Alfa Romeo Giulia Forum banner

41 - 60 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Discussion Starter #41
Goal is to pull a QV for $10k or less in parts. Safely.
And you'll only be missing the bigger brakes to better match the power, torque vectoring diff, bigger trans, active aero, the many aesthetic differences, race mode (ESC/TC defeat), wider wheels/rubber, etc. And even if you manage to pull a QV, the QV with a $800 piggyback will pull you right back.

I know the "just buy a QV" rhetoric annoys some people, but the price gaps aren't that huge, unless you are buying a stripped 2.0. And it might explain part of the reason for the lack of this type of aftermarket.
That's your kind of thinking. As long as I can trap 120+mph I'll be happy and content. You're forgetting the compounding cost of ownership; insurance, maintenance, mpg, weight, QV parts/tuning tax, and at the end of the day it's just a QV nothing out of the ordinary, just expected to be fast. If a Q2/Q4 pulls a QV regardless if stock that is something special.

Power- bigger turbo
Torque vectoring- love my old school Ti Sport mechanical LSD. So mechanical>electric control LSD.
Brakes- being that there is less weight on the front axle the 4 pots are just fine with rotors, pads and fluid change. Smaller allows to run 18" wheels all around and 17" in back if wanted for drag wheels.
Wheels- individualized with lighter Forged ones of your choice.
Tires- again your choice.
Aero- rather have static than active. Lighter and less costly to repair. Can individualize for purpose if racing.. or style.
Transmission- zf8hp50 is well enough for 700whp/600wtq heavier 6cyl turbo BMWs
ESC/TC- can be coded to be off or less invasive see EuroCompulsion.

IMHO I think the 2.0T Ti Sport is the best model and greater potential for modification/tuning. The chassis overall is a highway cruiser and canyon carver. The balance of the 2.0T in this chassis you can feel in the front.

I see an ongoing theme with purists/elitists/whoever saying just get the QV and do nothing to it. That is boring and the very reason I skipped on the last 2 M3 cars, I was faster and different with the last 2 335i models I owned.

We have differing opinions and tastes. Don't stifle others if it doesn't jive with your own.
It would be a huge victory if you can trap that 2.0 at 120mph. **** even 110-114mph would be major improvements. Not saying it’s impossible but I don’t think it can be done without spending considerable money. Like many have said you will def need bigger turbos, brakes and tires on the car if you can get that speed. Lessen some weight also. The AWD is huge benefit.

I don’t like comparing a qv to a 2.0 or any cars that are modded vs stock but I found a little 1/8 mile track the other day while in Virginia. Ran my qv at 7.6 @97 mph. That’s the same trap speed as a 2.0 on a 1/4. Bad track prep it rained an hour before. 60’ was 1.9. So If you can get the pull on a qv you and it last more than 100’ then you really accomplished something in the 2.0. Again don’t like comparing two drastically different cars.
110mph? We'll see in a few weeks if I can do that. 😬
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,420 Posts
Goal is to pull a QV for $10k or less in parts. Safely.
And you'll only be missing the bigger brakes to better match the power, torque vectoring diff, bigger trans, active aero, the many aesthetic differences, race mode (ESC/TC defeat), wider wheels/rubber, etc. And even if you manage to pull a QV, the QV with a $800 piggyback will pull you right back.

I know the "just buy a QV" rhetoric annoys some people, but the price gaps aren't that huge, unless you are buying a stripped 2.0. And it might explain part of the reason for the lack of this type of aftermarket.
That's your kind of thinking. As long as I can trap 120+mph I'll be happy and content. You're forgetting the compounding cost of ownership; insurance, maintenance, mpg, weight, QV parts/tuning tax, and at the end of the day it's just a QV nothing out of the ordinary, just expected to be fast. If a Q2/Q4 pulls a QV regardless if stock that is something special.

Power- bigger turbo
Torque vectoring- love my old school Ti Sport mechanical LSD. So mechanical>electric control LSD.
Brakes- being that there is less weight on the front axle the 4 pots are just fine with rotors, pads and fluid change. Smaller allows to run 18" wheels all around and 17" in back if wanted for drag wheels.
Wheels- individualized with lighter Forged ones of your choice.
Tires- again your choice.
Aero- rather have static than active. Lighter and less costly to repair. Can individualize for purpose if racing.. or style.
Transmission- zf8hp50 is well enough for 700whp/600wtq heavier 6cyl turbo BMWs
ESC/TC- can be coded to be off or less invasive see EuroCompulsion.

IMHO I think the 2.0T Ti Sport is the best model and greater potential for modification/tuning. The chassis overall is a highway cruiser and canyon carver. The balance of the 2.0T in this chassis you can feel in the front.

I see an ongoing theme with purists/elitists/whoever saying just get the QV and do nothing to it. That is boring and the very reason I skipped on the last 2 M3 cars, I was faster and different with the last 2 335i models I owned.

We have differing opinions and tastes. Don't stifle others if it doesn't jive with your own.
It would be a huge victory if you can trap that 2.0 at 120mph. **** even 110-114mph would be major improvements. Not saying it’s impossible but I don’t think it can be done without spending considerable money. Like many have said you will def need bigger turbos, brakes and tires on the car if you can get that speed. Lessen some weight also. The AWD is huge benefit.

I don’t like comparing a qv to a 2.0 or any cars that are modded vs stock but I found a little 1/8 mile track the other day while in Virginia. Ran my qv at 7.6 @97 mph. That’s the same trap speed as a 2.0 on a 1/4. Bad track prep it rained an hour before. 60’ was 1.9. So If you can get the pull on a qv you and it last more than 100’ then you really accomplished something in the 2.0. Again don’t like comparing two drastically different cars.
110mph? We'll see in a few weeks if I can do that. 😬
110 would be a huge improvement over stock. 10mph. Hope you can do it. At 110 should run high 12s low 13s. That’s good numbers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Unfortunately Alfa Philly is right. I'm Q4 and EC Phase 2 and couldn't break 102. Tried manual shifting, letting the auto do the magic and a 1.9 60 foot and 13.5 1/4 was the best I could squeeze which was pretty disappointing. Car feels stupid strong on the street but not sure why she didn't have the sauce at the track. That time was the best of 4 runs. Everything else was high 13's..

If there are any questions on the launch...:
89663
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,205 Posts
Unfortunately Alfa Philly is right. I'm Q4 and EC Phase 2 and couldn't break 102. Tried manual shifting, letting the auto do the magic and a 1.9 60 foot and 13.5 1/4 was the best I could squeeze which was pretty disappointing. Car feels stupid strong on the street but not sure why she didn't have the sauce at the track. That time was the best of 4 runs. Everything else was high 13's..

If there are any questions on the launch...:
View attachment 89663
What tires, and what RPM did you launch at? 60ft is about the most important aspect of a 1/4 mile run.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,205 Posts
I was launching at 2500RPM on a moist track, 50°F, with crap tires. No spin that I could detect. I would assume that you could launch closer to 3500 on a prepped track and better tires and knock .1 or .2 off that 60. That would result in a decent improvement, IMO...fwiw.

Fun though, right?!
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,881 Posts
I think that market will open up when more of these become second hand, off warranty. I have the whole 9 with EC P2 and supporting mods, and I'm kind of afraid of pushing the transmission any further. I'd love the extra power but I don't think it would be worth the risk, and I am probably one of the less careful owners here.

Essentially, I don't think there are enough buyers for such things. 20 or 30 people on a forum saying they will buy just isn't enough interest for a major company to look in to this.
Yup, it will. Still too early. I think it will take a good 5+ years before any major engine upgrades will be available. I mean koni (not engine related but...) for example has nothing in the works for the Giulia and Bilstein has only rears available. If anything becomes available it will be for the Quad first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
I was launching at 2500RPM on a moist track, 50°F, with crap tires. No spin that I could detect. I would assume that you could launch closer to 3500 on a prepped track and better tires and knock .1 or .2 off that 60. That would result in a decent improvement, IMO...fwiw.

Fun though, right?!
Indeed. I may have had a better result in my 18" OZ's with 245 width Michelin's.

My buddy just picked up a 2019 Ti Sport Q4 and after driving mine, he did notice there was a massive lag in the lower end versus his car and I have the EC pedal modulator as well. I've noticed this in a couple loaner cars I've had but thought it was just placebo since those cars were quiet (I have a Remus race cat-back). I'm assuming it's a MY17 thing since a lot of people complain about it on here. Not sure if it's just throttle mapping or any hardware changes.. We haven't had time to play but I'm curious how he does against my dual mapped EC car. Will document for science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
875 Posts
Unfortunately Alfa Philly is right. I'm Q4 and EC Phase 2 and couldn't break 102. Tried manual shifting, letting the auto do the magic and a 1.9 60 foot and 13.5 1/4 was the best I could squeeze which was pretty disappointing. Car feels stupid strong on the street but not sure why she didn't have the sauce at the track. That time was the best of 4 runs. Everything else was high 13's..

If there are any questions on the launch...:
View attachment 89663
Intresting... my rwd open diff did better with seasonal run flats haha, keep in mind i had catless dp and dyno mode on.. and i havent tried yet bust fastest pass would be manual shift 1-2 then put it into autoshift
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
Intresting... my rwd open diff did better with seasonal run flats haha, keep in mind i had catless dp and dyno mode on.. and i havent tried yet bust fastest pass would be manual shift 1-2 then put it into autoshift
I guess it's worth noting my buddy I was with has a supercharged V6 Charger that runs consistent mid 12's and he couldn't break out of the 13's that night either. On one run we were able to go against each other and he was only able to take me after the 1000 ft. The track was prepped for 'Pinks all out' for the following day. No clue if any of that had an effect on anything but I've smoked friends' Evo's/Sti's that run 12's when I was Phase 1 so not sure what outside factor was bogging the car down. It was humid as fook that night but I went, ran the car and got the times I got soooo.. yeah.

My best run was shifting at 5K every shift. Even with the higher redline, not much was happening up there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
I guess it's worth noting my buddy I was with has a supercharged V6 Charger that runs consistent mid 12's and he couldn't break out of the 13's that night either. On one run we were able to go against each other and he was only able to take me after the 1000 ft. The track was prepped for 'Pinks all out' for the following day. No clue if any of that had an effect on anything but I've smoked friends' Evo's/Sti's that run 12's when I was Phase 1 so not sure what outside factor was bogging the car down. It was humid as fook that night but I went, ran the car and got the times I got soooo.. yeah.

My best run was shifting at 5K every shift. Even with the higher redline, not much was happening up there.
What was the tracks DA when you ran? Guys who are lucky enough to get a “negative” DA during the day & time of their quarter mile track visit will get hero times. If you happen to have a hot, humid day you might get a 3500-4000 DA, and your car will be gutless. And there isn’t anything you can do about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
53 Posts
Just checked DA at the time of my runs was 2701
Yeah, that’s not great. As we get into fall, it’d be interesting to see how much better your car performs with a DA under 1000.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
875 Posts
Yeah, that’s not great. As we get into fall, it’d be interesting to see how much better your car performs with a DA under 1000.
Well i might even not go anymore to drags, alot will depend on what i will the dealership have to do with this engine, might need replacement, if so no more moding for me
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
does anyone know what is the max boost pressure which can give stock turbo ? i heard about 27.5 PSI,
 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,881 Posts
Unfortunately Alfa Philly is right. I'm Q4 and EC Phase 2 and couldn't break 102. Tried manual shifting, letting the auto do the magic and a 1.9 60 foot and 13.5 1/4 was the best I could squeeze which was pretty disappointing. Car feels stupid strong on the street but not sure why she didn't have the sauce at the track. That time was the best of 4 runs. Everything else was high 13's..

If there are any questions on the launch...:
View attachment 89663
Love to see you try this again, stock to see what your numbers are.
I do agree 18" wheels and good sticky tires will help but again, I'd like to see this done stock. Compare the tune to the stock see what's possibly going on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
620 Posts
Indeed. I may have had a better result in my 18" OZ's with 245 width Michelin's.

My buddy just picked up a 2019 Ti Sport Q4 and after driving mine, he did notice there was a massive lag in the lower end versus his car and I have the EC pedal modulator as well. I've noticed this in a couple loaner cars I've had but thought it was just placebo since those cars were quiet (I have a Remus race cat-back). I'm assuming it's a MY17 thing since a lot of people complain about it on here. Not sure if it's just throttle mapping or any hardware changes.. We haven't had time to play but I'm curious how he does against my dual mapped EC car. Will document for science.
I am fairly sure the massive lag you are experiencing compared to a stock 2.0 car irrespective of year of manufacture is due to the race exhaust you have which removes the front resonator as well as the rear silencer and pretty much replaces with a open pipe. This will result in less back pressure (to be technically correct - lower exhaust gas velocity both due to increased pipe diameter and less resistance to flow by removal of resonator, muffler) in the lower RPMs around 1000 to ~ 2500 rpm i.e. before the turbo boost range. However the trade off is once the turbo spools and starts delivering boost the upper mid-range and top range will feel a bit more powerful. I know, I know, I know - back pressure is not good on a turbo charged car and open pipe is the best etc. etc.

As the name suggests, open exhausts and race pipes are good for drags and racing when the throttle is raised to pre-spool the turbo, but for street cars driven from stand-still you will feel the lag which IMHO is caused by reduced exhaust gas scavenging in the lower rpms before the turbo starts working. I had the Remus Sport cat-back exhaust which has a rear muffler and a straight pipe without resonator, and I still felt an initial lag as soon I fitted the exhaust. So I removed the front pipe and put back the factory resonator, just keeping the rear Remus muffler. I noticed the lag went away noticeably to the point I was happy with trade off between sound and throttle response. I posted about all this last year in another thread and despite many others rejecting my hypothesis and actual experience, I am still convinced an ideal exhaust pipe diameter and retaining some optimum back pressure is definitely useful for the lower end. If you don't believe me, re-fit your factory front resonator first mated with the open rear race Remus pipe and you will likely notice some of the low end torque is back. Then proceed to re-fit the factory rear muffler and the whole low end lag will disappear.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
2,205 Posts
I am fairly sure the massive lag you are experiencing compared to a stock 2.0 car irrespective of year of manufacture is due to the race exhaust you have which removes the front resonator as well as the rear silencer and pretty much replaces with a open pipe. This will result in less back pressure in the lower RPMs around 1000 to ~ 2500 rpm i.e. before the turbo boost range. However the trade off is once the turbo spools and starts delivering boost the upper mid-range and top range will feel a bit more powerful. I know, I know, I know - back pressure is not good on a turbo charged car and open pipe is the best etc. etc.

As the name suggests, open exhausts and race pipes are good for drags and racing when the throttle is raised to pre-spool the turbo, but for street cars driven from stand-still you will feel the lag which IMHO is caused by reduced exhaust gas scavenging in the lower rpms before the turbo starts working. I had the Remus Sport cat-back exhaust which has a rear muffler and a straight pipe without resonator, and I still felt an initial lag as soon I fitted the exhaust. So I removed the front pipe and put back the factory resonator, just keeping the rear Remus muffler. I noticed the lag went away noticeably to the point I was happy with trade off between sound and throttle response. I posted about all this last year in another thread and despite many others rejecting my hypothesis and actual experience, I am still convinced an ideal exhaust pipe diameter and retaining some optimum back pressure is definitely useful for the lower end. If you don't believe me, re-fit your factory front resonator first mated with the open rear race Remus pipe and you will likely notice some of the low end torque is back. Then proceed to re-fit the factory rear muffler and the whole low end lag will disappear.
Just to add my snide .02 of uneducated knowledge gained through years of reading... LOL

It's not back pressure, let's stop using that term. If there is more restriction, that's just causing a higher fluid velocity (gas is treated as a fluid up to a certain velocity not attained in car exhaust systems)... which helps scavenge and fill the cylinders and will help in the lower RPM range. But as you've correctly stated, that's not good for higher RPM and forced-induction motors, unless it's a low RPM work horse like a diesel engine.

A properly designed exhaust manifold, down-pipe, and mid pipe are key to a well balanced system. It's like most things, you can't have it both ways. There are 3 ways you CAN have it. 1. Low RPM grunt (no top end though), 2. Balanced performance, but nothing is extraordinary, and 3. High RPM grunt (wimpy lows).

Fight me over this. (just kidding)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
620 Posts
Just to add my snide .02 of uneducated knowledge gained through years of reading... LOL

It's not back pressure, let's stop using that term. If there is more restriction, that's just causing a higher fluid velocity (gas is treated as a fluid up to a certain velocity not attained in car exhaust systems)... which helps scavenge and fill the cylinders and will help in the lower RPM range. But as you've correctly stated, that's not good for higher RPM and forced-induction motors, unless it's a low RPM work horse like a diesel engine.

A properly designed exhaust manifold, down-pipe, and mid pipe are key to a well balanced system. It's like most things, you can't have it both ways. There are 3 ways you CAN have it. 1. Low RPM grunt (no top end though), 2. Balanced performance, but nothing is extraordinary, and 3. High RPM grunt (wimpy lows).

Fight me over this. (just kidding)
Totally agree and so will not be fighting over this. I used the term back pressure loosely as that is commonly and incorrectly used, hence the technical inclusion of exhaust gas velocity, pipe diameter, restriction explanation in brackets. People, including many so called exhaust experts incorrectly believe vehemently that having a fully open pipe and larger diameter is actually good for turbo charged cars through the range and there is no impact on low end grunt. I have gone for Option 2 of your list above by matching the factory resonator front pipe with the Sport Remus rear muffler of slightly larger 2.75" pipe compared to 2.5" stock pipe and I have balanced yet better performance than stock when married with an engine tune.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
The new Supra has the same issues we have but have a bigger fallowing. I would look to them to find the answer we need with getting pasted the transmission limiter. I don't believe it's in the tune, but could be a physical limiter in the transmission itself. Tuning may get us past this or maybe taking it apart. The new c8 have a tq limit in the 1 to 2 shift also
 
41 - 60 of 67 Posts
Top