Field Motorsport worked on my car

**jogi730** · 9 July 2010, 12:37

Part 1 - History of events

WARNING: This is a long report and image intensive.

Some history of my Audi.

My Audi 90 quattro

In 2002, I had a 20v turbo engine transplanted into a 1985 Audi 90 quattro. It had the following spec;

Cunningham pistons and rods
RS2 exhaust manifold
AAN reversed inlet manifold
Garrett T34 turbo
Air injectors
Pectel T6 V8 ECU
Custom IC (2 x Escort Cosworth items joined together)

Engine bay

DTW Engine dyno results

The engine ran a 7:1 CR and achieved 390BHP as mapped by Ahmed Bayjoo and had absolutely no lag whatsoever.

My car attracted a lot of attention from passers-by due to the very good condition (not excellent) of the vehicle considering its age.

In 2006, I added a tubular exhaust manifold and a 3” downpipe and exhaust. The exhaust manifold carried a lifetime guarantee as long as a turbo support was fitted. Despite this being pointed out to the tuner working on my car at the time, this was ignored and no turbo support was fitted which subsequently led to the exhaust manifold cracking on two occasions.

Tubular EM

Following the fitment of these items, the car now suffered from some turbo lag. As a re-map was needed to dial some of this lag out, I decided to take this opportunity to add more power. Towards the end of 2006, the engine was taken out and sent off to the tuner for the upgrades, whilst the rest of the car went to the body-shop for a full re-spray.

In February 2007, before the paint shop had fully completed their work (not fully polished, with some overspray on the door shuts and seals), the call came for the car to go for the engine refit.

Car following respray

Car loaded on trailer

The polishing would be finished at a later date.

The new spec now included a much bigger IC,

Big IC

the inlet manifold was modified to allow more flow

[I]Please note that effort had been made to smooth the interior of the manifold for good airflow[/I

]and a Garrett T61 turbo was added. This now achieved about 530BHP, again mapped by Ahmed Bayjoo at the dyno of DTW Engines Ltd. However, the engine now suffered serious turbo lag. Acceleration was no longer instantaneous as it was with the T34 with not much happening before the engine reached 3500RPM. The custom inlet manifold had split along a weld which made things worse.

DTW Engines T61 dyno results graph

DTW Engines T61 dyno result print out

My tuner fixed the manifold by strengthening it internally. However, he told me nothing could be done about the lag as this was the nature of having a big turbo. When the inlet manifold split again, stupidly I decided to take my car elsewhere for a second opinion.

Field Motorsport

I was using a Pectel ECU, so not many people would know how to map such a system. I searched around, particularly looking at Ford tuners for someone with relevant experience. Someone had suggested Tommy Field of FMS had a good reputation. I contacted FMS by e-mail passing on the full spec of my engine and explained the problems I was having. When I was told Tommy Field had good knowledge of Pectel from his Mountune days (the birthplace of Pectel), I thought this was the place to have my car sorted.

I visited FMS to further discuss how to eradicate the lag and my car was fully inspected by Tommy Field.

Upon opening the bonnet, Tommy Field’s first comment about the engine was that it looked ‘very agricultural’.

Engine bay showing previous tuner’s custom IM

The split in the inlet manifold was immediately apparent and obvious, but Tommy Field then pointed out a crack in the exhaust manifold before plugging in his laptop computer to further analyse the engine. Somehow, Tommy Field had got hold of Ahmed Bayjoo’s ECU passwords and was able to enter the protected mode of the maps. At this stage he told me the air injectors were maxed out and therefore not doing anything.

Tommy Field then asked me how much I had paid for the Pectel ECU. When I gave him the price, he told me I had considerably overpaid for it. This, together with the information regarding the air injectors not working and the split intake manifold made me feel angry and ripped off by my previous tuner. I said I would make a point of raising the FMS findings with my old tuner. Acting upon the above information obtained from FMS, I was true to my word and sent a letter pointing out the reported findings.

We then discussed the best course of action to overcome the lag issues.

Having continuously emphasised my frustration of achieving no real power before 3500RPM, Tommy Field recommended fitting one of his hybrid GT35R turbochargers. I had researched into the subject beforehand and had some knowledge about this particular unit, so I asked about surge issues that this turbo suffered . Tommy Field told me that he had developed special WRC bearings and changed a few other components for this turbo which completely transformed it and dealt with the surge issues. He assured me my engine would spool and pull very strongly from 2500RPM.

It was suggested that besides the necessary repair, the inlet manifold was properly looked at as otherwise ‘it would be like pissing in the wind’, the air injectors were mapped correctly to make them function properly and the crack in the exhaust manifold was repaired. I had informed Tommy Field of the manufacturer’s recommendations regarding a turbo support, the conditions of the guarantee and the fact that my previous tuner had chosen to ignore this advice and this failure to comply was the main reason for the previous cracking. Tommy Field therefore agreed at this point that such a turbo support should be fitted.

Tommy Field also recommended changing my coils to different ‘high performance’ items to smarten up the look of the engine bay.

The verbal estimate I was given at this point was £3000 - £4000.

Following our meeting, I had a very positive outlook of what could be achieved with the performance of my engine, especially the dreaded lag. I sorted out most of the finances that would be needed in the form of a bank loan and it was not long before I booked my car in for the work to be carried out.

Car delivered to FMS.

On 20th October 2007, my car was delivered to FMS for the work to commence.

However, I had sought some further advice from an Audi expert (more about him later), who does not live or work in this country, regarding the turbo choice. This man has built the fastest quarter mile inline 5 cylinder 20v turbo in the world so he knows his stuff. He told me no matter what was done to a GT35R, nothing could be done to solve the surge issues as he had done everything possible to try.

Based upon this information, my remit to FMS was as follows:

• Repair split in custom inlet manifold.
• Repair crack to exhaust manifold.
• Provide a turbo support to prevent further cracking occurring to the exhaust manifold.
• Rectify the apparent problem with the air injectors.
• Fit new high performance coils.
• Fit a hybrid GT35R turbo, but ONLY if it would definitely improve performance over the T61.

There was also a known problem with my rev counter. It was over reading on a sliding scale by up to 500RPM. Tommy Field said this was an easy fix and would rectify it for me.

Unfortunately, just as I dropped my car off at FMS, the car developed a further fault. My indicators had stopped functioning – something else FMS agreed to repair.

Due to the expert information I had received I should emphasize the following about the fitment of the new turbo. On completion of all the other repairs listed above, the car was to be tested with the T61 to see how it performed. THEN, AND ONLY THEN, was Tommy Field to try his ‘special hybrid’ and was to fit it ONLY if this turbo would definitely perform better.

It is probably obvious by now that I have very little mechanical knowledge. Therefore I had little choice but to trust the opinion and judgement of experts in this particular field and go with what they told me. In this instance, these were the judgements of Tommy Field.

Problems begin.

FMS was getting on with the work. I contacted them to find out about progress and was told that on closer inspection, the inlet manifold had many more splits and cracks on the underside.

Condition of custom IM

Tommy Field was very scathing of the design and build quality of this manifold. He gave me a choice of having the existing manifold repaired at a cost of £300 or he would design and build me a much better quality manifold for £400. Naturally, I opted for the new and better design option – a bit of a no brainer at the time.

I phoned FMS for further progress reports. When I was told the new parts were in, I asked for some photographs of these. I received an e-mail containing pictures of the GT35R, the new inlet manifold and the high performance coils. I also received a detailed written estimate. It was obvious this included work that had already been carried out.

Comparing t61 with GT35R

New intake manifold (first attempt)

High performance coils

FMS estimate

I posted these pictures on a forum to show progress on my car (it has quite a following amongst friends and Audi forum members).

Despite being incensed by comments made in the letter to my old tuner (comments based on information from Tommy Field), my old tuner got in touch with me when he saw the photo’s. He told me that due to the high boost levels my engine ran, he strongly recommended the new inlet manifold was cryogenically treated to prevent further problems. Regarding the coils, he told me they were not suitable for this application and would overheat. Other people had also commented regarding the coils as they had featured in a car magazine article where the same problem of overheating had been highlighted.

I passed these comments on to Tommy Field. He dismissed all concerns. On the manifold, he said ‘if you use the correct materials in the first place, there will be no problems’. As for the coils, he said these were new and other people would not know about them.

Engine bays showing new IM, turbo and coils fitted

Work at FMS continued and on a test drive not long before I was due to pick the car up, the first big mishap occurred.

Tommy Field was driving my car down the road tweaking the map settings when there was a big BANG. On investigation, it appeared the fuel swirl pot located in the boot had imploded. FMS did replace this unit and did not charge me for this.

Accident.

The date was now 7th (?) December 2007 (the day before I was due to pick my car up). The money to pay the invoice for the work had been settled (Please notice, the final invoice is identical to the estimate?).

FMS Invoice

The swirl pot was repaired and the car was taken for a final test drive. Tommy Field told me he pulled onto a roundabout when there was another BANG.
This time it was allegedly another car which had run into the side of my Audi.

Accident damage

FMS immediately arranged for collection of the car and sent it to a body shop for repair. I asked if this was a good garage. I also asked for some photographs of the damage to my car as it was loaded onto the pickup truck for my archives. I was told that the photographs had already been taken, but would be sent to me at a later date. As for the body shop, I was told they had many years experience, had worked on several concourse cars FMS had seen and they all looked excellent. I was therefore content my car was going to a reputable garage.

Devastation.

It was now January 2008. The bodywork had been repaired and repainted so I was finally going to pick my car up - a month later than intended and three months after I had dropped it off. After such a long wait I was very excited at the prospect of getting my pride and joy returned.

I arrived at FMS as arranged on 9th January 2008 only to find my car back in the garage with Tommy Field working on it again. My old original coils were being refitted to the car as the new high performance ones were overheating.

FMS refund for overheating coils (not for wiring or cam cover mods)

My car was then taken outside. I was gobsmacked and my heart sank. The paintjob and repairs were just awful. There were several runs in the paintwork, orange peel effect everywhere and just a particularly bad finish. There were cracks in the paintwork on the offside of the car caused as a direct result of the accident that had not even been touched. Second hand parts had been used (no complaints about that as some parts i.e. wings, are NLA), but the door shuts of the silver wing had not been painted and the second hand headlight that was used had such tarnished reflectors, they were black. New headlights are also listed NLA by Audi, but these are readily available from Euro Car Parts and German Swedish and French amongst others.

FMS promised that my car would go back to the body shop and everything would be done properly.

We then drove to a Rolling Road for a final mapping session. My car was put on the rollers and here are the results:

Rolling Road print out

I was very disappointed with the results as they were obviously worse than my previous setup. Tommy Field commented that he thought the figures for the T61 were bull**** despite having the printout from DTW from the dyno run. His explanation for the showing on the rolling road was due to a faulty phase sensor. No temperature sensors were attached to my car during these runs.

My car had developed yet another fault - this time it was the alarm constantly triggering. I attributed this fault to the accident, but this was later traced to some chaffed wiring. Whatever the cause, this proved to be most annoying on my way home. On the actual drive, I tried finding out how good the car was following all this work. I planted my foot on the throttle. Nothing..... nothing....... nothing. It had no guts at all until well after 4000RPM and it was getting worse.

Upon further investigation, what we actually discovered was that the new, better inlet manifold designed by FMS, had a split along the weld exactly as the previous one had done.

Needless to say, on top of the awful body repairs that had carried out, these latest problems had left me devastated. I wrote a letter to FMS venting my frustration.

At this stage, FMS offered to sort everything out.

When FMS inspected the IM, they told me the manifold had failed due to incompatible materials being used during fabrication and offered not only to build me yet another new intake manifold with better airflow, but also to re-profile the camshafts to better suit the GT35R turbo and aid spool up. They would make sure the body shop made good their work too.

Anyone can make a mistake. I thought it was only right to give someone a second chance.

However, please note FMS were now well aware of problems with spool up.

More problems.

In February (20th), my car went back to FMS for previous work to be made good. I was soon informed body shop were unable to do their part as there had been a fire on the estate where the paint shop was located.

I was sending constant reminders to try and get the photographs of the accident damage that I was assured Tommy Field had taken. All my requests fell on deaf ears.

However, the time would enable Tommy Field to get my IM made and the camshafts re-profiled. I wanted my car back in the condition it was in before it was taken to FMS and all the performance issues to be resolved, so felt I had to be patient and wait.

I tried being helpful and spoke to the Audi expert I mentioned earlier. He had given me permission to show FMS photographs of his IM design and to copy it if he wished. Not only that, but he also said that he would speak to Tommy Field over the phone to discuss internals of the design and the cam profiles to get the best configurations and timings for good airflow and early spool up.

This is an extract of the e-mail sent to FMS:

Lynn,
Further to my earlier e-mail, here are a couple of posts off the forum that may be helpful. Please pass on to
Tommy so he can look at the link and the pictures therein.
**** has a great deal of experience in Audi 5 cylinder engines. Should Tommy wish to talk to **** (real name
*****) regarding the design, his telephone number is on the page with the plenum picture he kept. Any advice
may prove invaluable.
Hope this proves useful.
Many thanks
Today, I took the car back to the tuner. They are a bit miffed as to why this has happened as many
other applications are running higher power than mine with no issues? However, the fabricator did say
that the alloy used was HE5+ and the welding rods were HE8+ and the split most probably occurred
due to the differences therein.
This means the plenum will now be completely redesigned and rebuilt. THe new design will look more
like ****’* design as the rounded design will hold more boost and will aid in reducing lag due to higher air speed.
THe exhaust cam is also being reground to more suit the new GT35 which should also reduce lag. All
this will be free of charge.

(Reply from ****)

Well, yea. Thanks for the compliments guys.

My offer is valid, it is up to You if You take it or not. It's least I can do to thank for myself for promoting me all over the web. And most of all to give a hand to a guy that at first seemed never to give up, but eventually started to show alarming signs of loss of faith.

My new intake design looks like that:

http://promo.pp.fi/temp/imusudsi/IMG_1567%20(Large).JPG

Round shape is the key. And I seriously doubt the shiny triangle-shape intake You have there, will ever hold for long, no matter which welding rod is used. Explanation is some other post about plane shapes and design of an intake.

In Your case I would have made the shape a bit different, as Your boost piping is already there. If You wish, I would love to talk to Your tuner about cam timing and shape and overall dimensions of the new plenum. Although, gotta admit, by the terms he has used/You quoted, he seems to be up to his task.
.

Unfortunately, although Tommy Field asked for the photographs and copied the design externally, he rejected the proposal for advice on the more important internals and went ahead and had the manifold made at his choice of fabricator. This in Tommy Field’s words is ‘a reputable fabricator that makes WRC manifolds’.

When the body shop finally got to ‘finish’ the car, FMS also completed their work and I went to pick the car up on 17th May 2008 – seven months after dropping it off with FMS.

Despite having had my car for for such a long time, apart from painting the door shuts and changing the headlight to a brand new unit (which I had supplied), all they had done to remove the runs and orange peel effect on the paintwork, was to try and polish them out with a mop – and to little effect. The car looked as poor as it had done before. A closer inspection also revealed far worse. Presumably, the metal clips used to hold body trim in place had been lost, so instead of buying new ones (50 pence each), they chose to drill through the plastic trim and the metal bodywork and use self tapping screws instead. This has ruined the plastic trim (NLA at Audi) and will cause the car to rust.

The additional work carried out by FMS also had no effect. I took the car for a road test and was once again left devastated to discover there was absolutely no improvement in performance. In fact it was markedly worse than ever at this point. Two FMS mechanics told me I must be mistaken as the car went well. They then hooked the car up with some test equipment and drove it themselves (despite earlier telling me they could not do this as they were not insured). They soon realised they had wired the air injectors up the wrong way. They corrected this and although there was a minor performance gain, overall it was still very disappointing.

FMS had had my car for such a long time the MOT was now out of date. I had asked them to get a new MOT so I did not have to drive it without one which it failed. Despite this, FMS refused to let me leave my car. They now forced me to drive a faulty car home for the second time.

**jogi730** · 9 July 2010, 12:39

Part 2 - Tests and Expert Reports

I was very unhappy and this caused me to enter a dispute with FMS. I asked them to get a refund for the repairs to the accident damage and allow me to take my car to a competent garage to carry out the repairs. I paid for an independent report on the work carried out by the body shop. This was very damning.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Further to your recent instructions I would confirm that I have now been able to carry out a visual inspection on the above vehicle on 29.05.2008 at Longcross Chobham and would advise as follows.

Background

The vehicle ( modified both mechanically and cosmetically) sustained accident damage to the nearside frontal area causing damage to the n/s/f wing, front bumper and bonnet which were either replaced or repaired, whilst in the care of a garage carrying out mechanical repairs to it, and was repaired before it was returned to you.
Some two to three years prior to this the vehicle had been subject to a high quality repaint. You are concerned over the quality of the recent repairs and standard of the work, which is why you instructed ourselves to inspect and report on the vehicle.

Inspection Findings

1. Newly painted areas do not match existing paint work, most visible from o/s/f wing to o/s/f door, n/s A post and n/s/f door to n/s/r door, when viewed from a distance.
2. Orange peel; and dryness to new paint work, worse on bonnet.
3. Paint work cracked/split around o/s/f wing vent grille.
4. Front bumper black painted section has different finish to rear bumper and cracks/splits to bumper/paint around cooling cut outs.
5. General standard of repairs does not match condition of vehicle and previous repairs/work that has been carried out to it.

Conclusion

The repairs that have been recently carried out to the vehicle although structurally sound have been let down by the paint work finish and attention to detail.
To return the vehicle to its pre-accident condition the newly painted areas require re-working with the correctly matching paint, following repairs to the o/s/f wing vent grille which has been damaged as a result of the impact/shock, front bumper and smoothing of the textured finish. Following which the vehicle requires re-assembling with attention to detail so that the visual appearance is such that there is no out ward signs that it has been either damaged or repaired.
I would anticipate that the rectification work would take approximately 5-6 days to complete and that costs would be approximately £900.00 Labour and £310.00 Paint Materials Sundries £25.00 plus vat.
I confirm that insofar as the facts stated in my report are within my own knowledge I have made clear which they are and I believe them to be true, and that the opinions I have expressed represent my true and complete professional opinion. I also understand that the report may be used in court and that my overriding duty is to assist the court on matters which are within my expertise.
I hope that the above is of assistance but if there are any points either your self’s or the repairers wish to discuss please do not hesitate to contact me.
Report from Dunn Shaw, independent insurance assessors

Both the body shop and FMS maintain that if I returnrd my car, the accident damage would be repaired properly ‘free of charge’. However, due to the level of complete incompetence shown on the two previous occasions my car has been with them, I cannot bring myself to trust them anywhere near my car again.

It was now June 2008.

I visited GTI International where I was extremely disappointed with 1/4 mile times. As a result, I visited another mechanic for an appraisal. The exhaust manifold had cracked again due to the fact no turbo support had been fitted by FMS as had been agreed. They took the car for a test drive and said it the engine was getting hot in places that were not supposed to. They recommended I did not drive the car until it was properly checked out.

I did finally receive some photographs of the accident damage, although not the ones that were taken immediately following the event – these were from the workshop.

I started writing to FMS asking for a full refund of £7000 on top of the £1200 it would take to properly repair the accident damage.

Tommy Field refused not only offering any refund for his work, but also any wrongdoing whatsoever.

Despite acknowledging knowing my exhaust manifold had cracked on two previous occasions, he denies agreeing to fit a turbo support to stop it from cracking again. As stated above, I told him the manifold had already cracked previously and the reasons why.

As a result, I was forced to have some reports and tests carried out. I sent both intake and exhaust manifolds to the Audi expert. Here are some of the findings and it is little wonder the performance is so poor.

Exhaust manifold

I have made the manifold for Mr ***** at some date during the year 2006. Since then I have been following the progress of his project.
Exhaust manifold in these motors face serious stress in form of thermal load, twisting caused by the motor and the downpipe, and continuously varying vibration.
By experience of making more than a hundred (100) exhaust manifolds to different types of projects and different motors, I have noted that mild steel – a normal water pipe tube, with thick enough wall, is one of the most durable materials in this purpose, and that is precisely the material, used to manufacture this particular manifold.
For this particular type of engine I have made more than 40 manifolds over the years, and they are all almost alike. Little variation occurs, which is the normal nature of hand-made artefacts, but in generally one could state they are alike.
I always grant my manifolds lifetime free repair warranty, but only if proper type of bracing is used. This goes both for the manifold or the turbo itself, and first part of the exhaust pipe, usually referred as downpipe. Braces must be stiff enough to provide support for red glowing manifold, against the twist caused by the downpipe, when motor tilts under torque, when accelerating or decelerating, yet designed to allow heat expansion to occur without stress.
I always put great emphasis on this matter, as practically all cases I have needed to repair a manifold, it has not had proper bracing. Either there is no brace at all, or there is a brace that does not allow heat expansion.
High horsepower cars carry an exhaust pipe, which usually is minimum of 76mm in diameter, and therefore pretty heavy. When the first support of the exhaust pipe usually sits close to mid way of the car, it may cause constant stress of several dozens – if not hundreds of newtonmeters to the manifold. When glowing red hot (over 650 Celsius) the strength of steel is reduced to the point where less than 100Nm force may cause the manifold to deform or crack. The hotter the steel goes, the weaker it gets, until it turns to liquid at 1150-1250 Celsius.
Other limitation to warranty is exhaust gas temperature. In high performance turbo motor the temperature of the exhaust gas easily climbs above 950 degrees, which is not safe for mild steel manifold. 900 degrees is empirically found level, where mild steel manifolds are not yet damaged by heat.
Metallurgically 910 Celsius is a point where steel turns to martensite, and starts to dissolve extra amounts of carbon from the exhaust gas. This can easily be seen from flaking of the internals of the collector. Also visible in the pictures I have attached.

Audi five cylinder motor differs in this point from the majority of motors, as it can stand elongated periods of running with exhaust gas temperatures exceeding 1000 celsius, where most motors would fail in matter of
seconds. When running without a gauge, that measures the temperature, it is pretty easy to make a mistake in engine management remapping, and leave the settings to levels that cause the temperatures to rise too high for the
manifold, yet being still not high enough to cause damage to the motor itself. It is practically impossible for an engine management tuner (a remapper) to know, if the temperature goes too high, unless having a gauge fitted.
Still, by looking at the manifold pictures attached, one can see that the fin dividing the turbo flange has turned red, and been deformed. This is a fin, sitting directly in the exhaust flow, and therefore is exposed to extreme thermal stress, and because of this, easily indicates that the exhaust gas temperature has been – most likely temporarily, very close to melting point of steel, which means close to 1150 Celsius. Too high exhaust gas temperature is always a problem caused by improper engine management tuning. In other words too high air/fuel ratio, too little ignition advance, too high boost or a combination of these. I do not know, if exhaust temperature probe was used when remapping Mr *****’s car, but basing on pictures of the car, and his statement, there is no egt gauge installed into the car.
At this point is good to mention, that leaving this fin in the flange is dangerous, unless the turbo has divided turbine inlet. Someone has modified the manifold after I have made and sent it to Mr *****, and welded a non-divided T3 style flange on divided T4 flange, that was on the manifold collector before. Leaving the fin without a support of the
dividing wall of the turbine inlet is dangerous because of this particular issue of the fin melting easily, and possibility of it to drop into exhaust flow, damaging the turbine wheel, which may rotate as fast as 120 000 revolutions per minute.
When I first made the manifold, it was with T3 size flange. At the date Mr *****’s manifold was made, I used to weld on a divided flange to all my manifolds, and instruct customers to grind it off, unless using a turbo with divided inlet turbine. As usually customers failed to follow this instruction, I changed policy, and started to stock both, divided and non-divided flanges. Divided flange is aerodynamically formed from the collector side, so customers don’t need to grind the expensive turbine housings they have.
Forming in general is done to help the exhaust flow, and it does without a drawback, in case of using divided turbine in five cylinder motor.
Manifold seem to have cracked and repaired numerous times, because of the lack of mechanical support. In pictures one can see a repair weld, that does not penetrate the basic material, and therefore the crack leaks even
though someone has tried to fix it quite recently, and most likely with a MIG welder.

This weld looks fairly new when compared to older fix welds, that have been done with competence. Not to mention proper welding equipment (TIG)

Turbo choice

Since Mr ***** contacted me in 2006 to purchase a manifold, I have been following his progress. The first setup he had at the time of manifold purchase had extraordinarily good throttle response, and good power/torque combination.
After the manifold swap his problems started, and first he had issues referred as turbo lag. Lag as a term is difficult, as there is no official determination of such thing, so people have various assessment of the meaning of the term.
Usually people think the lag as the low rev range, where the turbo is not fully spooled up yet. Still, among professionals the lag is determined different.
More common, and more professional determination of lag is time the turbo needs to spool up again after changing gear up, or releasing and repressing the throttle.
By the time of Mr *****’s manifold purchase he had small frame Garrett turbo, which produced descent amount of torque, while still having reasonably moderate amount of horsepower. Nature of a setup like this, small turbo with restrictive exhaust manifold, is to perform like this. Usually setups like this have very small lag.
After the manifold had been changed into Mr *****’s car, the car would have been needed to be remapped for significantly higher flow rate, the new exhaust manifold had when compared to the old one. Apparently this
was not done, as Mr ***** had decided to purchase bigger turbo, in pursuit of bigger power.
His next turbo choice was the T61, which by looking at the dyno test reports, seemed to perform somewhat good. At the point he got the car on the road, he claimed that he hates the lag, and suffers from the lack of low end torque. Missing low range torque is naturally compromised, when changing turbo to a bigger one, and it happens almost inevitably. Still by looking at the dyno test reports, torque-wise his setup was performing better than vast majority of motors of such power level. Still it doesn’t tell us a thing about the lag, he most likely had because of problematic intake manifold design. Because of the issues he had with the intake manifold, he decided to take the car to this latest tuner, unknown to me. Mr ***** has a habit of not telling the names of the people he pays for services.
I have consulted with Mr ***** after almost every step his car has gone through. He has always asked my opinion, and always I have shared my thoughts with him, and I have always aimed to be as objective as possible.
At this point he also told me about the next turbo choice, which was supposed to fix the lag issue, and provide better low end torque with help of “wrc bearings”, as Mr ***** described the deal.
According to Mr *****’s statement, the turbo itself is a Garrett 35R with some special impeller, which was going to be even bigger than the original 62mm (inducer) wheel. When he told me about the setup, I very clearly stated, this turbo will never spool up better than the T61 did, no matter what kind of bearings it had.
I also made it very clear on the phone, and on email. I also made it clear, that even if it would spool up at 2500, which was told to Mr ***** it would not work properly, but it would surge until higher revs were reached. Disregarding my opinion, the new Garrett 35R was fitted in.

As previously stated, due to the information I had received, I did not want the GT35R to be fitted until the T61 was fully tested. I feel that this was never done and in an e-mail to me FMS secretary states

‘The only comparison Tommy can make is from when you dropped the car off to when it was collected yesterday;
even with the phase sensor problem the car was much better’.

This statement only serves to reinforce my belief. Tommy Field completely refutes this allegation and insists the car ‘had several tests’ with the T61 before his hybrid GT35R was fitted.
Had this been the case, due to the ‘increased’ airflow, mapping to the ECU to gain any advantages from the new IM should have taken place. I have asked for logs of these sessions as proof they did take place, but these have not been provided.
Having told me that the GT35R turbo would pull strongly from 2500RPM, in one of his replies to a solicitors letter, Tommy Field claims he only ever stated that the turbo ‘would start to make boost’ at 2500RPM.
Although I know little about engines, my main concern when I took my car to FMS was the late spool up. I know the difference when someone states the car will pull strongly from 2500RPM or that it will create positive boost at that level and would have been particularly aware of such a statement. A turbo can be described as giving positive boost from as little as 1psi (which can be achieved at idle), but this does not mean the turbo is in a position to enhance performance. For Tommy Field to suggest this is what he said or meant is simply untrue!

Back to the report......
I have no better knowledge, what “wrc bearing” means, and I have seen no evidence of it’s existence in this case. Only thing that relates to it was extremely high purchasing price of the turbo, which was almost double,
when compared to normal Garrett unit.

Intake manifold

Mr* ***** has had at least three different types of custom intake manifolds in his car. First two (or three?) had two basic flaws: triangular shape with large plane areas, and excessive internal volume.
Plane aluminium shapes do not withstand the stress caused by the pressure fluctuations inside the plenum. Since the pressure variation can be from 0,2 (absolute) bar to 3bar (abs) and back in less than a second, the fatigue stress is too much for aluminium, as a material. Also plain static stress from inside the plenum is easily more than a ton, when driving with 1.5 - 2 bars of boost, which is normal in these motors. 2-4mm sheet aluminium plate, which thicknesses are often used in making an intake, do not necessarily hold such stress. Usually it is not the sheet itself that fails, but the weld or immediately next to a weld, due to metallurgical properties of an aluminium weld.
Too large volume increases lag, as the turbo needs to fill the plenum first to get the boost pressure up. By looking at the pictures of the latest triangular intake Mr ***** had, it was at least ten litres in volume, when nominal volume of the plenum (volume between throttle plate and the motor) is somewhere around 2,5 litres.
After several cracks and split issues Mr ***** had new intake made. As one can see from the pictures, outside the design is pretty obviously a copy of my line product, which I have developed myself, basing on several dyno tests over the years.

Design copy goes only for the looks. Inside one can see missing velocity stacks in the plenum. In comparison in attached picture one can see my design, where a stack sticking into the plenum is replaced by carefully selected radius, and the copy that has neither the stack, nor the radius.

One can also note, that my design is 100% own, and copy intake is made with using original runner piece from original Audi intake. The plenum is designed to be twin-chamber, to equalize the flow into the cylinders downstream the path of the intake air, entering the primary chamber with high velocity. Copy intake has large holes, with area larger than the throttle plate.

This fact makes these holes insignificant in this point of view. In comparison picture one can see the appropriate size of the slot the charge air needs to squeeze through.

Area of the slot is calculated to meet the flow characteristics of the throttle plate. If larger throttle plate is used,
the slot is larger accordingly. Also slot is radiused from the primary chamber side, to allow smooth flow from primary to secondary chamber. This was not performed in the copy intake.
When I told about my thoughts of the flaws in design in the intake, Mr ***** asked me to take this intake to be examined by a third, independent party. I took this copy intake, Audi original intake, and my special intake into Nordic Porting Service (NPS) in Hyvinkää.
At NPS they first measured airflow of a cylinderhead of five cylinder motor with a test/reference cone, referred as “perfect venturi”. Basically it means it gives best possible airflow to the head, and no intake can improve that number. Then a flowtest was made in similar manner, but replacing the perfect venturi at the mouth of the intake channel with an intake manifold, one by one.

My design intake cut the flow for 2,5-3% when comparing to perfect venturi.
Original Audi intake cut the flow for 8,5-10,5%
Copy intake, Mr ***** had in his car cut the flow for 12,5-14,5%

Test showed, the custom intake, that was supposed to enhance the flow, was actually worse than the original one was. Only reason to this is the lack of radius/velocity stack inside the plenum.
In original manifold the floor of the plenum is shaped to have radius. In triangular shape intakes Mr ***** had, the original floor of the plenum was used as a base for custom shape, but in this latest version the runners are cut just beneath the radius.

Water injection nozzles

Mr ***** told me that he noticed the intake manifold was getting really hot, although his tuner claimed the intake temperature never got too high.
I examined the intake temperature sensor location in the boost pipe, and notices quite obvious problem. Whenever the water injection is activated, it sprays cold water onto the intake temperature sensor.

I am absolutely sure that the intake air temp sensor was the only monitoring device of this matter, and since the signal of the sensor was constantly distorted by waterspray, I trust Mr ***** vocal statement, there might have been severe intake temperature problem, but remapper never knew this.
This is a fatal mistake, and messes up the intake temperature reading, and this way the whole engine management setup is crooked.

Again, in a reply to one of my letters, FMS made comments to defend this. However, water stains all around the temperature sensor would confirm that water was hitting it resulting in false readings. The results are documented in this report.

Report Conclusion

After this verbose writeup I need to make a conclusion of the observations made along the way.
First of all, I have feeling that the tuner who performed these modifications was not too skilled. Or if he was skilled, he for whatever reason decided not to take this particular job too seriously.
Second, there are some quite fundamental mistakes done here. Missing trumpets in the intake, waterspray to the intake temp sensor, no supports for the manifold. Things that anyone calling himself a pro should know.
Third, quality of craftsmanship. Intake manifold looks awful inside.

No finishing was done whatsoever, and I must say Mr ***** is lucky that none of those small aluminium pieces that are about to take off inside the plenum, didn’t, as otherwise his motor would be broken as well. The weld on the exhaust manifold is bad, and does not fill it’s purpose. In general there is a feeling of a hobbyist making things fast, instead of really paying attention.

Camshafts.

Following the above report, I have had the engine entirely stripped to ensure there is in fact no further damage. During this process, I had the camshafts sent (plus another set of standard ones I purchased from a forum member) and put on a Cam Doctor to check if they had been re-profiled in any way.
Both of the camshaft sets were the same and entirely standard.
I have asked FMS to provide a receipt for the re-profiling work they had carried out on my camshafts, but have so far failed to do so.

Air Injectors.

Air injectors

These are items that are little known about in the tuning world. Here is a small write up explaining;

I have been asked to explain how air injectors work and the way that the duty cycle is calculated, This is a matter of near quantum math’s and would be very difficult to put on paper in a way that would be understood by the average member of the public.
What I plan to do is give you an understanding of what in fact Air injectors do, and why they are used, this may give a better insight in whether the Air injector system WAS or WAS NOT working, as it was claimed that they were not.
Air injectors are used as a control over turbo boost pressure, which is to say if we use a turbo capable of more boost than we want, that extra boost has to be controlled. There are many methods of turbo boost control but air injectors are by far the fastest means of doing so.
In the case of the above vehicle a Garrett T61 turbo is used and is capable of producing a boost pressure of 48 pounds of boost or PSI, As you can see from the engine dyno session only 32 PSI was required, all boost over this level must not be allowed to enter the engine, as in this case it was beyond the engines capability. A T61 produces is boost in a very rapid manner and as such a very fast method of control must be used or excess boost will be produced, if a slower method of boost control is used as you achieve the desired boost, In this case 32PSI the boost will go up a few pounds be controlled and then down a few pounds and be controlled again. This is not desirable as you will have a boost that fluctuates up and down, Air injectors get over this problem due to the fact they operate in milliseconds. (1000 times per second)
However there is a down side and that is if they fail the turbo will continue to produce boost, and in the case of the above engine it will be destroyed very very quickly, (about 35 seconds of full boost). As a result of this risk to the engine we employ a boost cut within the engine control unit. This shuts the engine down should an over boost situation occur.
You can see form the engine dyno graph that the boost control was smooth and held at 32PSI and therefore was working at the time it was tested. Had the air injector system failed while the vehicle was being driven or tested for that matter the engine control unit WOULD have gone in to shut down mode and no engine RPM over 2500 rpm could have been achieved until such time as the engine control unit was reset.
We checked the data logging on the engine control unit and found no faults logged, to this end we can be sure that the air injector system was in fact working.

Despite this, FMS still maintain that the air injectors were not working. Their argument is that the whole duty map was set to 100 which in turn means the injector is switched off.

My frustration with the legal system.

**Rusty** · 9 July 2010, 13:25

Not much I can say to this one Chris, a complete nightmare situation.

I and many other long term members on here have seen this saga unfolding and I have felt very sorry that someone who is as decent and friendly as yourself and who is passionate about what they are doing has encountered so many problems along the way. I hope that you can find a way to move on from this terrible situation and regain the enthusiasm and passion for what is a very special car.

JP · 9 July 2010, 13:29

Only one thing I can say and that is I really feel for you. The amount of time and love you put into your own project for it only to be dismissed by a cowboy. Unfortunately you are not the first or the last to be met with grievances from various supposed tuners around the UK. The fact that those power figures can be attained with much more drive-ability on a smaller turbo and cheaper setup just says it all with regards to their know how on the I5.

You are unfortunately victim of the big company that knows everything about nothing. I'm not one for naming and shaming but occasions such as this I'd say it is important to ensure that no one else falls into the same pit, so even if you end up with no comeback then at least you have ensured the safety of others. Heck kick up enough fuss on enough forums and it can lead to a very trying time for their business in this economic climate.

**bazburn** · 9 July 2010, 13:40

Originally posted by RWD19T

Only one thing I can say and that is I really feel for you. The amount of time and love you put into your own project for it only to be dismissed by a cowboy. Unfortunately you are not the first or the last to be met with grievances from various supposed tuners around the UK. The fact that those power figures can be attained with much more drive-ability on a smaller turbo and cheaper setup just says it all with regards to their know how on the I5.

You are unfortunately victim of the big company that knows everything about nothing. I'm not one for naming and shaming but occasions such as this I'd say it is important to ensure that no one else falls into the same pit, so even if you end up with no comeback then at least you have ensured the safety of others. Heck kick up enough fuss on enough forums and it can lead to a very trying time for their business in this economic climate.

All the gear no idea comes to mind...feel for you mate, hope you get summit sorted...

PS did the paint shop numpties have 10 gallon hats and 6 guns on...:corey:

**Jonnybravo** · 9 July 2010, 16:56

I have to say I am suprised about this from Tommy but I do not know the guy personally and how they come accross from one conversation can be totally the opposite to what their actually like.

**merlin's S4** · 9 July 2010, 17:13

Absolutely shocking!!

I really hope you get some joy persuing this, and if not just make sure everyone knows about it.

**s2_bo** · 9 July 2010, 17:53

Shocked to see how bad this got in the end Chris.

I really hope that you can recoup some of the money that has gone in to this so that the car can be properly setup and tuned by someone like MRC or PRO-MO

Best of luck with your proceedings.

**A80Avant** · 9 July 2010, 18:17

Good luck on whatever choices you make. This is trully a nightmare

**bernsaudi** · 9 July 2010, 21:51

After reading this, and it took a while, I am amazed people can still get away with this kind of behaviour.
You should buy a couple of domain names that have different endings but the same name as thiers and post all this up onto them, chuck them at a few web spiders and hey presto! anyone goes looking for them on the internet, they find your sites too. I hope you get some satisfaction concerning the ***** way they have treated you.
Stuff of nightmares....They need stuffing for this.....

**Acidburn** · 9 July 2010, 21:51

Really is a shame about this, i've seen pics and heard what a monster this was originally and you was one of the first to try stuff others would not. Its a shame field motorsport has done this to the car, as mentioned if I can help anyway possible I will do. I think this needs to be made a sticky if mods don't mind so that others don't fall into this trap.

**QuattroFever** · 9 July 2010, 22:17

Feel for ya, it's always sad to hear these stories a jumped up mr. know it all by the sounds of it...FFS stop blowing your own trumpet for five minutes and actually humble and give some "customer care" chances are you knew more than he did about what he was dealing with and was just clouded by his bull****

no way someone half copycats a mani. and expects it to wash...thats his incompetence right there black and white. You paid a good sum of money for his "expertise" or lack of. And then to top it off he outright denies it against photos and hard proof still installed in your car. Smart move...

You've got everything you need. See it through..it's a very very trying process but if you stick at it and don't give up the situation should pan out for you in the end, and for the better. BTDT a couple of times

failing that its amazing what bottles of flammable liquids and rags can do in a workshop.

**jogi730** · 9 July 2010, 22:52

Just to emphasise what I said in my original post, taking FMS to court would be extremely costly. With an independant expert report agreeing with evrerything, I would have a strong arguement. But even with a win, maximum costs awarded would be 75%, so I would be out of pocket.
THerefore, not really worth pursuing that way.

Decided to post all this so others did not fall into the same pit when things go wrong. I'm sure people don't realise that the law offers so little protection.

**Acidburn** · 9 July 2010, 22:58

Originally posted by jogi730

Decided to post all this so others did not fall into the same pit when things go wrong. I'm sure people don't realise that the law offers so little protection.

I think a few forum members have found this out after dealing with corey/quattronics unfortuantely but the more that you let people know the better and hopefully this will help some people out

Field Motorsport worked on my car

Field Motorsport worked on my car

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment