MK5 Golf GTI
All Things Mk5 => Performance Modifications => Modifications & Technical Area => APR Zone => Topic started by: 56OctyVRS on March 31, 2012, 11:04:34 pm
-
Are you releasing this intake to the UK market?
(https://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdaz.co%2Fmedia%2Fm549%2F56octyvrs%2FAPR-20tfsi-carbonio-assembled.jpg&hash=f4b08544fffeb9f8fc8204c2023fc93ff95726ac)
-
what sort of filter element is inside there?
-
I would imagine it would be ITG..
-
It looks to be good as it wouldnt get affected by heat and it goes into an oval shape maf housing, so it should be maf scaling friendly. I was all for buying the vwr intake until I saw this , so I may hang on a while longer till I get some more details from APR.
-
On a website I saw it said available July 26th in USA
-
We definately need more info on this!!!!
-
Any feedback ... or is there a message in the silence?
-
Still not released yet im afraid.
-
I this available yet? Just got stage1 and like the look of this.
-
^^^^ here you go. It looks like its now for sale.
http://www.goapr.co.uk/products/intake_carbonio_20tsi.html
-
Are those for the TSI , and not the TFSI? Or have I got it wrong?
-
This ones for the Tfsi mate
http://www.goapr.co.uk/products/intake_vwr_20t_fsi_trans.html
-
Expensive bit of kit that! Are they any good? Take it they're quieter than others?
-
Is there anyone running one of these who can give some ideas of what gains can be achieved and how it compares to the ITG, Twintake, Evoms and dare I say the REVO one.
:happy2:
-
There's no doubt they will be very good and quiet so no darth vader noise.
I had a forge twintake and have sold it and went back to a carbonio with panel filter and the car performs much much better than with the twintake.
I find when you fit an intake on k04 it takes all the low down torque away (the initial pull on light throttle)
I've tried dblias, twintake, pflow, bsh and everyone of them suffers from it, great if you drive flat out everywhere as the intake gives slightly more pull above 5000rpm.
Since the APR intake has been designed and tested with their software airflow readings should be spot on and performance very good.
Don't get me wrong if I could get a o e of these at a good price I'd have one in a shot.
Until then I'm enjoying my quiet and quick car with a little bling under the bonnet.
-
Thats interesting you went back to standard. I do also like my car quite, and low down torque is where i do most of my driving. Don't do many long, high speed runs.
-
You sound like me then, this is probably the only one to go for if you want one that is.
I've wasted a fortune on intakes forgot to mention the itg maxogen (noisiest of all the ones I've tried)
-
I would think it compares very well to the ITG as afterall that is what it is. :confused:
-
^^^^ does look like the newer ITG with its canister.
@KEVS FR
Found my last ITG (a Maxogen) a bit much re the sound on my Eddy and yes your right about the loss of low down go. I'm currently between CAI's (next ones a Twintake) and running an aftermarket panel filter with OEM engine cover without any noticeable loss of grunt. The APR/VWR system does look good though (with a lot less connections than the ITG) and should be quieter with its canister.
:happy2:
-
The loss of low down grunt from the twintake is the same as the itg maxogen.
I used to love the twintake on my previous k03 car but not on k04 lost a small fortune in 2 weeks use.
As I say I think my car is more powerful on panel filter than any intake I've tried.
-
Be interesting to hear from anyone that has one. Maybe APR have more info.
-
The loss of low down grunt from the twintake is the same as the itg maxogen.
I used to love the twintake on my previous k03 car but not on k04 lost a small fortune in 2 weeks use.
As I say I think my car is more powerful on panel filter than any intake I've tried.
I'm sure all the previously mentioned CAI systems will suffer the same lag low down. I will stick it on and see. :happy2:
-
^^^^ does look like the newer ITG with its canister.
@KEVS FR
Found my last ITG (a Maxogen) a bit much re the sound on my Eddy and yes your right about the loss of low down go. I'm currently between CAI's (next ones a Twintake) and running an aftermarket panel filter with OEM engine cover without any noticeable loss of grunt. The APR/VWR system does look good though (with a lot less connections than the ITG) and should be quieter with its canister.
:happy2:
Ive switched back to the engine cover and going from having a performance panel filter installed to a standard paper filter. There has been no difference in performance. I am just sticking to changing the filter every service rather than a performance filter.
-
Funny APR hasn't responded to this tread yet?? :confused: :signLOL:
-
Here is the deal with intakes for the 2.0T FSI.....
The 2.0T FSI has a very uniquely shaped maf housing. The shape and diameter of the housing as well as the flow straightener integrated into the housing has a very direct and precise influence on the calibration of the maf sensor and how accurately the maf sensor reads.
In the past and on other VAG engines, the maf housings are not that unique and and the maf sensors themselves are not as affected by small differences in the housing.
All intake manufacturers followed their normal design and manufacturing procedures of recreating a similarly sized maf housing for their product which to insert the maf sensor. During initial prototyping, most intake manufacturers use a more precisely manufactured housing than when they go into production.
Almost all intakes currently available to this day that include a new mounting point for the maf sensor are manufactured with methods that do not allow for precise enough tolerances regarding the diameter of housing around the sensor and can be too large and too small to a point that creates improper maf readings. They can also be spot on.
Some intakes currently available to this day also include mistakes in the design regarding the specificity of the shape, flow straightener and placement of the maf sensor, which was not as important on previous VAG engines.
APR and Carbonio have tried nearly every method of cost effective manufacturing to repeat the tolerances required to ensure that every intake we would sell would be sized properly for the maf sensor's calibration. APR and Carbonio have tested batches, usually 3-5, of nearly every available intake for the 2.0T FSI.
We have found that sometimes you can get a perfect maf sensor reading and sometimes you can't. The manufacturing processes used simply don't allow for precise enough results. We have tested intakes made from bent tubing of various metals, plastic injection molding, rotoformed tubing, plastic cast tubing and carbon tubing.
The most cost effective method available to ensure the repeatability of the maf housing area in the intake is cnc machining a metal, most specifically aluminum.
There are no intakes available (other than our Stage III maf tube) that are made with a cnc maf housing. ITG uses a metal tubing that has fantastic tolerances but they are as expensive as cnc machined housing whereas the waste during quality control when measuring the internal diameter of the maf sensor location is very high. ITG has recently changed manufacturers of the metal tubing to find a way to reduce costs but that resulted in random tolerances like all other intakes face and they are about to release a machined insert for their intakes that fixes the issue.
That being said, the problems you guys "feel" with different intakes and the different results people experience with the same intake are all due to wide variances in the size or diameter of the maf sensor placement. Some other intakes have some inherent design flaws as mentioned above that exacerbate this problem even further but most people know which ones those are and generally stay away from them.
Scientifically and completely without doubt, a properly designed and manufactured intake for a 2.0T FSI with k03 or k04 turbo will result in faster spool, better throttle response, more top end power, better fuel economy and overall increases in the efficiency of the engine's operation. Any results that you guys have experienced that differ from this are due to the maf sensor placement, manufacturing repeatability or a design mistake.
APR and Carbonio tried to bring a design similar to our 2.0 TSI Stage 2 intake pipe to market that would also use our 2.0 TSI Stage 1 intake like pictured at the beginning of this thread. We tested 10 of an initial run and all was well. However, we then ordered an initial production run of 200 and found that random sampling resulted in random results and never released the product as we've searched for a better solution.
ITG makes the intakes for VWR and APR and Carbonio tested those intakes to find that the repeatability was very good and the best we had tested. Therefore, APR and Carbonio abandoned the Stage 2 intake project and we recommend the VWR intake to 2.0T FSI clients that want more than our current Carbonio intake, which consists of a new front scoop and panel filter for the standard airbox. The caveat as mentioned above is that ITG switched tubing vendors and had to develop the insert to correct the issue presented by the new tubing vendor.
The standard airbox cares about a lot more than response, fuel economy, power output and efficiency. NVH, which stands for noise, vibration and harmonics, is a separate engineering discipline that is accomplished after the initial engine design and is a science of restriction regarding intake systems. Much like exhaust systems, the only way to reduce NVH in an intake system is to add restriction. This means that there are almost always gains to be had when replacing the standard airbox simply by undoing the design characteristics dictated by a desire to reduce NVH in standard cars. Also, OEM's are almost always looking to reduce costs and the filters used are very restrictive as well because to get high filtration and low cost, the filter has to be restrictive, no way around it. To maintain the level of filtration but get a better flow you have to move to a cotton gauze or foam filter and the costs are much higher for these kinds of filters.
If you feel your intake is not doing its job, there are simple testing procedures you can do....
A. Replace the intake with standard airbox and see if things are better
B. Use VCDS to determine your long term fuel trims and ensure they are within +/- 0-5%
-
Funny APR hasn't responded to this tread yet?? :confused: :signLOL:
Funny you post this whilst I am in the midst of typing out an hour long diatribe to explain things. :P :signLOL:
-
I would think it compares very well to the ITG as afterall that is what it is. :confused:
Do you mean to say the APR Carbonio pictured is the same as an ITG? If so, they do not share any parts, are designed and manufactured by completely different companies and the APR Carbonio front part of this intake was available way before the ITG/VWR canister intakes.
-
...manufactured with methods that do not allow for precise enough tolerances regarding the diameter of housing around the sensor and can be too large and too small to a point that creates improper maf readings....
...a properly designed and manufactured intake for a 2.0T FSI with k03 or k04 turbo will result in faster spool, better throttle response, more top end power, better fuel economy and overall increases in the efficiency of the engine's operation....
Stupid question (since I'm not very mechanically minded when it comes to cars) but how much variation did you find in maf readings? How did this translate in to figures we can understand like bhp?
If a variation of, say, +/-1% creates a variation of +/-1 bhp, then no big deal (IMO) since you can get greater variability in bhp from atmospheric conditions. But this is completely different to say a variation of +/-1% causing a variation of +/-10bhp since this would be noticeable. Would be interested in your interpretation of the results.
-
...manufactured with methods that do not allow for precise enough tolerances regarding the diameter of housing around the sensor and can be too large and too small to a point that creates improper maf readings....
...a properly designed and manufactured intake for a 2.0T FSI with k03 or k04 turbo will result in faster spool, better throttle response, more top end power, better fuel economy and overall increases in the efficiency of the engine's operation....
Stupid question (since I'm not very mechanically minded when it comes to cars) but how much variation did you find in maf readings? How did this translate in to figures we can understand like bhp?
If a variation of, say, +/-1% creates a variation of +/-1 bhp, then no big deal (IMO) since you can get greater variability in bhp from atmospheric conditions. But this is completely different to say a variation of +/-1% causing a variation of +/-10bhp since this would be noticeable. Would be interested in your interpretation of the results.
Unfortunately, it doesn't translate directly to BHP but effects things like how much fuel the ECU applies. The maf tells the ECU how much air is coming in to the engine and then the ECU uses this info in a bunch of different calculations to inject the proper amount of fuel. If the maf reading is not precise, the ECU puts the wrong amount of fuel in, either too much or too little. The oxygen sensor then reads the actual amount of fuel and air burned and reports that back to the ECU. If the ECU was wrong because the maf data sent to it was wrong, it tries to fix the problem with the information the primary oxygen sensor gave it by changing the fuel trims. The ECU is now very confused.
When the ECU is confused and is trying to fix the confusion with fuel trims, all sorts of weird running issues can happen. It can be a lack of power, it can be misfires, it can be slow response, it can be hesitation, etc. The more the ECU tries to fix the confusion, the more the ECU gets confused. In some circumstances, the ECU can run leaner than its supposed to which might even make more power!
Its the old adage of Garbage In, Garbage Out when dealing with computers. If the data the maf is sending to the ECU is incorrect, what the ECU tells the rest of the engine to do will be incorrect also.
I'm sorry there is no easy answer but modern internal combustion engines and their ECU's are very complicated systems.
The biggest problem with this entire situation is that one intake may work perfectly but the next intake from the same company, same part number can cause problems for that purchaser.
The maf is one of the most important sensors on the ECU.
-
I would think it compares very well to the ITG as afterall that is what it is. :confused:
(https://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdaz.co%2Fmedia%2Fm549%2F56octyvrs%2FAPR-20tfsi-carbonio-assembled.jpg&hash=f4b08544fffeb9f8fc8204c2023fc93ff95726ac)
(https://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.volkswagenracing.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FVWR-TFSI-Intake-system1.jpg&hash=6cff3b152d72cd76ed00b1998edecd18359c9585)
:confused:
-
@Keith
Great write up/response and sales pitch. :happy2:
You've definitely got me interested and thinking of the APR system now. At which point along the slippery slope of modding do you gain the best out of the APR system, ie as a stand alone mod or stage 1, stage 2 or stage 2+?
-
I would think it compares very well to the ITG as afterall that is what it is. :confused:
(https://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdaz.co%2Fmedia%2Fm549%2F56octyvrs%2FAPR-20tfsi-carbonio-assembled.jpg&hash=f4b08544fffeb9f8fc8204c2023fc93ff95726ac)
(https://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.volkswagenracing.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2FVWR-TFSI-Intake-system1.jpg&hash=6cff3b152d72cd76ed00b1998edecd18359c9585)
:confused:
Did you have a blow to the head while making sandcastles? :fighting:
I didn't say the top one only the bottom one which is only an ITG with a new name and a hefty price tag on.
-
I would think it compares very well to the ITG as afterall that is what it is. :confused:
Do you mean to say the APR Carbonio pictured is the same as an ITG? If so, they do not share any parts, are designed and manufactured by completely different companies and the APR Carbonio front part of this intake was available way before the ITG/VWR canister intakes.
No I don't see above.
-
ah, ok. Thank you! That makes sense.
The price of the VWR intake is more than the price of the ITG it once was?
-
Did you have a blow to the head while making sandcastles? :fighting:
Having a bad day are we? No blow that im aware of, its far to cold at the beach for sand castles anyway.
I presumed you were answering this question:
Is there anyone running one of these who can give some ideas of what gains can be achieved and how it compares to the ITG, Twintake, Evoms and dare I say the REVO one.
I would think it compares very well to the ITG as afterall that is what it is. :confused:
He wasn't comparing the VWR and ITG, in which case i completely agree with you, its the same intake, with a change in some lettering. :happy2: :happy2:
The price of the VWR intake is more than the price of the ITG it once was?
Yes
-
The price of the VWR intake is more than the price of the ITG it once was?
Yes
Any idea where I can see what the price used to be? Maybe I can lower it some?
-
not sure on links as most of the retailers that used to sell ITG no longer do. Pretty sure the ITG Maxogen was around £350 for the K04 and £330 for K03 that was a few years ago that i bought mine though, so no idea what it was more recently.
-
Are you saying there's room for negotiation on the price Keith?
-
My Maxogen was £380 direct from Andy Jackson. Super helpful guy too
-
My Maxogen was £380 direct from Andy Jackson. Super helpful guy too
Ah, ok. The maxogen ones. Aren't they the open filter systems with about 96 hose clamps?
-
My Maxogen was £380 direct from Andy Jackson. Super helpful guy too
Ah, ok. The maxogen ones. Aren't they the open filter systems with about 96 hose clamps?
Only 91 hose clips on mine :grin:
Sorry if my comparison was irrelevant :happy2:
-
My Maxogen was £380 direct from Andy Jackson. Super helpful guy too
Ah, ok. The maxogen ones. Aren't they the open filter systems with about 96 hose clamps?
Only 91 hose clips on mine :grin:
Sorry if my comparison was irrelevant :happy2:
Oh no, its completely relavent. The deal is that if VWR hadn't become the exclusive partner, the prices were going to go up anyways with the new design. This explains why it seems like the prices went up when VWR got involved, its because they switched to the new design at the same which is more expensive than the old maxogens.