'16 Big Turbo Golf R Castrol 0w40 ~3k miles

[MSH]

2016 VW Golf R with bigger turbo added 900 miles into this ~3k mile Castrol 0W40 sample.
Always running ethanol blends on both the stock turbo (E40) and the new larger turbo (E30-E35)
Been running Castrol 0w-40 since I purchased the car in April 2019 @ 29.5k miles.
Car makes quite a bit more power than stock. I dyno'd the car a couple months ago (after adding new turbo) and it dyno'd @ 499whp STD Corrected (415whp uncorrected.....Colorado car so we take power hit with the altitude).
Stock Golf Rs dyno around the 260whp-270whp neighborhood at sea level.
Anyway, a good % of the miles on this sample are hard miles....dyno sessions, 1/4 mile pulls, 60-130mph WOT pulls, hard canyon carving driving.
This is 2nd car so most of time when out it's hard miles.

 

[skyactiv]

I don't like that iron level.

 

[MSH]

I don't like that iron level.

concerning to me as well. Don't know how much the new turbo going on about 900 miles into that 3k sample would impact the # but I can't imagine very much

 

[double vanos]

I don’t know, pushing a stock engine to nearly double the horsepower I’d expect to see more wear. Aluminum, copper, lead and chromium all held up pretty well considering, only the iron took a hit. Viscosity, flash point and TBN are all in line. Running ethanol blends and an oversized turbo makes think this mill is not too familiar with tender driving habits. Overall, I’d say this oil held up pretty well.

 

[dblshock]

Is this Castrol Edge A3B4 0/40 old stock? seems way out of whack on Ca/MG.

 

[MSH]

Is this Castrol Edge A3B4 0/40 old stock? seems way out of whack on Ca/MG.

If Walmart was selling old stock in late May of last year? I assume Walmart is churning that stuff fast enough that it's not sitting?
I'm moving to a heavier weight oil based on recommendations I received here. Motul Sport 5w50 going in here shortly.

 

[dblshock]

I'm pretty sure Castrol balanced Ca/Mg alot closer to fight LSPI and that's been a few years.

 

[TiGeo]

I posted this in the other thread from the OP on this, just some perspective here is all/good info. My car is 2x stock power levels and is v. similar to the OPs (MQB VW) and I run E20-30% almost every tank and have for the last year and change. I drive my car hard/beat on it/been drag raced and on the track. Two new turbos (ok, the first was slightly used/5K miles on it). The Fe is concerning but is likely just related to the new hardware and without any data before/trends, hard to say it's oil-related.

 

[Greasymechtech]

The 5w50 should help. Oil temps?
Filter?

500hp is plenty good for a 2.0L engine.

If using a plastic drain plug, DAP/MQB... sell a magnetic plastic drain plug to see if it picks up some iron.

 

[adams355]

View attachment 42490

2016 VW Golf R with bigger turbo added 900 miles into this ~3k mile Castrol 0W40 sample.
Always running ethanol blends on both the stock turbo (E40) and the new larger turbo (E30-E35)
Been running Castrol 0w-40 since I purchased the car in April 2019 @ 29.5k miles.
Car makes quite a bit more power than stock. I dyno'd the car a couple months ago (after adding new turbo) and it dyno'd @ 499whp STD Corrected (415whp uncorrected.....Colorado car so we take power hit with the altitude).
Stock Golf Rs dyno around the 260whp-270whp neighborhood at sea level.
Anyway, a good % of the miles on this sample are hard miles....dyno sessions, 1/4 mile pulls, 60-130mph WOT pulls, hard canyon carving driving.
This is 2nd car so most of time when out it's hard miles.

I was talking to some people and doing a little bit of research on this because my turbo is tuned at 1000ft above sea level. The uncorrected dyno figure is the correct figure at any altitude with a turbo car, there is no loss at altitude because the turbo compensates by spinning faster. The turbo is relying on the wastegate actuator spring etc that is set for boost at sea level, so it will still be commanding that equivalent at altitude. However, you may lose a few hundred rpm of spool which would make a small difference at sea level.

 

[MSH]

I was talking to some people and doing a little bit of research on this because my turbo is tuned at 1000ft above sea level. The uncorrected dyno figure is the correct figure at any altitude with a turbo car, there is no loss at altitude because the turbo compensates by spinning faster. The turbo is relying on the wastegate actuator spring etc that is set for boost at sea level, so it will still be commanding that equivalent at altitude. However, you may lose a few hundred rpm of spool which would make a small difference at sea level.

On spool, yes, we take a hit on spool at altitude. That's why my tuner (also the manufacturer of the turbo on the car) recommends the smaller standard housing turbo vs their "XL" version. He states that these turbos will spool 400-500 rpm later at Denver altitude vs sea level.

Understood that uncorrected figures are all that really matter when you are altitude. The corrected #'s are merely to represent what the same car with same mods would do at sea level. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your statement..."there is no loss at altitude because the turbo compensates by spinning faster." If you are saying there is no power loss at altitude that is definitely incorrect. My car is putting down 415whp uncorrected at our elevation. My car if dyno'd at sea level would be a 480-490whp car. This is backed up by equivalent cars with same mods (same turbo/same ethanol blend/fueling/etc) by this exact tuner putting down those higher #'s on the close to sea level dyno. Also, if you look at 1/4 mile times same car with same mods will run .4s-.6s slower in the 1/4 mile with 4-5mph slower trap at Bandimere here in Denver area vs same car running at sea level @ 0DA. Dragtimes even has a DA Correction calculator on their website which you can get a rough idea of what kind of time your car would throw down if you ran at sea level @ 0DA. Screen shot is from dragtimes which details a 1/4 mile pull I did back in October with the DA that day (6066ft). You can see my 11.3s time would be roughly 10.9s+ at sea level. While forced induction certainly helps at elevation vs a naturally aspirated car same car/same mods is still going to be slower (& have less power) vs that same car at sea level

 

[2EHA]

I was talking to some people and doing a little bit of research on this because my turbo is tuned at 1000ft above sea level. The uncorrected dyno figure is the correct figure at any altitude with a turbo car, there is no loss at altitude because the turbo compensates by spinning faster. The turbo is relying on the wastegate actuator spring etc that is set for boost at sea level, so it will still be commanding that equivalent at altitude. However, you may lose a few hundred rpm of spool which would make a small difference at sea level.

Go to a strip at 6000ft and then go to a strip at sea level. You’ll consistently run 1+ sec lower, boosted cars just take less penalty.

 

[adams355]

I'm not sure on the rwhp at sea level from what I have read there is often very little change from the uncorrected number. The theory was first applied to supercharged cars where there is a larger percentage difference for output at altitude and this percentage was incorrectly applied to turbo cars. There is a lot of debate on the issue but I think the turbo percentage would be much lower than what has been attributed to supercharged cars. I don't disagree with the times being slower but how much is debatable.

 

[MSH]

I'm not sure on the rwhp at sea level from what I have read there is often very little change from the uncorrected number. The theory was first applied to supercharged cars where there is a larger percentage difference for output at altitude and this percentage was incorrectly applied to turbo cars. There is a lot of debate on the issue but I think the turbo percentage would be much lower than what has been attributed to supercharged cars. I don't disagree with the times being slower but how much is debatable.

We will have to agree to disagree I guess on this one then. I've seen the significant hp differences as a mentioned previously on same cars with exact same mods dyno'd both here and Denver and sea level.
It's backed up by data from the tuner and manufacturer of the turbo I have on my car (12 yrs tuning...started with Subarus and now has grown to be one of the largest, most respected tuners on the VW/Audi MQB platform.)

 

[adams355]

We will have to agree to disagree I guess on this one then. I've seen the significant hp differences as a mentioned previously on same cars with exact same mods dyno'd both here and Denver and sea level.
It's backed up by data from the tuner and manufacturer of the turbo I have on my car (12 yrs tuning...started with Subarus and now has grown to be one of the largest, most respected tuners on the VW/Audi MQB platform.)

Is it based on the uncorrected number though. I'm just interested. Plans to dyno yours down there anytime. Show me some same car dyno sheets from up there and at sea level, same car I mean. Don't you think 70rwhp would be worth more than 0.2-0.3 on the run. What's the difference in mph?

 

[MSH]

I don't have any dyno charts that show literally the same car dyno in Denver and then say at my tuners shop in San Francisco Bay area. I do, however, have my own dyno sheet (attached) from the shop here in Denver (Bluewater Performance) that uses the exact same Dynocom dyno as EQT uses pretty much at sea level. This was when I was Stage 2 E30 on the stock IS38 turbo. I dyno'd at 346whp (uncorrected). Golf R's (the same as mine) with the same Stage 2 mods on E30 dyno at ~420whp on that same Dynocom dyno at sea level. Understood that there are going to be some small variance between cars but the overall results are clear. Even turbo cars take roughly a 15%-17% whp hit at our elevation.

 

[adams355]

I was looking at those mph times for the Audi rs3. The loss of mph which is much more accurate than the dyno suggests is about 8-9% @ 5852ft
I love a good dyno but this makes much more sense. I just need to remember about spool time and oxygen. The article just talks about using a different turbo or combo etc which you already have.

Turbocharging At Elevation

A naturally aspirated combustion engine will lose 3% of its power for every 1,000 ft of elevation gain. Add a Garrett turbocharger to minimize the loss

www.garrettmotion.com

 

[edyvw]

I was looking at those mph times for the Audi rs3. The loss of mph which is much more accurate than the dyno suggests is about 8-9% @ 5852ft
I love a good dyno but this makes much more sense. I just need to remember about spool time and oxygen. The article just talks about using a different turbo or combo etc which you already have.

Turbocharging At Elevation

A naturally aspirated combustion engine will lose 3% of its power for every 1,000 ft of elevation gain. Add a Garrett turbocharger to minimize the loss

www.garrettmotion.com

8-9% loss at that altitude would be impossible, especially for turbo engine. There has to be other factors involved that would correspond to such mph loss.

 

[adams355]

8-9% loss at that altitude would be impossible, especially for turbo engine. There has to be other factors involved that would correspond to such mph loss.

Sorry I think I meant 8-9% rwhp loss after I did the calculation based on the times back to rwhp which are only very approximate.

 

[Jetronic]

I was talking to some people and doing a little bit of research on this because my turbo is tuned at 1000ft above sea level. The uncorrected dyno figure is the correct figure at any altitude with a turbo car, there is no loss at altitude because the turbo compensates by spinning faster. The turbo is relying on the wastegate actuator spring etc that is set for boost at sea level, so it will still be commanding that equivalent at altitude. However, you may lose a few hundred rpm of spool which would make a small difference at sea level.

At sea level the atmospheric pressure is around 1 bar, and the turbo can add for example 1.5 bar boost on top. Total pressure 2.5 bar.

At height, the atmospheric pressure is say 0.8 bar, and the turbo still adds 1.5 bar to that so you get 2.3 bar total. The wastegate actuator uses atmospheric pressure AND a spring to push the wastegate closed. The turbo will have to spin harder to get that 1.5 bar boost aswell.

In this example an atmospheric car loses 20% power, and the turbo car about 8%.