Loud blowoff valve

[prj]

Presure side and remap? Or PRJs big maf setup pressure side?

Big maf is too big for pressure side... working on a Pro-M solution for a 3" tube pressure side.

[Rusty]

Pressure side, so that the air is metered after the point where it is lost. This is a lot of effort to make the car go woosh though

[andy10v]

The other, more extreme option would ne to move the MAF

Presure side and remap? Or PRJs big maf setup pressure side?

[Rusty]

Before another thread descends into chaos...

I think that, to summarise: vent to atmosphere valve are not correct for these cars (when retaining the MAF in the OE position) but that if you want to accept that they're not correct and decide to use one, then minimising the amount of air lost in each dump is essential to minimise the negative effect on the way the car runs and also the harm and any longer term damage due to bore wash etc. that might be caused my the momentary rich running.

My GFB had 13 adjustment positions, of which the middle 9 changed the aperture hole to atmosphere (so positions 2 fully closed -11 fully open). Anything over level 4 could be felt in the form of a flat throttle response when changing gear and heard in the form of the car popping on WOT gear changes. I ran it on level 13 only once and kept it on level 3 for the rest of the time, leaving an aperture ~10% of the full size. This gave a small gain in noise and no noticeable change in throttle response. Level 13 was hilariously loud but the car felt off form, so I reverted back to my Forge 007. I'd like to try and APR R1 next, to see if they offer any improvement over the Forge at 2x the cost.

[Big Lee M]

Well, sorry, I make cars go fast, and I fail to understand why someone would voluntarily make their car go slower and make the engine less reliable to get a hissing sound. That's all.
It's about the principle for me.

I understand about what you are saying and you are a very cleaver man when it comes to tuning car's an I know your right but I was saying that a mear mortal that want to make a car hiss would not really feel the difference unless it was a real s h I t valve.

[prj]

So it's noticeable when you have logging equipment, 0.5 seconds over 2 gear changes isn't much really. You wouldn't even notice it, fair enough if your building a drag car but for a street car. You could lose that on a gear change if you was slower, ha ha. Each to there own really.

Well, sorry, I make cars go fast, and I fail to understand why someone would voluntarily make their car go slower and make the engine less reliable to get a hissing sound. That's all.
It's about the principle for me.

[Thuppu]

Put a cone filter and plug the by-pass.

[Rusty]

The other, more extreme option would ne to move the MAF

[Rusty]

I certainly noticed improved spool after changing gear when switching back to a closed circuit. The 'lag' is certainly a personal choice but over fueling starts to become an issue, depending in the level to which it occurs. Mine makes a suitably loud hiss on dump but is sealed, so is the best of both worlds for me

[Big Lee M]

So it's noticeable when you have logging equipment, 0.5 seconds over 2 gear changes isn't much really. You wouldn't even notice it, fair enough if your building a drag car but for a street car. You could lose that on a gear change if you was slower, ha ha. Each to there own really.

[UrS4boy]

It's not "better", it's "less ****".

My guess is Deception is the OP's hip-hop gansta name and he wants his car to be phat for his peeps.

[prj]

Sorry I ment it will not affect as much as,it will not be noticeable to a normal person with it only losing that amount of recirculating air. I'm not 100% on the amount it splits it by but I think it's 25/75 sort of, just thought its better than a total atmospheric valve?

It's not "better", it's "less ****".
And yes, it's pretty damn noticeable if you make a timed log when shifting between gears, then compare the time.

[Big Lee M]

Sorry I ment it will not affect as much as,it will not be noticeable to a normal person with it only losing that amount of recirculating air. I'm not 100% on the amount it splits it by but I think it's 25/75 sort of, just thought its better than a total atmospheric valve?

[andy10v]

And the whole idea of your car is being a sleeper. So yes, it's a good idea that people think it's an A6 2.0 16V Avant.

That is why my S2 does not even have S2 badges, its invisible, an avant would be even better with 1.6 or 2.0 badges.

It will be noticeable, it will still screw up the engine management.
Doing a 1st to 3rd WOT run you'll lose 0.5 seconds probably, if not more on gear changes.

Clarifies that then, noise for show.

[prj]

Thanks for all the replies so far, guys!


Well, here's the story... My car currently looks very plain. Someone might as well think it's an A6 2.0 16V Avant. Unless, of course, they're more Audi-knowledgeable and take note of the inflated fenders of the S6...
Yes, it will run slower. But have you thought by how much? I think it will be barely noticeable if at all. Only the stopwatch will make the difference... The turbo makes pressure instantly even if all air is dumped.

It's not about turbo respooling. It's about metered air being dumped to atmosphere, so you flood your engine with fuel on every gear change, and it's slowww... Never mind not being good for it.

And the whole idea of your car is being a sleeper. So yes, it's a good idea that people think it's an A6 2.0 16V Avant.

Well if it was that bad MTM would never have used it after spending all that money on research??? But who knows, but then again a lot of people post about things that you'd never be able to feel the difference between?

Having a tube and then having a cone filter is fine, having it directly on the MAF is not.

Surely it will mess the readings up, just 25-75% less so than a 100% atmospheric dump? IE possibly not easily noticeable, but still not ideal?

It will be noticeable, it will still screw up the engine management.
Doing a 1st to 3rd WOT run you'll lose 0.5 seconds probably, if not more on gear changes.