Volvo K24 turbo in audi application.

[Vorsprung durch Technik]

Hi i am interested in hearing more about this turbo hybrid especially for your feelings about it in the above quote.I realize that some daylight appeared where it shouldn't, a real shame for you Nothing seams to be posted about this for a long time,just wondering what was the verdict.Did another get built with same hybrid and was it successful.As you put it if this turbo hybrid spooled up much quicker and had better torque figures than the standard Rs2 and given that its much cheaper than RS2 turbo and has no lag it would seam to me a bit of a no brainer.Have you or anyone else been successful with this turbo hybrid?? Cheers

Somebody must know.Anyone??

[Vorsprung durch Technik]

Speaking from my own experience, and my own car. I had an RS2 turbo fitted with 034 rs2 software and rs2 replica injectors. I changed ONLY THE TURBO, INJECTORS, and ENGINE MANAGEMENT, all other factors stayed the same (intercooler, exhaust manifold, downpipe, exhaust, coils, ect). It was a night and day difference in power. Much quicker to spool, and much more torque. Again as stated dyno results are not truely comparable across the board, as mentioned, my readings on a different dyno could have been much lower, but in the same regard they could have been much higher had i dyno'd on a different dyno at sea level with a different dyno. The only true measure of this turbo vs rs2 would be same car same day same dyno.

Again as i stated before you could also measure it compared to other cars that dyno'd that day. like the 3 b7 RS4s that dynod and all came within about 15hp of each other and all had varied levels of modifications. My car put down more whp the one that was "100%" stock, was 1 whp shy of beating the one with a fresh carbon cleaning and open exhaust, and about 12 whp shy of the one with a fresh clean, open exhaust and a ported and de-flapped intake manifold. I beat all of them on torque by over 100 WTQ. I would say that for what it is, and the price you can get them, it is a VERY capable turbo.

Hi i am interested in hearing more about this turbo hybrid especially for your feelings about it in the above quote.I realize that some daylight appeared where it shouldn't, a real shame for you Nothing seams to be posted about this for a long time,just wondering what was the verdict.Did another get built with same hybrid and was it successful.As you put it if this turbo hybrid spooled up much quicker and had better torque figures than the standard Rs2 and given that its much cheaper than RS2 turbo and has no lag it would seam to me a bit of a no brainer.Have you or anyone else been successful with this turbo hybrid?? Cheers

[rst]

I'll assume you used the autotune feature to generate that graph. The log needs to be generated with autotune in mind in order for that to be worth anything at all. You need to hold load at particular load cells for a longer duration of time than a "pull" to get data that autotune can reliably work with.

I know what you mean. That was just for little info to see how much off is/was the VE tabel. It needs to be about 10% richer in the boosted area.

[a4kquattro]

This fuel map needs to be changed AT LEAST that much, then the lambda would be about 0.83 as was the target lambda:

I'll assume you used the autotune feature to generate that graph. The log needs to be generated with autotune in mind in order for that to be worth anything at all. You need to hold load at particular load cells for a longer duration of time than a "pull" to get data that autotune can reliably work with.

[driftin jo]

Acuually, I do not see where I specified rotational or not. As I read it, my statements are accurate by virtue of vagueness

We are all wrong since the "torque limit" of the stock rods is backwards, as you pointed out. X psi of combustion is required for q NMs, so we can assume that a flawed tune caused too much cylinder psi or perhaps it was the result of increased boost and increased density. I would think the pistons would show signs of detonation.

Regardless, I was giving PRJ a hard time to lighten things up in here.

It is still 'OK' to say that the rods can handle 650 NM without braking but what this really means is the rods can handle the compressive force needed to produce 650 NM of torque at the crank .

As we can only measure torque from a running engine and the compressive force on the rod is relative to the torque produced, the Max NM of torque that a set of rods can take is what are working to.

I was Just pointing out that torque is not the measure of force acting on a con rod and thus does not bend the rod.

[Mcstiff]

Acuually, I do not see where I specified rotational or not. As I read it, my statements are accurate by virtue of vagueness

We are all wrong since the "torque limit" of the stock rods is backwards, as you pointed out. X psi of combustion is required for q NMs, so we can assume that a flawed tune caused too much cylinder psi or perhaps it was the result of increased boost and increased density. I would think the pistons would show signs of detonation.

Regardless, I was giving PRJ a hard time to lighten things up in here.

[driftin jo]

Hmm, afaik torque is the measure of force acting on an object. Regardless of the source some force bent the rod

Actually you are wrong, torque or (moment of a force ) is a measurement of rotational force, IE the tendency of a force to rotate an object about it's axis.

It was actually compressive force that bent the rod.
In an engine it is compressive force from the piston through the conrod that is turned into rotational force ( torque ) by the crank, so it is not actually torque that bent the rod.
When knock occurs the cylinder pressure can go up by 500% over normal, and the
compressive force generated bends the rod, or repeated knock slowly work hardens it
until it fails.

[prj]

Hmm, afaik torque is the measure of force acting on an object. Regardless of the source some force bent the rod

Take the piss now will you
You know what I meant.

[rst]

This fuel map needs to be changed AT LEAST that much, then the lambda would be about 0.83 as was the target lambda:

[Mcstiff]

Nothing to do with torque here.

Hmm, afaik torque is the measure of force acting on an object. Regardless of the source some force bent the rod

[prj]

Let's not forget that Dave's dyno was with much higher ambient temps (it has been well below 0°C in UT). If this caused a lean condition or just too much torque is difficult to say.

No, it's not difficult to say. This is a baby turbo with baby torque.
You could have ran a stock turbo and done the same. Nothing to do with torque here.

[Mcstiff]

Let's not forget that Dave's dyno was with much higher ambient temps (it has been well below 0°C in UT). If this caused a lean condition or just too much torque is difficult to say.

[Ross]

David,

I've not got anything helpful to add... but this sucks! Welcome to the 'I put a rod through my block club'

Hope you get the car back up and running again soon, and figure out what the cause was. I'm sure you will have some ideas when you open the lid on that engine.

For what it's worth, my RS2 ran with 404ft/lb crank on the stock rods for 70,000 miles. In the mean time, look forward to the 'failed engine' and 'rebuilt engine' pics

Cheers
Ross

[porkkis]

600 crank Nm does not bend rods. Extreme cylinder pressures during knock does bend rods.

[Billman]

I think we all have to wait and see when the new engine is in. If with the same map it stays ok then I was wrong.

Joking aside I hope he gets down to it so that such problem will be avoided. With high HP there is always increased risk of a failure.

Even a brand new toyota 1.6 engine blow a rod through the block.