VW Vortex - Volkswagen Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

180Q to 225 transplant / swap / conversion complete

Jump to Latest
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
2

20v master

· Registered
Joined
·
5,365 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
So the week before Christmas, the stock clutch in my 180Q started slipping out of the blue (106K miles). I didn't want to put a stock setup back in it and was in a time crunch for the holidays as far as ordering something. I'm of the opinion that if you have the means, it's easier to remove the engine and trans rather than just the engine in our cars. This led to a full 225 conversion with donor parts from my 01. It's all OEM from TIP to tailpipe except for a custom pipe I had to fab up for the MAP since that plastic molded piece was broken on my 225, and the addition of a small port SEM intake manifold so I could use the dual SMIC setup (I sold the 225 intake mani long ago). I'm still using the AWP/180 MAF housing in the 225 TIP, and installed my adjustable FPR in the 225 fuel rail set at ~4 bar. I also swapped the 5 speed 02M out for the 6 speed 02M, along with the billet aluminum flywheel (don't know the weight) and 6 puck sprung Clutchnet disc and pressure plate from my GTI in place of the OEM setup. I also installed an 82* thermostat to help out in the cooling department and deleted the front swaybar since mine had a habit of creeping to one side ever since I replaced the cracked OEM bushing sleeve and went to poly bushings.

The screen on my phone died yesterday, so no Torque logs and I haven't broken out the VAG COM yet, but it's MUCH more responsive (lightweight FW and intake manifold) and holds boost much better into higher rpms. The DP/exhaust is giving some vibration in low rpm acceleration or high rpm engine braking, but I'm not sure where it's hitting so I need to get under the car and have a look. The trans grinds going into 5th gear only, so I need to align the linkage (didn't do that during the swap, everything felt good going through the gears with the car off) and bleed the clutch again to see if that helps. Otherwise, I'm very happy with the whole transformation that put some much needed pep in my daily driver. Since I'm still running K03 injectors and chipped software, the one 4th gear pull I did today on the way to work felt great spiking to 21 and holding ~16 psi at 6200 rpms when it limped out. I don't know if it was a boost cut or throttle closing but it was harsh, so I have some logging/tuning/tweaking to do. Logs to follow maybe this weekend.
 
Discussion starter · #3 ·
Marcus_Aurelius said:
This is going to be interesting!

MBC -- Diode to clamp the pressure signal (or delete the N249) -- adjust fuel pressure to get desired AFR

Grabbing my :popcorn: for your progress on this! (and what happen to posting pictures? :D)
Click to expand...
I have some parts to collect to tweak (diode, fuel pressure gauge) and MBC to install. I'm hoping the K04 isn't as super responsive at low rpm part throttle like the K03 is with the MBC installed. N249 opens DV? It's been deleted as DV has a straight connection to intake manifold. Pictures? They're all on my phone, with the screen that doesn't work. It kinda makes it hard to upload or email them. :laugh:

All things being equal, the 9.5:1 compression of the AWP "should" make 6.7% more power than the AMU/BEA 8.9:1 compression. That doesn't account for mechanicial efficiency (ignition timing) though, with the lower compression theoretically allowing more timing with all else equal. Basically, I need to datalog. :cool:
 
#4 ·
20v master said:
I have some parts to collect to tweak (diode, fuel pressure gauge) and MBC to install. I'm hoping the K04 isn't as super responsive at low rpm part throttle like the K03 is with the MBC installed. N249 opens DV? It's been deleted as DV has a straight connection to intake manifold. Pictures? They're all on my phone, with the screen that doesn't work. It kinda makes it hard to upload or email them. :laugh:

All things being equal, the 9.5:1 compression of the AWP "should" make 6.7% more power than the AMU/BEA 8.9:1 compression. That doesn't account for mechanicial efficiency (ignition timing) though, with the lower compression theoretically allowing more timing with all else equal. Basically, I need to datalog. :cool:
Click to expand...
The BEA was a 9.1 compression engine same with the AMU.

Engine Code: AMU
Model Years: 2001-early '03
Compression Ratio: 9:1
Horsepower (SAE Net): 225hp @ 5900RPM
Torque: 207ft. lbs.@ 2200-5500RPM
ECU: Motronic ME7.5
Turbo: K04-20
OE Boost:1 Bar (14.7psi)
20mm wrist pin rods (144/20mm)
narrowband o2 sensor - primary
nonVVT

Still uses nbo2 to control a/f and has smaller ecu.
still uses nonVVT

Engine Code: BEA
Model Years: 2003+
Compression Ratio: 9:1
Horsepower (SAE Net): 225hp @ 5900RPM
Torque: 207ft. lbs.@ 2200-5500RPM
ECU: Motronic ME7.5
Turbo: K04-22/23
OE Boost:1 Bar (14.7psi)
20mm wrist pin rods (144/20mm)
wideband o2 sensor - primary
VVT - variable valve timing

Uses a wbo2 to control a/f ratios and has larger ecu
comes with VVT
 
Discussion starter · #5 ·
20psi now said:
The BEA was a 9.1 compression engine same with the AMU.

Engine Code: AMU
Model Years: 2001-early '03
Compression Ratio: 9:1
Horsepower (SAE Net): 225hp @ 5900RPM
Torque: 207ft. lbs.@ 2200-5500RPM
ECU: Motronic ME7.5
Turbo: K04-20
OE Boost:1 Bar (14.7psi)
20mm wrist pin rods (144/20mm)
narrowband o2 sensor - primary
nonVVT

Still uses nbo2 to control a/f and has smaller ecu.
still uses nonVVT

Engine Code: BEA
Model Years: 2003+
Compression Ratio: 9:1
Horsepower (SAE Net): 225hp @ 5900RPM
Torque: 207ft. lbs.@ 2200-5500RPM
ECU: Motronic ME7.5
Turbo: K04-22/23
OE Boost:1 Bar (14.7psi)
20mm wrist pin rods (144/20mm)
wideband o2 sensor - primary
VVT - variable valve timing

Uses a wbo2 to control a/f ratios and has larger ecu
comes with VVT
Click to expand...
I've seen it listed as both, with more sources saying 8.9 vs 9.0. Either way, 0.1 isn't a huge discrepency. ;)

"The higher-output 165-kW (225-hp) engine uses a high compression ratio (8.9:1) for a turbocharged unit.

...from here.

Even at 9.0:1, the AWP compression will add 5.5% power.
 
#7 · (Edited)
20v master said:
I have some parts to collect to tweak (diode, fuel pressure gauge) and MBC to install. I'm hoping the K04 isn't as super responsive at low rpm part throttle like the K03 is with the MBC installed. N249 opens DV? It's been deleted as DV has a straight connection to intake manifold. Pictures? They're all on my phone, with the screen that doesn't work. It kinda makes it hard to upload or email them. :laugh:

All things being equal, the 9.5:1 compression of the AWP "should" make 6.7% more power than the AMU/BEA 8.9:1 compression. That doesn't account for mechanicial efficiency (ignition timing) though, with the lower compression theoretically allowing more timing with all else equal. Basically, I need to datalog. :cool:
Click to expand...
The 9.5:1 motor is the "hot" motor at the level of tuning that you'll be taking this! It will have much better off-boost response and make more power than the lower 8.9:1 compression big brother. For the ignition timing and boost level to make up for it, you'd need to be pushing past the limit of what the 8.9:1 will accept (as far as I know nobody is crazy enough to do this except the Madmax guy). So, yes 8.9:1 with the K04-02x is the dream ticket for the street and a mild tune! :beer:
 
#8 ·
20v master said:
I've seen it listed as both, with more sources saying 8.9 vs 9.0. Either way, 0.1 isn't a huge discrepency. ;)

"The higher-output 165-kW (225-hp) engine uses a high compression ratio (8.9:1) for a turbocharged unit.

...from here.

Even at 9.0:1, the AWP compression will add 5.5% power.
Click to expand...
20psi now said:
:) Did not know it was listed as two different CR's. I thought it was a 9.1 but ehh its all good, the higher the compression the better if you ask me.
Click to expand...
It's closer to 8:9:1 but most spec sheets just round it off to keep things easy. It's like everyone saying 1.8t, as in 1.8L motor, when our engine capacity is really 1781cc or 1.78 Liter. ;)
 
Discussion starter · #9 ·
Marcus_Aurelius said:
The 8.9:1 motor is the "hot" motor at the level of tuning that you'll be taking this! It will have much better off-boost response and make more power than the lower 9.5:1 compression big brother. For the ignition timing and boost level to make up for it, you'd need to be pushing past the limit of what the 8.9:1 will accept (as far as I know nobody is crazy enough to do this except the Madmax guy). So, yes 8.9:1 with the K04-02x is the dream ticket for the street and a mild tune! :beer:
Click to expand...
This post really confused me. :confused: Either you got the compressions in the wrong spots, or somehow lower compression gives better off boost response and makes more power? :confused: Or did you mean since I won't push this setup like you do, the higher compression will make it better for a milder street setup? I'd LOVE to push it to over 300whp, but it's my daily, and the BT stroker gutted other car will be my weekend toy in ~6 months or so. :D
 
#10 ·
20v master said:
This post really confused me. :confused: Either you got the compressions in the wrong spots, or somehow lower compression gives better off boost response and makes more power? :confused: Or did you mean since I won't push this setup like you do, the higher compression will make it better for a milder street setup? I'd LOVE to push it to over 300whp, but it's my daily, and the BT stroker gutted other car will be my weekend toy in ~6 months or so. :D
Click to expand...
Fixed for you in the original confusing post of mine.

Higher compression (9.5:1) = better off-boost response and more power on a mild/street tune.

Lower compression (8.9:1) = more potential for boost, timing, and ultimately power, but if and only if you can push the tune to the level that will make that happen. Think 35-up psi of boost and timing flirting with MBT - which btw will be considerably lower on the 9:5:1 motor, on equal fuel.
 
Discussion starter · #11 ·
Well no full logs but got a new phone and looked at Torque some on the way to work. IAT's are MUCH better, MAF values are way up, AFR is good, but didn't log ignition timing. It definitely has some throttle closure ~6K rpms. I'll get some good VAG COM logs this weekend. I'm real interested to compare to 225 logs as this is still an AWP/180 ECU, and I have no experience with the K04 setups so I don't know what typical values are. What MAF values do chipped 225's typically see on stock DP/exhaust?
 
Discussion starter · #14 ·
Well, did some real datalogging yesterday (a few more useful things available in VAG COM vs Torque). Anemic timing and a fuel system that can't keep up = limp/throttle closure/boost drop. I don't know if the high injector duty is from injectors too small or the 180Q pump not keeping up, but both will be changed shortly. IAT's with the dual SMIC don't climb like a rocket like on the single SMIC, though the K04 should be more efficient than the K03 so the difference is a product of both changes. Either way, she's faster now but not happy.

Image

Image

Image


I won't know if a diode is needed on the 180Q chip until I get the fueling straigtened out. You can see where injector duty cycle (IDC) spikes over 100 in the mid 5K rpms, and the ECU lowers boost, closes the throttle briefly, and dumps fuel to compensate and attempt to keep things cool/safe. More fuel coming up.....
 
#15 ·
Not bad at all! Aside from IDC being way maxed out, everything is decent and where they should be on a typical box tune. What I like is the wastegate duty profile, it's not dumbed out like some of the popular "protect my ass" files. Your correction factors are also in good shape and your actuals are acceptably meeting the requests.

What I don't like is the AFR profile! Stoich at onset and fattening to 11s (11.5 request) up top isn't something I can get passed. However, it can easily be fixed (in the adaptation channels) by adding fuel overall with the primary fuel channel (this will fix the lean onset); and then lower the enrichment under load (this will flatten the tapering profile and stop it from going crazy rich up top).

I say get injectors that can support the flow without going static. The pump upgrade isn't a bad idea either, but it isn't the reason you see IDC > 100%, the injectors are what determine IDC (if the pump was maxed out, you'd go lean but with acceptable injector dutie values). :beer:
 
Discussion starter · #16 ·
Marcus_Aurelius said:
What I don't like is the AFR profile! Stoich at onset and fattening to 11s (11.5 request) up top isn't something I can get passed. However, it can easily be fixed (in the adaptation channels) by adding fuel overall with the primary fuel channel (this will fix the lean onset); and then lower the enrichment under load (this will flatten the tapering profile and stop it from going crazy rich up top).

I say get injectors that can support the flow without going static. The pump upgrade isn't a bad idea either, but it isn't the reason you see IDC > 100%, the injectors are what determine IDC (if the pump was maxed out, you'd go lean but with acceptable injector dutie values). :beer:
Click to expand...
I wouldn't read too much into the AFR request, especially the first cell as it could be a delay from sampling rate based on what data I grabbed to graph and when the ECU registered WOT. As for the 11.5 up top, that's AFTER the boost cut/throttle cut, so the ECU has gone into dump fuel for protection mode. Also, wouldn't the ECU increase pulse width at the first sign of not meeting AFR target, regardless if it's from too small a pulse or too little pressure behind the injector? I have a "gauge extension" hose I can rig up and run to the cowl so I can visually see the fuel pressure gauge during a run. That's the easy way to find out of it's a pump problem. Obviously we know the injectors are a problem, but Audi didn't put a higher flowing pump in the 225 for no reason. More testing is needed. Unfortunately, it's going to be rainy the next few days, but I'm off work next Monday, so it will have to wait til then.
 
Discussion starter · #17 ·
Installed a new battery and a Forge TIP yesterday. Seems to help with the boost cut at ~6200 rpms, maybe the OEM was doing it's famous sucking in and deforming trick? I"ll follow up with some logs tonight. :thumbup: I also played with adjusting the N75. That didn't work out so well. I turned it CW, and ended up not able to get over 14 psi. I turned it back CCW, and got to 20 psi. Then I broke two small screwdrivers trying to turn it more CCW. I threw that valve in the trash and put another stock valve in, and got back to my previous boost levels with no surging, so I'm happy (for now). :thumbup:
 
Discussion starter · #18 ·
Image


Ignore the boost spike value, it hit ~25 psi on my gauge, but Torque interpolates MAF and RPM to get boost since obviously our MAP's don't read that high. It's not exact but close enough for monitoring.
 
Discussion starter · #20 ·
I installed the exhaust hanger bracket 8L9253193C that mounts to the rear of the subframe and secures the front of the DP as well as dogbone inserts last night, and still have the upper/passenger side of the two DP splits hitting the body under heavy load. I can even make it vibrate by turning hard to the left (think emergency lane change maneuvers). That leads me to believe some tweaking of the other two motor mounts may give me some more clearance? If not, my other option is to install both my side VF mounts, which I didn't want to do in my daily but I'd rather have mild vibration all the time vs heavy vibration some of the time. :screwy: Thoughts?
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
About this Discussion
63 Replies
6 Participants
Last post:
20v master
VW Vortex - Volkswagen Forum
posts
85M
members
1.5M
Since
2001
A forum community dedicated to all Volkswagen owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, builds, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, new releases, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
The Car Lounge Golf IV & Jetta IV Golf III & Jetta III Golf II & Jetta II Golf IV/Jetta IV Parts