Make a donation

Author Topic: VWR Intake disappointing  (Read 48505 times)

Offline Shoduchi

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 220
  • -Receive: 429
  • Posts: 4173
  • My Ride: http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,95592.msg952042.html
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #45 on: August 08, 2017, 08:51:43 am »
I can't say mine had any problems with the MAF housing. It fitted fine the MAF and according to my long term fuel trims all is well. I just had to trim a bit the front grille scoop because my thicker IC made the coolant radiator be more backwards. I can hear a bit of rumble when accelerating hard but while pottering around it's pretty quiet, specially compared with open cone intake that make much more noise all the time. If I have my windows closed and the radio playing I can hardly hear anything from the intake. :confused:

Offline pudding

  • Global Moderator
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 670
  • Posts: 8228
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #46 on: August 08, 2017, 09:13:15 am »
Does yours not knock with no front mounting bracket pudding?

Yeah it does but for the time being it's just in the evaluation phase until I figure out what to do with the coolant elbow, so not too worried about the knocking.  If I can't do anything neat and OEM like, I'll just put the standard intake back on and throw the VWR in the trash can.

I've never seen anything like this before.  It's like having windows and doors fitted to your house, and the fitters just hammer chunks out of the bricks and lintles to make them fit.  It really is exceptionally poor.


2007 ED30 | 2009 TDI 140 | 2016 BMW 330D

Offline pudding

  • Global Moderator
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 670
  • Posts: 8228
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #47 on: August 08, 2017, 09:26:05 am »
I can't say mine had any problems with the MAF housing. It fitted fine the MAF and according to my long term fuel trims all is well. I just had to trim a bit the front grille scoop because my thicker IC made the coolant radiator be more backwards. I can hear a bit of rumble when accelerating hard but while pottering around it's pretty quiet, specially compared with open cone intake that make much more noise all the time. If I have my windows closed and the radio playing I can hardly hear anything from the intake. :confused:

I don't see how that is possible with the MAF, unless yours is slightly different to mine?   

If you look at the OEM airbox where the MAF slots into the housing, you will notice the 2 sections for the screws are which are raised.  It's hard to explain in words. 

As you can see in this pic, just, the MAF mounting is completely flat, which means the weather seal isn't pressed down.  They haven't mirrored the OEM mounting profile at all, let alone issues with the hole not being ground out correctly!  If your long terms are OK, you must be lucky but either way, it's not right.

I'll take some pics of later of what I mean, and then it will make sense hopefully!



2007 ED30 | 2009 TDI 140 | 2016 BMW 330D

Offline Shoduchi

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 220
  • -Receive: 429
  • Posts: 4173
  • My Ride: http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,95592.msg952042.html
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #48 on: August 08, 2017, 11:36:06 am »
I think I understood what you're trying to explain. My friend who fitted this intake already had plenty of experience fitting them. He made it look quite simple to do. Now I'm curious to check if mine is different but other than the hole in yours not being correctly grounded, I doubt mine will be different. :confused:

I'll check mine later and see if I can spot any difference.

Offline Dan_FR

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 132
  • -Receive: 189
  • Posts: 1845
  • wait...what?
    • Email
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #49 on: August 08, 2017, 12:24:34 pm »
For such an expensive kit that is truly awful quality.

One good aspect of it is the MAF scaling is spot on with these kits from everything I have read about them over the years, so it doesn't ruin the drive. The RamAir however does not and has a detrimental affect on off boost and part throttle driving. Been there and tested it
TFSI... Revo Stage 2+... . WMI.... VCDS HEX + CAN, MPPS, VAG Commander & VAG tacho - South Wales

Offline shoaybmakda

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 25
  • -Receive: 54
  • Posts: 1227
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #50 on: August 08, 2017, 04:28:33 pm »
I didn’t have issues with the MAF on mine..it was a little snug from what I remember but slotted I’m ok..

Offline AJP

  • Global Moderator
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 392
  • -Receive: 316
  • Posts: 3212
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #51 on: August 08, 2017, 07:12:55 pm »
For such an expensive kit that is truly awful quality.

One good aspect of it is the MAF scaling is spot on with these kits from everything I have read about them over the years, so it doesn't ruin the drive. The RamAir however does not and has a detrimental affect on off boost and part throttle driving. Been there and tested it
Was it the 70mm or 90mm Ramair you tested? And were the scaling issues tangible during driving?

Offline pudding

  • Global Moderator
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 670
  • Posts: 8228
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #52 on: August 08, 2017, 07:18:41 pm »
A picture paints a 1000 words.  As you can see, the VWR pipe had to be modified on mine to match the OEM airbox's MAF aperture.

If I didn't do that, the MAF wouldn't have sealed down onto the pipe at all.   I'm surprised no one else encountered the same issue!









2007 ED30 | 2009 TDI 140 | 2016 BMW 330D

Offline Dan_FR

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 132
  • -Receive: 189
  • Posts: 1845
  • wait...what?
    • Email
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #53 on: August 08, 2017, 09:35:16 pm »
For such an expensive kit that is truly awful quality.

One good aspect of it is the MAF scaling is spot on with these kits from everything I have read about them over the years, so it doesn't ruin the drive. The RamAir however does not and has a detrimental affect on off boost and part throttle driving. Been there and tested it
Was it the 70mm or 90mm Ramair you tested? And were the scaling issues tangible during driving?

90mm, but it makes no difference, both use the same MAF pipe which results in the same issues. And yes very much so, turned my car from feeling spritely and eager to feeling sluggish and lethargic during day to day off boost driving..... Like how the car feels after having sat in traffic on a hot summers day... It lasted less than a day before i removed it and went back to my other intake which has long term fuel trims within 1%
TFSI... Revo Stage 2+... . WMI.... VCDS HEX + CAN, MPPS, VAG Commander & VAG tacho - South Wales

Offline AJP

  • Global Moderator
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 392
  • -Receive: 316
  • Posts: 3212
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #54 on: August 08, 2017, 09:52:22 pm »
For such an expensive kit that is truly awful quality.

One good aspect of it is the MAF scaling is spot on with these kits from everything I have read about them over the years, so it doesn't ruin the drive. The RamAir however does not and has a detrimental affect on off boost and part throttle driving. Been there and tested it
Was it the 70mm or 90mm Ramair you tested? And were the scaling issues tangible during driving?

90mm, but it makes no difference, both use the same MAF pipe which results in the same issues. And yes very much so, turned my car from feeling spritely and eager to feeling sluggish and lethargic during day to day off boost driving..... Like how the car feels after having sat in traffic on a hot summers day... It lasted less than a day before i removed it and went back to my other intake which has long term fuel trims within 1%
Hmmm. I've never really felt any loss of torque or response that I could categorically attribute to the 70mm version I've got - although I'm not saying you're wrong (in fact, I'm probably more receptive to reasoning against the thing, than for it). 

There have been odd occasions coming onto boost where I think "Is that it?", where it just feels a bit limp and not producing the thump of torque you expect, but this has been both before, and after the Ramair went on, so something I'd probably put down to heatsoak at the time and not given a second thought.

One thing that is consistent, is a marginally stronger pull from around 4k. So it's doing something. I'd give it maybe 10bhp/10lb/ft at 5252 going by the seat of the pants.

I like the noises on full chat, but rolling around - especially on a cold engine - can get tiresome. It's all a bit wheezy and chuffy.

I'm inclined to ditch it. Certain elbows are uncomfortably close to coolant hoses and other more important bits. I think if I went k04 and back to a standard box I wouldn't miss it.

Anyway, here's the real question. Why don't you and Pudding co-develop an intake that ticks all the boxes? You've both got the ability to make it happen. And I'd buy one. Undercut VWR for a start.

Offline Dan_FR

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 132
  • -Receive: 189
  • Posts: 1845
  • wait...what?
    • Email
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #55 on: August 09, 2017, 07:38:43 am »
Hmmm. I've never really felt any loss of torque or response that I could categorically attribute to the 70mm version I've got - although I'm not saying you're wrong (in fact, I'm probably more receptive to reasoning against the thing, than for it). 

There have been odd occasions coming onto boost where I think "Is that it?", where it just feels a bit limp and not producing the thump of torque you expect, but this has been both before, and after the Ramair went on, so something I'd probably put down to heatsoak at the time and not given a second thought.

One thing that is consistent, is a marginally stronger pull from around 4k. So it's doing something. I'd give it maybe 10bhp/10lb/ft at 5252 going by the seat of the pants.

I like the noises on full chat, but rolling around - especially on a cold engine - can get tiresome. It's all a bit wheezy and chuffy.

I'm inclined to ditch it. Certain elbows are uncomfortably close to coolant hoses and other more important bits. I think if I went k04 and back to a standard box I wouldn't miss it.

Anyway, here's the real question. Why don't you and Pudding co-develop an intake that ticks all the boxes? You've both got the ability to make it happen. And I'd buy one. Undercut VWR for a start.


What are your LTFTs? Maybe mine was a duff or early revision, but my LTFTs were +10 - 15%. On boost it made little difference, similar gains when accelerating briskly. It was that initial throttle response where it disappointed, where the MAF underread and the split second needed for what I expect to be the ECU jumping in to correct matters. Its something you would only lay your finger on when swapping back to back with another intake, I imagine you would soon get used to it but it was a big disappointment coming from another intake.

The funny thing is that both MAF pipes are identical in terms of I.D....... The only difference? Position of the MAF in the pipe. One has the Sensor opening in the centre of the pipe, the other has the MAF sitting much deeper so that the sensor opening is near the far edge of the pipe. Surprising the difference it makes to the readings
TFSI... Revo Stage 2+... . WMI.... VCDS HEX + CAN, MPPS, VAG Commander & VAG tacho - South Wales

Offline pudding

  • Global Moderator
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 670
  • Posts: 8228
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #56 on: August 09, 2017, 10:17:22 am »
For such an expensive kit that is truly awful quality.

One good aspect of it is the MAF scaling is spot on with these kits from everything I have read about them over the years, so it doesn't ruin the drive. The RamAir however does not and has a detrimental affect on off boost and part throttle driving. Been there and tested it
Was it the 70mm or 90mm Ramair you tested? And were the scaling issues tangible during driving?

90mm, but it makes no difference, both use the same MAF pipe which results in the same issues. And yes very much so, turned my car from feeling spritely and eager to feeling sluggish and lethargic during day to day off boost driving..... Like how the car feels after having sat in traffic on a hot summers day... It lasted less than a day before i removed it and went back to my other intake which has long term fuel trims within 1%
Hmmm. I've never really felt any loss of torque or response that I could categorically attribute to the 70mm version I've got - although I'm not saying you're wrong (in fact, I'm probably more receptive to reasoning against the thing, than for it). 

There have been odd occasions coming onto boost where I think "Is that it?", where it just feels a bit limp and not producing the thump of torque you expect, but this has been both before, and after the Ramair went on, so something I'd probably put down to heatsoak at the time and not given a second thought.

One thing that is consistent, is a marginally stronger pull from around 4k. So it's doing something. I'd give it maybe 10bhp/10lb/ft at 5252 going by the seat of the pants.

I like the noises on full chat, but rolling around - especially on a cold engine - can get tiresome. It's all a bit wheezy and chuffy.

I'm inclined to ditch it. Certain elbows are uncomfortably close to coolant hoses and other more important bits. I think if I went k04 and back to a standard box I wouldn't miss it.

Anyway, here's the real question. Why don't you and Pudding co-develop an intake that ticks all the boxes? You've both got the ability to make it happen. And I'd buy one. Undercut VWR for a start.

I bet if you put the OEM airbox back on, you would feel a difference.  You get used to changes and forget what OEM was like.  The quietness and smoothness would be immediately welcomed, and then you will think to yourself, what was the benefit of the RamAir again?  :grin:

If I had the relevant test gear, I would see what the pressure drop is through the OEM airbox.  If it's more than 2psi (with filter) I would be very surprised.  4-5psi drop and I can see a benefit in ditching it, but VW wouldn't make something that restrictive as it would muck up their pressure ratio calculations for the turbo.

And as Dan said, it's not as simple as just plonking the MAF into a pipe.  VW were very specific about how and where they mounted the MAF.  Personally I would not have put it there.  Too much turbulence from these raspy little turbos.  Probably why they moved it off the engine on the MK6&7.  And how many aftermarket intakes have laminar flow correctors (the wire mesh upstream of the sensor)?  NONE.  It's a critical part.  Imagine a whirlpool inside a pipe.  Where is the majority of the flow?  On the outer diameter of the whirlpool, with a hole in the middle.  That's what laminar flow grids do.....straighten out the maelstrom, otherwise the sensor would be in that hole, reading way less air mass than it should be.  Without it you will get very wayward MAF readings at certain rpms/loads.  But of course, aftermarket tuners know better, right?  Nah, sod that, let's just take a random bit of guttering pipe, drill a hole in it, shove the maf in, shove a sponge on the end.  Job done. £400 please.

As I say, I bought this out of curiosity, and as usual, the small benefits are exaggerated and the negatives completely ignored.  I know I've stood steadfastly in favour of the OEM airbox on here for 2 years now, and sampling the VWR just compounds my original thoughts and experience even more!

I've played with many intakes over the years, and my crowning glory was running my VR6 Turbo with the factory airbox, and factory paper filter.  Everyone thought I was mad and it would kill the power.  They were wrong. It worked brilliantly.....and this was a GT3582R turbo on a 3 litre engine, not a piddly little K04 on a 2.0  :smiley:

I would love to make an intake but I would never make any money because my standards are too high  :grin:   I would never sell anything I wasn't happy fitting to my own car, and had real, tangible, repeatable, proven gains.  None of this "Up to 20hp gain". "Some cars have seen a 500rpm reduction in spool".  None of that wishy washy ifs buts and maybes.  Fit this, you get this.  Simple.

« Last Edit: August 09, 2017, 10:21:45 am by Pudding »


2007 ED30 | 2009 TDI 140 | 2016 BMW 330D

Offline AJP

  • Global Moderator
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 392
  • -Receive: 316
  • Posts: 3212
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #57 on: August 09, 2017, 10:57:59 am »
Hmmm. I've never really felt any loss of torque or response that I could categorically attribute to the 70mm version I've got - although I'm not saying you're wrong (in fact, I'm probably more receptive to reasoning against the thing, than for it). 

There have been odd occasions coming onto boost where I think "Is that it?", where it just feels a bit limp and not producing the thump of torque you expect, but this has been both before, and after the Ramair went on, so something I'd probably put down to heatsoak at the time and not given a second thought.

One thing that is consistent, is a marginally stronger pull from around 4k. So it's doing something. I'd give it maybe 10bhp/10lb/ft at 5252 going by the seat of the pants.

I like the noises on full chat, but rolling around - especially on a cold engine - can get tiresome. It's all a bit wheezy and chuffy.

I'm inclined to ditch it. Certain elbows are uncomfortably close to coolant hoses and other more important bits. I think if I went k04 and back to a standard box I wouldn't miss it.

Anyway, here's the real question. Why don't you and Pudding co-develop an intake that ticks all the boxes? You've both got the ability to make it happen. And I'd buy one. Undercut VWR for a start.


What are your LTFTs? Maybe mine was a duff or early revision, but my LTFTs were +10 - 15%. On boost it made little difference, similar gains when accelerating briskly. It was that initial throttle response where it disappointed, where the MAF underread and the split second needed for what I expect to be the ECU jumping in to correct matters. Its something you would only lay your finger on when swapping back to back with another intake, I imagine you would soon get used to it but it was a big disappointment coming from another intake.

The funny thing is that both MAF pipes are identical in terms of I.D....... The only difference? Position of the MAF in the pipe. One has the Sensor opening in the centre of the pipe, the other has the MAF sitting much deeper so that the sensor opening is near the far edge of the pipe. Surprising the difference it makes to the readings
I haven't yet logged the fuel trims, Dan. If I was having perceivable performance issues with the intake I'd imagine I would have done so. Maybe I should anyway.

I'm going to keep an eye on things around the coolant hoses, and in all likelihood it'll soon be coming off. It's not terrible, and I can't point my finger to one glaring issue (k03 goose honk resonance aside) but let's just say there are numerous areas that could see improvement.

Kev - getting the word 'maelstrom' into an already comprehensive reply deserves my applause Brilliant stuff

Offline pudding

  • Global Moderator
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 670
  • Posts: 8228
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #58 on: August 09, 2017, 11:28:39 am »
 :grin:

The trims were very small with the VWR intake on mine, but that's only half the story.  The problem with CAIs is they slow down the air speed.   The sensor might still see the correct air mass, within a 5% tolerance, but that change in flow dynamics makes it feel lethargic off boost.
The initial hoorah this is great feeling I got from the VWR must have been placebo, because the car feels a lot better to drive with the OEM airbox  :happy2:


2007 ED30 | 2009 TDI 140 | 2016 BMW 330D

Offline Dan_FR

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 132
  • -Receive: 189
  • Posts: 1845
  • wait...what?
    • Email
Re: VWR Intake disappointing
« Reply #59 on: August 09, 2017, 12:16:46 pm »
I gotta say that comprehensive reply frazzled my head a little..... Couple of points:

@AJP No logging needed, just a check of block 032

How relevant is pressure drop on an airbox that is under vacuum and sees no positive pressure? Genuine question.

A flow straightener has very little effect.... tried one, tried multiple mesh designs as close to the OE design as I could find and it made suprisingly little difference to the MAF readings, trims and feel.

Out of curiousity, where does the MAF sit on the VWR intake, centre or nearer the edge of the tube?

As for gains from an intake, it is impossible to give a static number or % in terms of what can be gained as it depends entirely on the car and hardware setup.... A 500rpm difference in spool could be achieved on a larger turbo setup, but on a punchy little K03 that is hitting peak boost by around 2500 rpm - not a chance.

Gains are there in terms of peak numbers, especially when you are on the limit of what the compressor can flow. There are many back to back dyno charts out there proving the gains from an intake alone on a previously tuned car... But as with everything in life, there are negatives to consider but these are almost always overlooked as the priority for most is to chase peak numbers and full throttle performance...

Noise is another drawback for some, although personally I am 29 going on 19 and love all manner of turbo noises.... What is acceptable to me would not be for a lot... Its all about finding the compromise that best suits you.... Whether you want to chase numbers or enjoy the quiet, refined OE drive
TFSI... Revo Stage 2+... . WMI.... VCDS HEX + CAN, MPPS, VAG Commander & VAG tacho - South Wales