[Eagle7]

...If the rear axle has LSD, you need LSD compatible oil in it. Otherwise the clutches may slip and render the LSD functionality broken. Torco sells two different additives for this purpose; it is not obvious which additive might be appropriate. In my experience gear oil viscosity is not as critical as transmission or engine oil viscosity due to the lack of an oil pump and filter. I believe the formula is essentially lower viscosity = less drag but increased wear. Also, higher viscosity deals with high temperatures such as might be encountered on the track better; I notice that Torco sells extended viscosity gear oils, such as 80W-140. I also notice that Torco's 75W-90 gear oil has a pour point of about -20C, making me wonder if a gear oil change would be a good idea for winter driving in cold country.

The manual says if you have the 280HP engine you get a 3.15 ratio rear differential and if you have the 200HP engine you get a 3.27 ratio rear differential. Thus, upgrading your super engine to veloce specs does not get you a veloce spec car. The manual does not list the front differential ratio, nor the transfer ratio.

The Torco additive we'd need is the Type F additive, as well as the Type F SGO gear oil. The Type G stuff is only for GM vehicles. The pour point for the 75w-90 gear oil is actually -30C which makes it even better in cold weather situations. We get down to single digit temps in the winter here but I haven't seen anything colder than that, so pour point is not that critical for me, but for you the Torco gear oil is good down to 22F below zero. Hopefully your winter temps don't get any worse than that, in which case you'll need arctic grade oils and grease, but you probably already know that.

The thing to consider is cost versus benefit. To replace the trans and diff oils (assuming you have the LSD), it'll cost $239.45 plus tax and shipping. If you don't have the LSD you won't need the additive which will save you $10.50. It was worth it to me for my Camaro because I had set it up for track, and took it to the track. The Giulia is a different story. I have to decide if it's worth it to spend the money. I also have to factor in the labor cost; it's not something I'd do myself. With labor, overall it's going to cost somewhere around $300. Do I need or want it that bad? It would extend the life of those components; they'd run cooler with less friction; I'd gain a couple percent of power to the rear wheels, maybe 10 hp at best; I'd gain a little in gas mileage.... hmm.... something I have to think about.

 

[lockem]

The Torco additive we'd need is the Type F additive, as well as the Type F SGO gear oil. The Type G stuff is only for GM vehicles. The pour point for the 75w-90 gear oil is actually -30C which makes it even better in cold weather situations. We get down to single digit temps in the winter here but I haven't seen anything colder than that, so pour point is not that critical for me, but for you the Torco gear oil is good down to 22F below zero. Hopefully your winter temps don't get any worse than that, in which case you'll need arctic grade oils and grease, but you probably already know that.

The thing to consider is cost versus benefit. To replace the trans and diff oils (assuming you have the LSD), it'll cost $239.45 plus tax and shipping. If you don't have the LSD you won't need the additive which will save you $10.50. It was worth it to me for my Camaro because I had set it up for track, and took it to the track. The Giulia is a different story. I have to decide if it's worth it to spend the money. I also have to factor in the labor cost; it's not something I'd do myself. With labor, overall it's going to cost somewhere around $300. Do I need or want it that bad? It would extend the life of those components; they'd run cooler with less friction; I'd gain a couple percent of power to the rear wheels, maybe 10 hp at best; I'd gain a little in gas mileage.... hmm.... something I have to think about.

The point with the LSD additive is that they do not list any European made LSDs for compatibility nor do they describe exactly why GM vehicles need a different additive than others.

Most of the expense is in changing the transmission fluid, while I expect most of the gain comes from changing the differential and transfer fluid; especially the front diff of a Q4 assuming there is no FAD.

Panels have to be pulled to get to either the front or rear differentials, so you may be underestimating the labor cost.

OTOH, the cost benefit ratio looks fairly similar to the EC V2 intake, although there is a lot of guess work going into actual gains.

Finally, if the Torco oil does not explicitly meet specifications, you are likely voiding the warranty on the affected components.

 

[Eagle7]

The point with the LSD additive is that they do not list any European made LSDs for compatibility nor do they describe exactly why GM vehicles need a different additive than others.

Most of the expense is in changing the transmission fluid, while I expect most of the gain comes from changing the differential and transfer fluid; especially the front diff of a Q4 assuming there is no FAD.

Panels have to be pulled to get to either the front or rear differentials, so you may be underestimating the labor cost.

OTOH, the cost benefit ratio looks fairly similar to the EC V2 intake, although there is a lot of guess work going into actual gains.

Finally, if the Torco oil does not explicitly meet specifications, you are likely voiding the warranty on the affected components.

The reason for different GM requirements probably has something to do with the materials they use in their clutch assemblies.

Yeah the trans is the most expensive because it uses 10 qts at $20.50 per quart. I'm not sure the biggest benefit would be changing the diff oil though. The 8 speed trans is my first guess as to where the biggest drivetrain loss is happening. They must have been aware of it, which is why they went with a 1-piece carbon fiber driveshaft. Normally switching out the heavy factory (usually 2-piece) driveshaft with a carbon fiber 1-piece makes a noticeable difference. They've already done that. A drivetrain loss of over 17% is high; especially when there's already a CF driveshaft. On a manual trans car, the next big areas to improve mechanically are the flywheel and clutch, but this car is auto with an 8-speed trans. That means it's either the trans or the diff that's absorbing the bulk of the power that's not making it to the rear wheels. Since changing those out is not on the menu (at least for me), that leaves gear oil resistance as the only reasonable area to reduce some of that loss.

I have no reservations about the quality of Torco's oils. I've been using them for years, and they are used a lot in extreme conditions in all kinds of racing. It's top quality stuff which is why it isn't $5 a quart. I don't see anything they have that will work for the engine oil however; I'll stick with the factory stuff for that. I'll probably contact them and find out if their gear oil and LSD additive will work for the Giulia.

 

[lockem]

@Eagle7 , a major technical correction: the weight of driveline components has essentially no effect on the driveline efficiency. What the weight does is change the driveline moment of inertia. Moment of inertia alters how much power is required to change the speed of the driveline, but not the amount of power required to maintain a constant speed. Drag racers will obsess over these values as they can have a fairly major effect on acceleration, but reducing the moment of inertia won't make your driveline run cooler, or your car get better highway fuel economy, or increase your top speed.

Reducing the flywheel weight is not to be done lightly. I would not think about it except to build a race vehicle, there are just too many problems that it can cause.

Changing the driveline moment of inertia also alters the values that a dyno will measure during spin up and spin down. If the spin up is done too fast there will be the appearance of power loss. Spin down rate is used to guess at the driveline efficiency for estimating the crank power from the wheel power. Note that dragsters often use very fast spin up on a dyno because the engine can only run at full throttle for a few seconds.

Things that DO have an affect on driveline efficiency include:

Fit and finish of the components.
Bearing preload (mfg specs are probably ideal but not necessarily what your components have)
Bearing grade (good bearings are incredibly expensive, using better bearings may allow a reduction in preload)
Gear tooth finish (good luck changing this)
Gear clearances (good luck changing this, although replacing worn or out of spec gears can help)
This is where "blue printing" the components can help, but because the !@#$ gear boxes are delivered as
assembled modules to AR, the specifications can be very hard to come by.
Oil seal condition and fit. Durable seals tend to have more drag.
Oil qualities such as additives to reduce seal friction, viscosity, lubricity, and resistance to foaming.
Low viscosity, high lubricity is the impossible but most desirable combination.
Of course oil contamination can be a problem; my pickup truck had water in the transmission fluid.

Probably some other things that I did not know about.

High component weight can dictate larger bearings, larger gears and/or increased preload and thus indirectly alter the efficiency of the driveline. But to change the weight and then reduce these secondary loss issues means re-designing the system; something which few people have the resources to take on.

 

[chaadster]

Holy cripes this thread has gone wildly off topic.

 

[Eagle7]

@ Lockem. Having actually done efficiency builds, my latest being my 2010 Camaro SS, I'm speaking from experience. Drivetrain loss is the result of all the factors I listed, as they are not independent of each other. They have a chain effect. Going from a 44 lb cast-iron flywheel to an 18 lb billet steel flywheel... I'm well aware of what that's like. The car spins up quicker and decelerates quicker. It makes a difference in throttle response which has a direct effect on cornering. It's more difficult to drive slowly and smoothly in a parking lot because you've reduced the flywheel effect. It's not something you'd do on the Giulia anyways; it's something you do with a manual trans and clutch. I did not and do not advocate that.

Dynos are not the be-all end-all. When you're on the track (I'm talking road course, not drag racing), you become very well aware of what your car is doing, and NOT doing, and how well it is or isn't performing. As you make changes to your car, you get a direct feel for what it's doing... or not. Not everything works as you thought it would. Reducing weight in the drivetrain; reducing unsprung rotating weight; has a significant effect on performance and efficiency. Nothing is free. It takes power to move anything and everything. Your internet knowledge sounds impressive and looks nice in print, but it's not quite the same as actual experience.

In my previous post(s) I clearly stated that replacing mechanical components gets expensive fast; I know because I've done it. Tens of thousands of dollars done it. Which is why I didn't recommend it for the Giulia. Drivetrain loss is the result of resistance to movement, and absorbing the engine power it takes to get it to move anyways. Mechanical efficiency is part of it; the better components tend to perform better, but they cost more because it costs more to make them better than factory stock components. How they're connected to each other has an effect. The greases and oils used have an effect. And lastly but not least, the weight has an effect. Hold a 5 lb hammer at arm's length and move it. Now hold a 15 lb hammer at arm's length and move it. Nothing has changed but the weight of the hammer, but it's harder to move the 15 lb hammer and it takes longer to get it moving and stop it. That same effect is happening in the drivetrain, which includes the brake rotors and the wheels.

Reducing unsprung rotating weight improves performance, because it absorbs less power which means more power makes it to the wheels, which is something you can actually feel when you're on the track; regardless of what a dyno may or may not show. With an over 17% drivetrain loss on the Giulia, that's a lot of power not making it to the rear wheels; almost 50 hp. Since I'm NOT advocating changing any mechanical components, other than the wheels which I did (6.4 lbs lighter each than the factory wheels), the only other area that can be improved in a way that you might feel, are gear oils. That's what I was focusing on.

I'm not going down the bunny hole with you again on this particular topic. Been there done that with you before on other topics. I appreciate your interest, but as someone has pointed out, this thread has gone way off topic, so I'm done.

 

[lockem]

Yes, this is way off topic. I did not say that reducing flywheel weight would not improve acceleration, in fact I said the opposite. However, that happens because the driveline inertia was reduced and NOT because the driveline efficiency was improved. Those are two completely different things.

Reducing unsprung weight is more complicated because it both reduces driveline inertia and improves wheel-road contact. The later does improve driveline efficiency. In the case of installing Ceika light weight brake rotors the driveline inertia is not reduced by much because most of the weight reduction is at a small radius, but the wheel-road contact is improved significantly.

The heavy flywheel is there for a reason. It is not as-if the OEM could not figure out how to make it lighter or that they do not understand the positive consequences of making it lighter. On the negative side with a light weight flywheel you end up with a harder to start engine that idles rougher and that has an increased risk of breaking the crankshaft and the transmission main shaft. Wear rates on transmission parts (especially the gears) are also increased with a light weight flywheel. All are possibly worthwhile tradeoffs for a race vehicle but maybe not so much for a daily driver.

 

[Racer Z]

Yes, we've strayed off topic a bit. I did find the off-topic oil very fascinating though. Before we take a breath of fresh air (intake pun), I'd like to reinforce a few things that have already been said, as they are important and easily overlooked/forgotten.

- If you use the wrong fluid in an LSD, you will no longer have an LSD and the fix will be expensive.
- Hmm, I seem to have forgotten the other now....

Dyno results can be misleading and misused. We could take three identical cars to the same dyno on the same day and get three sets of numbers that may or may not be anywhere near each other.

Manufactures have to publish a conservative torque/power number. Not ever car will be exactly the same, and they know this. The low number is a CYA thing, so that nobody can claim they did not get their entire torque/power as promised.

Dyno results should be used as a baseline, for before and after changes. Did my modification raise or lower my baseline reading?

Cold air intakes are not cold air intakes unless they are getting fresh air from outside the engine compartment and ahead of the radiator.

Even with a true cold air intake, the turbo is heating the fresh air considerably (turbo compression) and the inter-cooler cooling should be discussed.

The EC V1/V2 intake does not really effect the HP much. What it seems to actually effect is the low-end torque before the turbo spools. Coupled with a good exhaust, pre-turbo torque is what seems to be happening. Yes, the system does breath better at high RPM, but the most notable gain should be at off-turbo times. This should allow for smoother and quicker off the line acceleration. This is probably that grey area where a dyno won't read well as it's low RPM and off boost.

For track driving, or spirited canyon driving, the goal is to keep the engine RPM high enough that boost is never lost and we don't experience lag time waiting for boost.

 

[lockem]

Any ideas regarding if the engine is revved to 5000 RPM (no load) and held there if the turbo cuts in at all? I suspect not, but do not know.

At higher engine RPMs the turbo can spool up faster, that is a certainty for any turbocharged engine.

EC did estimate that that the V2 intake should yield about +15HP. Although not huge, it is also not trivial. What they didn't estimate is how much more power that it should yield at 2000 RPM, if any.

One big plus I see with the V2 intake is that it makes a little noise. Not so much as to disturb the ride, but enough that I can hear what the engine is doing at least when I "have my foot in it".

One intake feature that I haven't heard discussed so far is ram-air. Although normally associated with NA engines, I believe that ram-air (ducting the engine air intake to a high pressure area, usually near the front of the car) can improve fuel economy, reduce strain on the turbocharger and reduce engine temperatures with a turbo charged engine. It can be critical for rear/mid engined vehicles.

 

[Andy1gg]

When I installed my V2 I trimmed the plastic duct that draws the cool air from the front grill. They said to remove it but the air wont go directly to the filter. I do notice when the temps go down in the night car pulls very strong to redline. If we can get a upgrade to our intercooler that would also help drastically. I believe EC has something in the works. Just have to be patient till more parts become available.

 

[chaadster]

EC did estimate that that the V2 intake should yield about +15HP. Although not huge, it is also not trivial.

If that's true, they estimated high, because their testing showed a gain of only 8.1hp.

Torque tested up, at 14.8lb-ft; is that what you mean?

 

[lockem]

If that's true, they estimated high, because their testing showed a gain of only 8.1hp.

Torque tested up, at 14.8lb-ft; is that what you mean?

Where did you get those numbers? Looking on the EC website I see much larger values

https://shopeurocompulsion.net/blogs/dyno-database/alfa-romeo-giulia-2-0l-euro-drive-dyno-testing

Intake + exhaust (intake only not shown, exhaust only not shown):

wheel measurement (more reliable)
+19.6HP

Estimated crank peformance
+31HP

The latter was much higher because apparently the drive train loss with the engine near the redline was estimated to be high.

I seem to remember EC posting that the gain from the exhaust was not expected to be much, maybe 5HP. Maybe I remember wrong...

 

[chaadster]

Where did you get those numbers? Looking on the EC website I see much larger values

https://shopeurocompulsion.net/blogs/dyno-database/alfa-romeo-giulia-2-0l-euro-drive-dyno-testing

Intake + exhaust (intake only not shown, exhaust only not shown):

wheel measurement (more reliable)
+19.6HP

Estimated crank peformance
+31HP

The latter was much higher because apparently the drive train loss with the engine near the redline was estimated to be high.

I seem to remember EC posting that the gain from the exhaust was not expected to be much, maybe 5HP. Maybe I remember wrong...

Toby posted dyno results on the V2 upthread, after I asked what was the basis for all the superlative claims about the unit, but that's a matter of record...more importantly, I still don't see from your link where EC estimated 15hp for the intake, so the question is where did you get that number??

 

[lockem]

Toby posted dyno results on the V2 upthread, after I asked what was the basis for all the superlative claims about the unit, but that's a matter of record...more importantly, I still don't see from your link where EC estimated 15hp for the intake, so the question is where did you get that number??

Very straight forward plain english printed to the left of the charts (no need to guess at numbers from an attempt to read the chart):

Tune + intake + exhaust 292.3 WHP
Stock 230.1 WHP
Intake+exhaust 249.7 WHP

249.7 - 230.1 = 19.6 WHP increase.

Do you know where the dyno results are for intake only? Would you provide a link?

 

[chaadster]

Very straight forward plain english printed to the left of the charts (no need to guess at numbers from an attempt to read the chart):

Tune + intake + exhaust 292.3 WHP
Stock 230.1 WHP
Intake+exhaust 249.7 WHP

249.7 - 230.1 = 19.6 WHP increase.

Do you know where the dyno results are for intake only? Would you provide a link?

15hp = 19.6hp is not plain English in my book. Do you want to try answering the question again? Or maybe you got the numbers mixed up?

In any case, the only substantive Hp number relating to V2 is 8.1hp, because that’s the gain EC dyno testing showed for V2 over stock.

I guess in all the OT rambling, that Toby posted the link to the V2 Tech Info page with the V2 dyno results upthread in post #27 got lost for you, but it’s also linked on the EC V2 page had you bothered to look.

Anyway, I’m glad that EC published the data, because people were throwing around all kinds of unsubstantiated numbers.

 

[AspektZA]

Intakes don't do much unless you pair them with a high test tune, like Stage 2-3 level.


Only thing that changes is the noise you hear from the turbo spooling.


This is a pretty open secret on car forums.

 

[lockem]

15hp = 19.6hp is not plain English in my book. Do you want to try answering the question again? Or maybe you got the numbers mixed up?

In any case, the only substantive Hp number relating to V2 is 8.1hp, because that’s the gain EC dyno testing showed for V2 over stock.

I guess in all the OT rambling, that Toby posted the link to the V2 Tech Info page with the V2 dyno results upthread in post #27 got lost for you, but it’s also linked on the EC V2 page had you bothered to look.

Anyway, I’m glad that EC published the data, because people were throwing around all kinds of unsubstantiated numbers.

Thanks for the reference. I had only looked in their dyno database page, which does list intake systems for other cars. The chart shows a gain of about 20HP at 4800 RPM; then the gain tapers off so that it does not show up so large on the peak HP value. So it would seem that the exhaust is needed to see the peak HP number improvement.

15hp ~= 19.6HP-5HP. I said "I seem to remember EC posting that the gain from the exhaust was not expected to be much, maybe 5HP. Maybe I remember wrong..."

 

[chaadster]

EC did estimate that that the V2 intake should yield about +15HP. Although not huge, it is also not trivial. What they didn't estimate is how much more power that it should yield at 2000 RPM, if any.

Thanks for the reference. I had only looked in their dyno database page, which does list intake systems for other cars. The chart shows a gain of about 20HP at 4800 RPM; then the gain tapers off so that it does not show up so large on the peak HP value. So it would seem that the exhaust is needed to see the peak HP number improvement.

15hp ~= 19.6HP-5HP. I said "I seem to remember EC posting that the gain from the exhaust was not expected to be much, maybe 5HP. Maybe I remember wrong..."

Ah, so EC did not estimate the gain from V2 to be 15hp, you did. I guess it’s another reminder that making mods is not so simple as adding and subtracting individual published numbers and estimates, and that maybe sometimes stacking mods can be more successful than the sum of their parts, and sometimes less, even. I think EC demonstrates real value here by designing and testing their mods as a system.

 

[AlfaAndy]

Has anyone here purchased the Maddness cold air box?

 

[lockem]

Ah, so EC did not estimate the gain from V2 to be 15hp, you did. I guess it’s another reminder that making mods is not so simple as adding and subtracting individual published numbers and estimates, and that maybe sometimes stacking mods can be more successful than the sum of their parts, and sometimes less, even. I think EC demonstrates real value here by designing and testing their mods as a system.

No, I remembered a posted number then later looked up published values that I could find for this thread. There is literally about 1000 posts on the subject, so checking the lot is not a manageable task.

Here is one value from Eurocompulsion prior to posting the intake alone numbers (which I obviously missed when they were posted)

https://www.giuliaforums.com/forum/...take-exhaust/23017-eurocompulsion-giulia-2-0-v2-intake-review-5.html#post558986

"A little more than half" (of 19WHP).

Statements like that are scattered throughout the forums and remembering exactly where each one is and exactly what was said is not likely to happen.

And yes there was a discussion posted between EC, myself and maybe some other forum members about how the sum of the individual parts does not equal the gain from the combination. Thus, it is difficult to say how much gain V2 intake plus P1 tune will yield (no exhaust mod) since that combination has not been tested (the last time I checked).