, but the top of third he starts to edge away. We haven't had a chanvce to race since i got my exhaust, i think i'll take him now. What do you all think, is that about right for a GT?

[kkrkeith7]

i know this has no relevance to the topic, but i was wondering at what rpm's should i drop my clutch for the best 60 ft. time. i have a celica gt-s 6 speed, Injen CAI, Bridgestone Potenza RE730 tires. i am guessing 5500?

[Dave B]

Alright VW guys and guys that want to learn about power curves and acceleration, look at the link below:

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=232573

Pay no attention to the turbo upgrade (Stage III) because we aren't talking about turbo upgrades, were talking about chips. You will see right away what I'm talking about with the odd and poorly shaped torque curve of a chipped 1.8T. All these VW guys brag about their huge torque numbers, but take a look at the torque curve. The chipped 1.8T makes 220fwtq, but for only 500rpms right off of the spool. After that, the torque curve falls to 200fwtq and continues to fall. This "peak" 220fwtq is meaningless because it's never used at the track if the car is launched properly and on every gear change, the motor is above this peak value. When you compute the numbers, the chipped 1.8T makes less torque OVERALL than my Maxima (not implying there's anything special about my Maxima) . A torque curve isn't suppose to be a curve at all. It's suppose to be flat. My Maxima makes over 180fwtq from 2000-5500rpms with 194 fwtq occuring at 4400rpms. Now that's flat. When the torque curve takes a downward trend right away after boost, it typically means the car has short powerbands, needs lots of shifting, and doesn't do necessarily do well in the top end. Look at all the true highway bruisers (F-Body, Vette, Cobra, BMWs, Benz, etc) and you'll see FLAT torque curves. It means a lot. Believe me. As for HP, I'm making more HP than most chipped 1.8Ts right now.

As for chipped 1.8Ts "smoking me", I highly doubt it. It looks like a close race to me. Most guys are in the mid 14s or higher with chipped and downpiped 1.8Ts and they trap out no faster than myself (94-95mph range). I'm not knocking the 1.8T, but I'm not worried. I've seen one chipped GTI run at KCIR and he was running on 17s. He was in the 15.5s@90mph while I was running 14.8@94mph.


Dave

[Hapa88]

Originally posted by Dave B
As for HP, I'm making more HP than most chipped 1.8Ts right now.

I would hope that you are making more power than the 1.8Ts. Lets keep in mind that we are talking about a stock HP rating of 150 crankHP and 155 ft-lbs (from 1,950-4,700RPM) out of 1.8 liters. Now my car produces (in crank values) 217 HP and 258 ft-lbs and it still has 1.8 liters. Not bad when you consider there are only 2 mods. You may be making more than some but not all. Unfortuately I can't read that graph you're refering to and unfortuately I won't have my graphs until Monday or Tuesday. However lets look at the graph of what my car "should" look like. This is a Stock 1.8T (Red) vs a GIAC chipped one (Blue) .
http://www.18turbo.com/giac-vs-stock-hensta.jpg

The stock torque looks pretty FLAT to me. . . And the Chipped torque is greater everywhere across the band. True the Chipped torque may not be AS flat, but it looks to me like it keeps over 200 ft-lbs (235 crank) to about 5,000 RPM. True again, it may not be as FLAT as a Vette, Cobra, BMWs, or Benz but I guess I can't expect that if I didn't spend the extra $25,000. I guess I can't expect that kinda of smoothness either with just 1.8 Liters. . .

Now, I don't know how you drive, but for me I spend 98% of the time in the 2,000-4,000 RPM range. Only for that 2% of the time that I'm racing do I go above that. So whats it like having over 235 ft-lbs of torque in that range? Its great, cuz there's no need to waste time downshifting, just press down the gas and go!

As for drivability, my car pulls smoothly and evenly throughout the powerband. Now the engine may sound like its being a little more worked than a 3.0 liter V6 but that comes expected since its an I4 at heart. I mean why do you think manufacturers offer the V6 as an option (Maxima not included)? Because the consumers seek to have the smoothness and power. I choose the 1.8T over the VR6 because of its tunability and its $3,000 less the the 6 cylinder.

As for 1/4 mile times, I think you have me for now. My best 1/4 mile was 15.3@91 MPH at Carlsbad raceway. Keep in mind that this was my very first time on the track and I was having troubles with my starts (2.6 sec - 60ft times) do to horrible traction on stock tires. Now if I can get my starts down pat, I think I should be well into the 14 sec range. So would I smoke you? I think it will be close, closer than you'd like any Jetta to be. . . considering we BOTH weigh in at 3,000 lbs (come on. . everyone knows the Jetta a freakin Chick's car). I'm not knocking on the Maxima, heaven forbid the 3.5 liter 255hp SE is a work of art in itself, but don't diss on the Dub. .

I'd have to say for the Chipped GTi that ran a 17 sec, I must say. . SOOOO SAD. . . I mean, I basically stalled on the start, came back to run a 16.6@90.4. Maybe he was only running on 3 cylinders?

-Adrian

[Dave B]

Adrian-

Thanks for the civilzed response :wiggle:

That dyno printout shows the best numbers I've ever seen for a chipped 1.8T. Are you sure that there's nothing else done to that 1.8T, like a revised intake, exhaust, or downpipe? I have a hard time believing all that power came from a chip and pump gas.

You're right in that the 1.8T is making some good torque from 3000-5000rpms which is where you want it for racing. If you compare the stock vs modified graphs, you'll see what I'm talking about in terms of skewed torque curves. The stock 1.8T torque curve is nice and flat where as the chipped 1.8T's torque curve continues to climb, quite steeply I might add, to around 3200rpms and then starts to fall. I completely disagree with you when you say the chipped 1.8T is easy to drive in the lower rpms (2000-4000rpms). With a curve like that from 2000-4000, you're making a good bit of torque, but the curve is constantly moving making for a boggy feel. From 2000-4000rpms, the motor goes from making around 110fwtq up to 217fwtq. My Maxima's torque curve from 2000-4000rpms goes from 180fwtq to 190fwtq. I barely have to give the car gas to get it rolling. Around town, I take 1st to 3500, 2nd to 3000rpm, and then usually grab 4th which lands around 1600rpms. I rarely use 3rd unless I want to get away quickly. If I really want to get away from traffic at a light, I take 1st to 4000 and 2nd to 4000. This is way more than enough get up and go unless some jerky thinks I'm trying to race them. Around town, I lug around at in 4th at 1800-2000rpms which is more than enough to accelerate from. Throttle respones is instant unlike a turbo. The reason the Max is so flexible is because of it's displacement, but you already pointed that out.

With a turbo,you just don't get the nice flat torque curve and the linear HP curve. Usually the curves are very peaky with the WRX being one of the best examples. Once you add a different turbo to the 1.8T, the motor is far more usable and the curves are some of the best I've seen on a turbo. The numbers aren't huge, but the overall usefullness on the street is perfect.

Did you run a 15.3@91mph with the chip? I'm not knocking your car, but trap speed is a clear indicator of hp, even with a dismal 2.6 60 foot, you should have been trapping out higher. I've run a 15.8@93mph with 2.6 60 foot :bang: The chipped 1.8T seems to be fairly inconsistent on the track. With the same mods, some guys are running 95-96mph while others running 90-91mph. Is this motor prone to lots of heat soak? Does hot weather really kill this motor? Is race gas a necessity with the higher stage stock turbo chips?

I think you decision to get the 1.8T over the VR6 was a wise choice. The VR6 has a very limited market just like my Maxima. The 1.8T has a growing market that will only get bigger in the coming years. I like VWs. They're cleanly styled and have a very european design. Even I'm considering going with the small displacement turbo. The A4/VW had always been an option, but the electrical gremlins and slow service turns me off a bit. I will most likely pick up a used 2002 WRX, maybe new if I can afford it. I know the WRX isn't free from problems, but they seem to be fewer than VW/Audi. I really want AWD after driving my wife's newly purchased 98 Legacy GT wagon in the snow and ice. All I'd do with the WRX is add a boost controller, downpipe, filter, and catback. All the other stuff would be suspension and looks (it needs lots of work in the looks dept). 13s is all I want. The hardest thing for me will be the lack of low rpm torque, but I'm sure you knew this already.

Dave

[discoz]

Before making your "big numbers-alll hype" judgement, did you look at the HP curve too?

I mean, I don't really want to have to repeat myself... and I am not trying to "diss" your car and promote mine or anything. What you have said is obvious, a NA has much smoother and continious power delivery, as opposed to a Turbo-charged car.... but we already know that. A Turbo-charged car is much more tunable, for a lot cheaper... we also know that.... so what exactly is your point, Dave?

We know that traction is an issue with the GTIs, as with many FWD Turbo-charged cars, we also know that there is a lot of Torque @ around 3K rpm, and it slowly tapers off, around 5K... but look, the HP seems to be peaking a little after that...

Do you have a dyno that I can see for your Maxima? The fact of the matter is that most chipped 1.8Ts have pretty flat torque and HP curves, like many orher Turbo-charged cars. Go to the web site below and you will see what I mean. We also have two dynos on this page that are contrary to your belief, and one that is vaguely similar to what you are saying.

I am not going to bother posting links/pics here as I am sick of discussing this topic... so, without further ado... go to:

http://www.18turbo.com/18t-dyno.html

They have Dynos of stock vs. chipped motors and how different chips and mods affect the different 1.8T motors differently.

And no, your car doesn't make more HP or Torque than a GIAC/UP/APR chipped AWW or AWP motor. Not knocking on your car, but it is simply not as fast or powerful (given equal drivers) as a chipped 1.8T (AWW or AWP once again).

Cheers.

I've seen stock Maximas running in the 16s, big whoopeee.

[nicky69_1668]

:whogives:

Does anyone know what double clutching is? It sounds harmful to the car. I would like to know b4 my next street race.



Speed does not kill if you race it wisely.

=>2001 GT-S silver top of the line. All stock. It's not the car, it's the DRIVER.

"...you never had me...winning is winning...whether you win by an inch or a mile."

-exerpt from The Fast and the Furious (character: Vin Diesel)

[Hapa88]

Double Clutching (http://pub21.ezboard.com/fsandiegodragracingfrm1.showMessage?topicID=12.top ic)

I think you've been watching too much Fast and the Furious... and if it's not the car, then why did you get the "Top of the line"? :gap:

Anyway double clutching is LESS harmful for your car. And in a street race will probably do nothing more than make you slower.

[discoz]

Yeah, there seems to be no practical benefit to double clutching as opposed to single clutching when upshifting in a street race. They were just trying to sound cool in FnF.

[Dave B]

Originally posted by discoz


.....A Turbo-charged car is much more tunable, for a lot cheaper... we also know that.... so what exactly is your point, Dave?

We know that traction is an issue with the GTIs, as with many FWD Turbo-charged cars, we also know that there is a lot of Torque @ around 3K rpm, and it slowly tapers off, around 5K... but look, the HP seems to be peaking a little after that...

Do you have a dyno that I can see for your Maxima? The fact of the matter is that most chipped 1.8Ts have pretty flat torque and HP curves, like many orher Turbo-charged cars....

....And no, your car doesn't make more HP or Torque than a GIAC/UP/APR chipped AWW or AWP motor. Not knocking on your car, but it is simply not as fast or powerful (given equal drivers) as a chipped 1.8T (AWW or AWP once again).

......I've seen stock Maximas running in the 16s, big whoopeee.

First off, I'm not knocking the VW nor do I think it's a crap car. I'm simply stating that chipped VW typically exhibits power curves of a stock turbo pushed too hard. Torque typically nose dives right after the turbo is spooled. I also have a very hard time with lots of VW guys that brag about their 220+ fwtq cars when that 220fwtq is only sustained for about .5 seconds and plays no real part in 1/4 miel acceleration. Another problem is that lots of VW express their power numbers converted to crank. Why do they do this? Is it because all the tuners typically express their numbers at the crank? From now on, my Maxima is making 210hp and 230ft/lbs torque :D

You won't see this Maxima running 16s. Chances are the Maximas you see race are automatics. Only 10% of the Maximas in the States are 5 speeds. On average, an automatic is about .5-.7 seconds slower except for the new 3.5 V6 2002 Max auto which is just as quick as the 6 speed (14.4-14.6 stock). We've had quite a few guys hit 14.7-14.9 in bonestock 95-99 Maximas. Just like any car, driver is what makes he biggest difference. I guess you haven't seen many quick, if 14s are considered quick, Maximas which is normal because there aren't many Maximas out there that have run 14s. There are about 25 of us with NA Maximas that are running 14.2-14.7s on street tires and no rice gutting. I think that is plenty competitive to hang with most chipped VWs. Let's be REAL honest here. How many chipped turbo VWs are in the low 14s? A handful? Most of the timeslips and sigs I see over at vortex and 18turbo.com are showing 14.6 and above. I wouldn't exactly call that a "stomping" would you?

I know how hard it is to launch a high torque FWD car, I own one. I've never done better than a 2.25 60 foot.

Yes, I know turbo cars are more tuneable. However, a turbo VW doesn't quite have the potential of say a WRX or Talon. It takes about $3500+ to get a VW solidly in the 13s which is mostly a new turbo, manifold, and ECU. Just for comparison, you can buy a Stillen SC for $3500. The SC will put any 5 speed Maxima solidly in the mid 13s. With a pulley upgrade, you can be in the lower 13s. With a IC and some tuning you can be in the 12s. With a early stage 50 shot, you can be in the mid 12s. It's all been done before and I know of no one who's blown their motor do it. They've popped differentials with drag tires, but no motors. The Maxima's V6 isn't exactly untunable and is quite a sleeper in stock form (manual versions).

I don't have a copy of my dynoplot because my scanner is toast. Here are a few dyno plots I dug up. One is stock (I believe), one is with a y-pipe and intake, and one is with a intake, y-pipe, catback, and ECU. The ECU'd Max ran 14.3 with no "rice" gutting (ie full interior). I see that a BUNCH of VW guys pull out their seats and such when running at the track in order to get the best et possible.

http://integra.vtec.net/geeser/megamax/images/Dyno.jpg

http://www.boostaholic.com/maxima/dyno/index.html

As you can see, the torque curve is flat and then jumps up a bit after 3500rpms and then starts to fall at 5000rpms. It never starts out high at and then continues to fall.


Dave

[discoz]

First off, I'm not knocking the VW nor do I think it's a crap car. I'm simply stating that chipped VW typically exhibits power curves of a stock turbo pushed too hard. Torque typically nose dives right after the turbo is spooled. I also have a very hard time with lots of VW guys that brag about their 220+ fwtq cars when that 220fwtq is only sustained for about .5 seconds and plays no real part in 1/4 miel acceleration. Another problem is that lots of VW express their power numbers converted to crank. Why do they do this? Is it because all the tuners typically express their numbers at the crank? From now on, my Maxima is making 210hp and 230ft/lbs torque :D

Never said you were biased aginst VWs, it just appeared that you seemed to be very defensive from your Maximas point of view. Drivers make all the difference, and we all know that. Dave. The stock K03/K04 hybrid Turbo AKA K03 Sport in the current 1.8Ts is not being pushed too hard with a chip, I still disagree with you as I have seen over 20 dynos of 1.8Ts which follow the characteristics of the dyno that Hapa88 posted. Which is far from a Turbo being pushed too hard. The Torque also doesn't nose dive as you say, obviously it falls, but not in a very sharp downward curve way.

What you also have to remember is that different chips affect the curve differently, depending upon the program. Considering the dyno I posted earlier shows 167whp and 170wtq for the 2002 1.8T stock, can I also convert my numbers @ the crank? :D Some VW guys do not do so, but some do, possibly b/c many people do not know better and think that wheel numebrs are crank numbers. Also, if what you say is correct, then looking at peak power for ANY car is not right since it is not always maintained, e.g. RSX-S, Celica GT-S, Maxima... can't go by the evil peak numbers then, can we? Everyone mentions their peak numbers, you just did in your signature. Anyway, if the 1.8T is so overrated, then why is it respected my many as a tunable and powerful motor?

There are many K03 sport 1.8Ts that are in the 13s (albeit high 13s) with the stock Turbo and usually less than 2K in performance mods. Drew at www.20vturbo.com is one, dablackjetta @ VwVortex is another one. Obviosuly, the torque curve tapers off after it reaaches it peak at about 3K, but it tapers off very gently, and peak HP is not hit till the mid-high 5Ks... so, the power curve is extended till then. The car also makes on average more than 200fwtq up to 5K rpm, which is where the HP is coming close to it's peak, so the torque is not as significant anymore. It is a very well known fact that the 1.8T is a VERY tunable motor... e.g. there are more than a few 1.8Ts with 400 hp on the stock bottom end, BillyT being an example.

You won't see this Maxima running 16s. Chances are the Maximas you see race are automatics. Only 10% of the Maximas in the States are 5 speeds. On average, an automatic is about .5-.7 seconds slower except for the new 3.5 V6 2002 Max auto which is just as quick as the 6 speed (14.4-14.6 stock). We've had quite a few guys hit 14.7-14.9 in bonestock 95-99 Maximas. Just like any car, driver is what makes he biggest difference. I guess you haven't seen many quick, if 14s are considered quick, Maximas which is normal because there aren't many Maximas out there that have run 14s. There are about 25 of us with NA Maximas that are running 14.2-14.7s on street tires and no rice gutting. I think that is plenty competitive to hang with most chipped VWs. Let's be REAL honest here. How many chipped turbo VWs are in the low 14s? A handful? Most of the timeslips and sigs I see over at vortex and 18turbo.com are showing 14.6 and above. I wouldn't exactly call that a "stomping" would you?

I know how hard it is to launch a high torque FWD car, I own one. I've never done better than a 2.25 60 foot.

You are right about the stomping bit, but most chipped AWW/AWP 1.8Ts can run at least a sub 15 sec 1/4 mile very easily (and there are 1000s of chipped 1.8Ts). Most people with just a chip and downpipe are running mid 14s easily, and you know how bad the stock Continental tires are. As for low 14s, there are a hell of a lot of Chipped 1.8Ts in the low 14s.... if there weren't then why does the 1.8T have a reputation as a very easily tunable motor? Just go to any VW forum and look at the timeslips for members. Far more than 25 people, I'll tell you that much. Also, when you say NA Maximas, you mean non-stock, obviously, in that case non-stock 1.8Ts are running 12s and 13s with minimal money in mods. I find it very hard to see anything besides the new ones running low 14s stock.

Yes, I know turbo cars are more tuneable. However, a turbo VW doesn't quite have the potential of say a WRX or Talon. It takes about $3500+ to get a VW solidly in the 13s which is mostly a new turbo, manifold, and ECU. Just for comparison, you can buy a Stillen SC for $3500. The SC will put any 5 speed Maxima solidly in the mid 13s. With a pulley upgrade, you can be in the lower 13s. With a IC and some tuning you can be in the 12s. With a early stage 50 shot, you can be in the mid 12s. It's all been done before and I know of no one who's blown their motor do it. They've popped differentials with drag tires, but no motors. The Maxima's V6 isn't exactly untunable and is quite a sleeper in stock form (manual versions).

This I vehememtly disagree with. The ATP $3500 kit (which includes all and is but one way to go, amongst many other routes) which includes a T3/T4 hybrid turbo will also get you into the low 13s high 12s easily. High 12s have been done on the stock bottom end by people like BillyT, who I mentioned before. No one has blown their motor with a chip unless they were doing something stupid. If you have spent time on the VW forums, then you know that what I am saying is true. All you have to do is go the web sites for the different tuners for the 1.8Ts, and check out their Turbo kits. One of the only reasons why the WRX and the AWD DSMs are killers at the track is because of their AWD launch. They are great tuner cars anyway, with massive potential, as is the 1.8T.

I don't have a copy of my dynoplot because my scanner is toast. Here are a few dyno plots I dug up. One is stock (I believe), one is with a y-pipe and intake, and one is with a intake, y-pipe, catback, and ECU. The ECU'd Max ran 14.3 with no "rice" gutting (ie full interior). I see that a BUNCH of VW guys pull out their seats and such when running at the track in order to get the best et possible.

http://integra.vtec.net/geeser/megamax/images/Dyno.jpg

http://www.boostaholic.com/maxima/dyno/index.html

As you can see, the torque curve is flat and then jumps up a bit after 3500rpms and then starts to fall at 5000rpms. It never starts out high at and then continues to fall.


Dave

Most VW guys do not "rice-gut" their interiors, some do, some don't, just like other cars. I think that it is too broad of a generalization to say that all VW owners gut their interiors, and not all Maxima owners do; I am sorry to say this Dave, but it looks more like you are grasping at straws. There is enough data here, and on VW sites to prove what I am saying. The Tq curve for the chipped 1.8Ts jumps when the turbo spools up

[Dave B]

Very well, Discoz. I plan on visiting the Midwest sections of Vortex and such to setup some races at KCIR, Heartland Park, or Mo/Kan between my Maxima and the chipped VWs. I will happily post the outcomes. Here in Kansas City, there are very few turbo VWs that seem to be modified. I've only seen one VW chipped turbo GTI run at KCIR and he was deep into the 15s barely getting above 90mph, but he was running heavy wheels. He said his mods were a chip, intake (assuming filter panel because I didn't see a cone filter), and exhaust (only saw a nice muffler). At the same track and on the same day, I was significantly quicker (.7 seconds) and much faster (4mph+) thru the 1/4 mile.

When I say NA, I'm talking about naturally aspirated motors (no SC or turbo). With a SC, you're pretty much gonna run run low 13s with traction and good driving. Even one guy hit a 12.9. Unlike the turbo VW guys, we only have a handful of owners at Maxima.org that have SCs and only ~15 of which have run their cars at the track and half of which are autos. Simply put, we don't have a lot of data. However when looking at the plots of a SC Maxima dyno, you quickly understand that a 275fwhp Maxima that weighs 2900lbs will go deep into the 13s. Our fastest NA 4th gen (95-99) ran a 14.2 with 172fwhp and 185fwtq.

All in all, this is just a friendly debate. I used my Maxima just as a comparison with no real intention of making this a Maxima vs turbo VW debate.


Dave

[Hapa88]

Dave, must say. . Thanks for the reply. I also had a look at your website and the Maxima looks pretty clean. Thumps up man. :thumbup:

I just had to address the Torque curve of 1.8Ts. Unlike many other Turbocharged cars (the Mitsu Eclipse, WRX, etc), VWs have a Variable boost delievery. Meaning that it does not hold the same amount of boost across the entire rev band. Most chipped 1.8Ts build up boost which peaks at about 3,000 RPM @ 19-20 psi. This peak holds for less than half a second and drops off to around 16 psi at around 4,000 RPM and continues to drop to around 12 psi at 6,000 rpm and still falls to around 8 psi at redline. Now if you compare the boost levels to the torque curve, you'll see a strong correlation. VW did this as more or less a safety feature. It is widely known that a car can accept higher levels of boost at low RPMs without having detoniation. As RPMs increase, boost is let off to allow better efficiency in the higher RPMs. You'll see this tried with most Turbo charged VWs/Audis. As an example, if you have Gran Turismo 3, drive the Audi TT. Watch the boost gauge (as RPMs go up, Boost goes down), this is a very accurate representation of the boost delievery of a standard/chipped 1.8T.

VW guys print Crank HP because Car manufacturers print Crank HP. The stock 190 HP of your Maxima was measured at the crank. Now if you tell someone "hey, my car makes 176 wheel HP", most everyday people have no idea what you're talking about. They'll think you actually make less than what your car was listed at. Now if you tell them you make 210 HP, I think they'll be a little more impressed. This crank number is infact greater and it serves as something easier to compare when talking about Stock HP numbers, as Discoz somewhat mentioned. Unfortunately Dynos don't measure crank HP, although it could be done, but its much easier to convert the wheel HP to crank HP. If car manufactures decide to have their numbers listed in wheel HP, I'll list my numbers in wheel HP. I know 2 sets of numbers get kindof confusing.

For the 1/4 mile, yes it seems like my Trap speed is rather low. This run was done with everything Stock, except the chip and intake. I had a full interior, full size spare and a six pack and cooler in the back (I should have probably drinken them the night before for some weight reduction. . hahha)! There's a possibility it was the track, as Carlsbad is not known for having the best track but I'm not certain. I plan to go to Fontana (California Speedway) in the coming weeks. Race Gas (high octane unleaded) would definitely help, especially in my car as the best gas we Californias have is 91 octane!:bang: (which is what I was running).

As for the WRX. . . I must say that I like the car, never driven it, but think it would be fun. I DO have to say this however, I believe that car is WAY overrated. For the price, you pay for the engine and AWD, thats it. The interior is very bland and I felt that there should be a little more attention to detail. Well, I guess I should give you my theory on the WRX then. . . Probably the quickest car you can buy for $25,000. I've seen numerous reports all having different 1/4 mile times, but the one thing I noticed was LOW trap speeds. quarter mile times all ranged in the 14s, but trap speeds I've seen between 89 and 93 MPH? This leads me to believe that the car is undoubtably quick, but not fast. 0-60 and quarter miles are all made with the start and since the WRX has AWD, we're talking about a tremendous start here! However, it is my belief that in a 1/4 mile race both you and I would be making up that start all the way down the 1/4 mile. Basically if it were a street start (from 5 mph), the WRX wouldn't be doing as well as its numbers suggest. . I think both the Jetta and Maxima would right next to it, if not pulling on the WRX a little. Also boost builds up slowly with the larger turbo, so hurts this car dearly (as most prominent car magazines have pointed out).

That brings us to modified WRXs. True a boost controller will do a lot. I've seen one WRX running a boost controller and 50 shot of NOS. He was running the mid 13s. Not bad, but again I remember his trap speed was rather slow for a 13. This again was at LACR which is at altitude, so the times have to be corrected.

Hopefully this clears somethings up. Its really difficult to compare two different engines. Both have their advantages and disadvantages in power, efficiency and overall drivablility. Us 1.8T guys just like to brag that we can get huge power gains across the entire power band with less money than a quality Cat-back Exhaust system for most imports. . . So we're really into our cars, we all are. . thats what Auto enthusiasts are all about. .

[discoz]

Beautiful Hapa88! I couldn't have said it better. also, Dave, I hope that you didn't think that I was being hostile.

This is a friendly debate, and much, much better than the usual "my car is faster than yours" debates (if we can call tham that). I learn from what you say, and you learn from what I say!

Cheers.

[Dave B]

Hapa88-

Thanks for the comments. My goal was to keep the car clean, simple, and a "sleeper". Pretty much everything modified is to improve performance. No fancy heavy wheels, no loud muffler, no mellon-shooter tip, no uncessary lighting, big wings, stickers, etc.

I never knew VW was using a "variable" turbo. I believe the WRX incorporates the same kind of system, which most guys end up overriding. You're right, the WRX is truely utilitarin. It's blockly in appearance and the interior is barebones. It is a step down from the Maxima and VW interior, that's for sure, but the true fun lies in it's performance. There's no doubt in my mind that a chipped VW or my Maxima would most likely walk a stock WRX from any roll-on race. It's their 0-30mph that is so wicked. Thier topend suffers simply because of all that extra rotational driveline drag. Once you add a boost controller, reworked intake, downpipe , and catback, 13s are quite easy, but you'll be lucky to trap out any higher than 98mph which isn't much stronger than my Maxima's best trap of 95.5mph.

The reason I don't like crank numbers is because no one knows for sure what the driveline loss % really is. I was looking over the dynos at www.18turbo.com and my jaw dropped at the posted power numbers until I realized they were "crank". I like wheel hp and tq because that's what you are putting down to the ground. That's what counts in my book, but I entirely see where you're coming from.

I really do like the VWs. I'm even impressed with the 1.8T. I just think it's always better to go with a better turbo and manifold setup. Once you do that, those 1.8Ts really can crank out some very nice curves.

I've got a couple quick questions for you and Discoz. If you know, what are guys typically running with chipped awd Audi A4 1.8Ts? There seems to be little info out there on the A4s. I've always loved the A4 and I'd think a A4 with the APR stage 3 would be a bad ass ride (I've got a pic of one on my desktop at work).


Dave

[Hapa88]

I'll look into it for you. The 1.8T Audi Quattros have a problem with being a little on the heavy side, plus the programs for their chips can't seem to match that of the 1.8Ts in the Jettas/Gtis/Golfs. I really don't know why, but maybe its because their engine is not transverse mounted like the Jetta's? Keep in mind that the Audi was geared more towards refinement rather than speed.

The car you should be asking about is the Audi S4 Quattro. Essentially the same car on the outside as the A4 but with the 2.7 BiTurbo engine. This car, in my mind, is a freakin masterpiece. Second only to the BMW M5 (and maybe the new M3). This engine, like its 1.8T counterpart is very tunable. Chips boost power from the stock 250 HP to around 310 HP. One guy on the Vortex ran STOCK at 14.1@98mph on a hot day. After chipping and the addition of 19" wheels he pulled off a 13.4@103mph. Running a new RACE program (for race gas) and an aftermarket exhaust he ran 13.1@104. Not too shabby.

I posted a message on the Vortex to find out about the A4s. Hopefully I'll get a response.

-Adrian

[discoz]

Ya, the A4s are a little heavier, lose top end b/c of all-wheel-drive and do not seem to produce as much power, generally. They also ahve different gearing.

I want to know a little bit more about this myself, as I was considering it, and then dumped the idea in favour of a GTI. It could have something to do with the way things are setup, stock. Plus, as Adrian pointed out, the motor is not transversely mounted like the MkIV G/J. Hmm... I will also do some research on this tomorrow (well, today) at work!!!

[SpeedHawk]

Originally posted by Hapa88
[B
All in all, don't underestimate the power of the 1.8T or VWs for that matter. Everyone always does and they always come back surprised when the 1.8T puts it down or at least hangs. . You (Celica) guys can take stock ones no problem, but a Chipped one will give you a run for your money, guranteed. [/B]

I raced a chipped 1.8T on a couple of occassions now and agree with your comments. Low end it is a faster car, but from 2nd gear I have run even with the 1.8T. Coming off an exit ramp I kept my engine wound up to 6000rpms in 2nd gear and was able to close just slightly on the chipped T. There is not really a whole lot that I can do until I get to 6000rpms. I want to road race a chipped T. I think as long as I can keep my rpms up it'll be close.

[RedBoraTurbo]

Speedhawk,
You are correct, you hung with me and gave me a good run in my 2001 Chipped AWD 1.8t.. All the above posted comments were made based on the AWW or AWP engine codes which the AWW puts out a lil more output than the AWD and the AWP is the 180hp readout putting out much more than the AWD.. All in all we are now both pretty evenly matched.

I must say that whoever installed your Injen CAI sure did a damn fine job! Looks and sounds good... And it definetly adds a good deal of power to your car.