New Malone kit for 2.0l TDI at SOWO

Or a flange welded onto the downpipe. Yes, the setup is supposed to allow use of the factory exhaust, so location must be the same.

I am picturing something like this so as its a bolt on application for the exhaust/turbo. But based on the work already, I am sure they have it figured out. My downpipe is pretty, not sure I would want to get into modifying it.

http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0866/7688/products/20130916_161132.jpeg?v=1437019806

It would be nice to get an update.

Production is a little behind, I'm running a sample in my car right now with a GTB2056VK on it, its running very strong!

Here is a picture of both outlet adapters:


The turbo is in the same spot on centerline with the stock turbo and the v-band flange is also in the exact same spot so any aftermarket or even stock exhaust will bolt up! We might even use the stock TIP up until the plastic elbow.

neat picture looking up from below

Updates are updates, thanks Jon, production delays happen. Those are just what I had pictured. Beautiful pieces!

How's the GTB2056VK compare to the cr170 turbo?

I'm considering a mid-size GTB snail over a cr170 when 120k rolls around.

Beautiful adapters. I'm wondering if a clutch upgrade was done along with the 2056. I'm able to slip my clutch a bit now around peak torque if I try . That's with an agressive stage 3 tune. I imagine the stage 4 has significantly more torque.

Do you need different injectors to run a 2260 with a good amount of boost?

The GTB2056VK wouldn't be my first choice in turbos, it just happened to be the first(and one I have the least money into) I grabbed to test out. I'd probably choose the GTB1756VK or the GTB2260VK and skip the 2056vk just because there isn't much to gain over the 1756 except slower spool.

That said, it pulls a fair bit harder. I'm quite surprised how well it does at low RPM too!

We'll find out how far the stock injectors can take us soon.

Yes on the clutch upgrade if you want a full power tune. I'm sure Malone will make a tune that doesn't give the same peak torque as well for those with stock clutches.

Finally got the GTB2056VK setup on the dyno last night.

https://youtu.be/KE5KUVJpoSM

Its about +30-35hp over Stage 3 +2psi, so its about +90hp over stock.

Uncorrected real WHP:


Corrected to be comparable to Dynojet:


Probably could have gotten the CR170 to spool quicker now that we know how to get it to spool better, there is some lag when compared to the CR170 but its not bad at all.

Take my money!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why am I so excited about this? I don't even own a CR!

What kind of timeframe are we looking at? I really wanna see the 2260.

Jon, you're missing the most important part of the curve (1000-2000 RPM)

Impressive dyno. Looks like near peak power all the way out to 5200 rpm. Nice.

Fix_Until_Broke said:

Jon, you're missing the most important part of the curve (1000-2000 RPM)

Click to expand...

haha yup!

Dyno wouldn't load right to spool properly if I tried.

JFettig said:

Probably could have gotten the CR170 to spool quicker now that we know how to get it to spool better, there is some lag when compared to the CR170 but its not bad at all.

Click to expand...

So, would an update to the CR170 tune be possible?

It was dyno loading that made it spool late.

Ok, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.

JFettig said:

It was dyno loading that made it spool late.

Click to expand...

That's sheer nonsense.

More loading will make it spool sooner. not later. However...

The CAR has to be able to support the load applied to the dyno. If the load is too much, the car will stall as soon as load is applied.

That's an interesting rationalization for the fudge factor... "to make it the same as a dyno jet"... really?

What is the stock dyno number after SAE correction + fudge factor

Charlie, are you really that bored?

The dyno wasn't loaded enough to spool it sooner.

You're just trying to stir the pot, get lost.

Dyno loading does change the shape of the results - I'm guessing that it could make it spool both earlier or later depending on the load profile.

Compare the two below curves, one on the road, the other on a dyno - no changes to the car, same tune, same turbo, same nozzles, same sensors, same data acq, etc.

JFettig said:

Charlie, are you really that bored?

The dyno wasn't loaded enough to spool it sooner.

You're just trying to stir the pot, get lost.

Click to expand...

looks like you don't have a good response to my comment, so you resort to a personal attack. Nice.

Not stirring the pot, legitimate technical questions. It's great to have so many options available for TDI guys, this is not an attack on the kit per se. Just wondering about these technical things. (this is a technical discussion forum section after all, isn't it?)

1) Rationalization for the "fudge factor"
2) Apply the same correction to the quoted "stock" number. (can't just cherry pick a low stock dyno to compare and claim high percent gains.)

The dynojet dyno I frequently use has a 2000 hp brake. How strong is the brake in this dyno that it's not able to load a TDI adequately?

If you don't want a debate or public scrutiny, the the vendors section is available for these promo type threads.

KERMA said:

That's sheer nonsense.
More loading will make it spool sooner. not later. However...
The CAR has to be able to support the load applied to the dyno. If the load is too much, the car will stall as soon as load is applied.
That's an interesting rationalization for the fudge factor... "to make it the same as a dyno jet"... really?
What is the stock dyno number after SAE correction + fudge factor

Click to expand...

KERMA said:

looks like you don't have a good response to my comment, so you resort to a personal attack. Nice.

Not stirring the pot, legitimate technical questions. It's great to have so many options available for TDI guys, this is not an attack on the kit per se. Just wondering about these technical things. (this is a technical discussion forum section after all, isn't it?)

1) Rationalization for the "fudge factor"
2) Apply the same correction to the quoted "stock" number. (can't just cherry pick a low stock dyno to compare and claim high percent gains.)

The dynojet dyno I frequently use has a 2000 hp brake. How strong is the brake in this dyno that it's not able to load a TDI adequately?

If you don't want a debate or public scrutiny, the the vendors section is available for these promo type threads.

Click to expand...

Showing your true stripes again, eh Kerma? Bashing the developments from another vendor is severely bad form. I suggest you exit my thread.

YukonLT said:

Showing your true stripes again, eh Kerma? Bashing the developments from another vendor is severely bad form. I suggest you exit my thread.

Click to expand...

Another personal attack.

Strange you should go there, because Jfettig (and a couple of others who will remain nameless for now, lets see if they pile on as I expect) have absolutely no problem bashing on me at every opportunity. Not to mention every other vendor who those guys may deem to be a competitor. It's what they do. Yet no one ever calls them out on that. It's just another day at the office for them.

Can someone please answer the technical questions? I'm sure there's some valid explanation that I'm not aware of. How about answering that instead of trying to intimidate me and yelling at me to shutup and stop asking.

The vendors section is available to you if the purpose is advertising and not discussion.

the manifold looks nice, BTW.

Charlies questions are reasonable. Not sure why they are being misconstrued as an "attack". Tech data is a normal discussion here by all involved.

KERMA said:

Another personal attack.
Strange you should go there, because Jfettig (and a couple of others who will remain nameless for now, lets see if they pile on as I expect) have absolutely no problem bashing on me at every opportunity. Not to mention every other vendor who those guys may deem to be a competitor. It's what they do. Yet no one ever calls them out on that. It's just another day at the office for them.
Can someone please answer the technical questions? I'm sure there's some valid explanation that I'm not aware of. How about answering that instead of trying to intimidate me and yelling at me to shutup and stop asking.
The vendors section is available to you if the purpose is advertising and not discussion.
the manifold looks nice, BTW.

Click to expand...

I'm not "attacking" you, stop playing the victim. Simply pointing out your short comings when it comes to handling yourself as a vendor on the forums.

I did some googling on dyno loading and found that it's pretty universal that with some dynos the dyno itself doesn't load up the car as much as a road would. Some folks at a diesel truck forum found that loading of the dyno along with riding the brakes helped their big turbos (800+ HP builds) fully spool up and able to make full power on the dyno. Prior to dragging the brakes the same truck wouldn't get past 600hp.

A post on nasioc put it in a easy to understand post:

Dynos have adjustable loading ramp rates and are not always comparable to street loads / spooling. Dynojets always spool late, because the drums aren't enough load. Most other kinds of dynos are adjustable ramp rate and RPM of full boost cannot be compared to anything else be it street load or any other dyno, only similar load ramping settings on that dyno.

This is why people always ask for ECU logging on the street. This is a common language. Flat road load in Florida will be comparable to flat road load in Washington. Dynapack ramp settings vs. Dyno Dynamics vs. Mustang vs. Dynojet? Not so much. You can only get a basic idea of spool based on a dyno. A dyno database like Cobb, EFI and ECS have give some better ideas, and you'll see spool is all over the map (perhaps because they run different loading settings for different setups? I don't know, but you can find 16G-20G turbos where two maps with similar mods show over 500 RPM difference in RPM @ full boost.

Click to expand...

I have not posted anything misleading nor will I. I don't bash "competing" vendors non-discriminately, I will non-discriminately call someone out when they are being misleading.

I have posted up the real uncorrected WHP from a Dyno Dynamics dyno, as well as what they call comparison power which is close to what a dynojet would read. Here is the set of pulls from a dynojet with 26psi max boost on the same car and compare it to the set of pulls with 28psi max boost which is the 198hp graph on the "comparison" and 176whp on the uncorrected graph. Its not a direct comparison but I'd say its pretty comparable.




Its silly to compare numbers from dyno to dyno but most are unaware how different results can be from dyno to dyno, especially across brands, do a quick google search to see some other comparisons

http://www.e90post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=891691
http://www.evolutionm.net/forums/vendor-announcements/503390-dyno-dynamics-vs-dynojet.html
google "Dyno Dynamics heartbreaker" and you'll see many more.

I'm now sharing some space with a shop that has a Dyno Dynamics AWD dyno, and that's what I will be using from here on out. It reads actual WHP so that is what I'll be posting. Posting those results are simply posting progress. Not a sales gimmick.

Are there any places in San Francisco Bay Area that do this type of tuning? All I am seeing are east coast locations