Golf R Observations and Questions

[DDTW]

Well, you can hear the announcer say a few minutes into the presentation, that "Tara Yada Vada - and we also have the weight of the camera man on board". And that test driver has to be 110kg+++

There's your 4.5.

Watch it again Roland said that the car should do 5.0s, but because the camera man is on board + wet road, it only did 5.6s.

[Prodigy]

By the way, I bought mine from parts4euro as well (Matte Black Front Grille Emblem for MK6 Golf & GTI) however in the tutorial photo it looks like the honeycomb style insert on the emblem is part of the emblem itself, is this correct as my replacement doesn't have the honeycomb backing, its just the VW bit. Is this how yours was too, and do you just reuse the the backing on the original emblem (hope that makes sense)?

The honeycomb is part of the grill. You will just receive just the VW emblem and you will have to remove the entire OEM VW emblem and replace it with the new one.
If you have any problems let me know and i'll try and help.

[Fab_R]

Yeah it does. But I mean, the car already weighs 1496kg, so it's not quite the same as adding those things to a 1100kg car
Either way, be greatful the cars aren't weighed "as delivered", cause then many of us would be paying the next (giant) leap up in rego costs!

Tell me about it...just had to renew the rego on the wifes Lexus RX350...nearly $800 FFS!!
Thieves!

[dave_r]

Nah, the intercooler is in a stack of 3 radiators behind the centre grill

Do the DSG GTI's have the same cooler on the side?

Tell me about it...just had to renew the rego on the wifes Lexus RX350...nearly $800 FFS!!
Thieves!

What the hell? Was $660 last time I paid it I think?

[Corey_R]

Do the DSG GTI's have the same cooler on the side?

I'm sure the non-R DSG models have some type of DSG cooler, but no, that cooler in the passenger side grill intake is specific to the R DSG.

[Prodigy]

Ooh boy I'd like that exhaust flap button mod!

Talking of flapper mods, has anyone done it to their R yet?

[Fab_R]

Latest Drive by Vid’s with some WOT!
APR Full Exhaust....

Piloted by BezzyR

YouTube - Golf R Fab_R APR Exhaust Drive By

YouTube - Golf R Fab_R APR Exhaust Drive By

YouTube - Golf R Fab_R APR Exhaust Drive By

YouTube - Golf R Fab_R APR Exhaust Drive By

YouTube - Golf R Fab_R APR Exhaust Drive By

YouTube - Golf R Fab_R APR Exhaust Drive By

Dyno time

YouTube - Golf R Fab_R Dyno Run

[markwid]

Fab_R, don't get me wrong, I am all for sharing the vids but just wondering if nanny state (VIC) cops can actually came after you for "hooning" based on the vids.

[crazyray]

Fab_R...nice vids...

i see you went to RE for ur dyno runs...

[Fab_R]

Fab_R...nice vids...

i see you went to RE for ur dyno runs...

Hey Ray correct mate. Results up shortly by Dave_R.

[dave_r]

Not at work so don't have a scanner handy this time, dodgy photos will have to do for now...

This is an overlay of my original graph with the new run.



A new run against RPM instead. This was the 3rd or 4th run so one thing I've noticed is that the power is consistent.



And finally my original and updated runs, with Fab's run included, power and torque (tractive effort) shown.



The Stage 1 tune has an improvement but IMO, APR's claims are slightly misleading. I'm not interested in peak numbers, but was hoping for more power much earlier.

Not only does our Stage I ECU Upgrade give you higher peak numbers of 239kw and 435nm. Gains of up to 49kw are available at lower rpms!

There are no gains until well past 4000 rpm, or our idea of lower rpms are different? Maybe the fuel pump is needed to get much lower rpm increases but it isn't listed as a required upgrade let alone recommended?

Fab's stage 2 tune however isn't really fairly represented by the graph. While the difference early in the rev range isn't huge, the driving experience is vastly different. His car has so much better response and urgency at lower rpms. So looks like frontpipe and fuel pump are gonna have to get added in....

I had VCDS logging things on my runs but haven't looked at the logs yet. Didn't get around to doing any on Fab's car though.

But for a real world comparison... the stage 1 R still doesn't have enough go to beat an RS5 from 80 on the run lol. Could still stay within a car length but there is no shame in being beaten by such a sweet sounding V8 reving to 8000rpm

[Corey_R]

The Stage 1 tune has an improvement but IMO, APR's claims are slightly misleading. I'm not interested in peak numbers, but was hoping for more power much earlier.

Yeah, I've sent a PM to Guy_H about this one because in the copying and pasting of the marketting blurb from the K03 engine-based upgrade page, they've forgotten to change the "lower rpms" to "higher rpms" such as what it is on the USA page of the same ECU upgrade. I'm surprised that no one has picked that up in all these years...
In any case, the engine dyno plot they provide visually shows what to expect.

Quite frankly though, your results are the lowest results I've ever seen for a stage 1 tune (including other APR stage 1 tunes) on this engine. I'm presuming that this is the same dyno - what were the environmentals like for this day?
Your original run of 149kw was good (maybe too good?), so to see an increase to only 164 to 167kw is not expected.

As for the no increases until 4000rpm. There should be small increases in power with this turbo/engine combination. But the major increases in that range are the torque, which should show increases over the entire rev range. Your dyno graphs don't do torque though (except for maybe that last one, but it's a bit messy and confusing).

You are correct though, if you want to significantly increase power and torque lower in the rev ranges you must change the downpipe. The downpipe is what allows the lowering of the rpm's at which the turbo spools up. The fuel pump allows for additional fuel in the mid rpm range where there is not enough revs to operate the pump fast enough to provide fuel with the stock pump.

If you are not concerned about peak numbers and your objective is lots of power and torque low in the revs, I'm sorry, but you've picked the wrong car! The GTI with it's K03 turbo is much better suited to lower revs (but then runs out of puff at the peaky end of the rpms!).

[Prodigy]

I've just finished washing the R and noticed that the far right hand side of the gloss black rear diffuser doesn't seem to sit as flush as the left hand side, also due to this the red reflector also sits a lot further in at the right hand side pointy end than the left hand side. Anyone else have this on their car?

[dave_r]

Yeah, I've sent a PM to Guy_H about this one because in the copying and pasting of the marketting blurb from the K03 engine-based upgrade page, they've forgotten to change the "lower rpms" to "higher rpms" such as what it is on the USA page of the same ECU upgrade. I'm surprised that no one has picked that up in all these years...

Well the page clearly indicates Golf R and the dyno graph (ignoring the numbers) shows a visiable improvement throughout the rev range.

Quite frankly though, your results are the lowest results I've ever seen for a stage 1 tune (including other APR stage 1 tunes) on this engine. I'm presuming that this is the same dyno - what were the environmentals like for this day?

Temps etc were around the same and the car was strapped down/operated by the same person so there isn't much variation there.

As for the no increases until 4000rpm. There should be small increases in power with this turbo/engine combination. But the major increases in that range are the torque, which should show increases over the entire rev range.

Again irrelevant as the APR claims talk about kw's - Gains of up to 49kw are available at lower rpms! Forget 49kw, I don't see even half or a 1/4 of that at lower rpms. Unless "lower rpms" is 5500 instead of 6000?

If you are not concerned about peak numbers and your objective is lots of power and torque low in the revs, I'm sorry, but you've picked the wrong car! The GTI with it's K03 turbo is much better suited to lower revs (but then runs out of puff at the peaky end of the rpms!).

I picked the right car, but it seems the info out there is incorrect and slightly misleading? I'll take up the point with the relevant people tomorrow, just thought I'd put it up here for discussion as I knew people were interested in the results.

[Corey_R]

As I said before, the word "lower" is a mistake and should be "higher", and I've PM'd Guy to let him know that needs to be corrected.

Everything else on the page is correct as far as I can tell, including the dyno graph which clearly shows that the increase of 49kw is at 6700rpm. So whilst there is a wording mistake, the information on the graph is correct - hence, why I said, I'm surprised no one has noticed the mistake before.

For example, have a look at the USA version of the page. It has the correct word of higher instead of lower. But also compare the PEAK figures of Stage 1 vs Stage 2+ on 98 octane fuel.

There only 7hp difference.

So what I'm saying is that at the pointy end of the dyno runs that you and Fab did, there should only be a small difference, and yet there isn't.
The dyno runs I've seen previously of the APR Stage 1 flash on this engine are around the 188kw range. Stage II and Stage II+ gives you a wider power band (i.e. the torque and power comes up much quicker, lower in the RPMs). So I'm curious to know what is holding your car back...