IW STi Forum banner

21 - 27 of 27 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
8,396 Posts
Damn near every car out there operates without a "TGV" setup. With or without TGV's, you'll still need to run rich, which is why newer cars have air pumps to lean out the mixture before the cat, for emissions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,953 Posts
oh I know, air fuel separation isnt anything new, and the TGV systems in cars now are a good solution to an old problem with cold engine start up fuel mixtures, and regardless of tuning solutions after deleting them, I'd rather have the "mechanical" benefit of improved mixture distribution on cold start ups to potentially help reduce long term wear in the cylinder bores that they can provide. The main advantage of TGV deletes seems to be the elimination of a potential failure that might cause them not to open all the way.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,234 Posts
I wouldnt delete the Tumble generator valves on a daily driven car that sees a cold start up every morning. The uneven mixture distribution without them is going to cause driveability issues . . . increased cylinder wear . . .
Dang I took a work day off from my "job" here . . .

No, Just No. I have not had TGVs in years now and they create no drivability issues.
None.
Zip.
0.

as you stated the TGV's arent restriction airflow enough to be worth removing unless your shooting for 800 horsepower
Another no, well sort of no. The OP did not delete his TGV valves. He replaced the TGVs which allows mods on a stock location car that otherwise could not be done but are part of a great stock location setup say at 350+.

others with tuning experience can chime in but removing the TGV's is going to cause a rich condition when the engine is cold
TGVs don't meter fuel. The car measures the air (one way or another, with or without TGVs) and sets fueling by that and other parameters.

oh I know, . . . The main advantage of TGV deletes seems to be the elimination of a potential failure that might cause them not to open all the way.
No.
I have no tuning experience, but everyone who's driven my car in the cold knows it has not issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,953 Posts
Dang I took a work day off from my "job" here . . .

No, Just No. I have not had TGVs in years now and they create no drivability issues.
None.
Zip.
0.



Another no, well sort of no. The OP did not delete his TGV valves. He replaced the TGVs which allows mods on a stock location car that otherwise could not be done but are part of a great stock location setup say at 350+.



TGVs don't meter fuel. The car measures the air (one way or another, with or without TGVs) and sets fueling by that and other parameters.



No.
I have no tuning experience, but everyone who's driven my car in the cold knows it has not issues.
I still wouldnt do it on a daily driver...I already said why. If one wants a bigger stock location turbo that wont fit with them thats different, poor cold mixture distribution,resultant potential carbon build up or in a worse case scenario, cylinder washing probably are not on their radar. Glad it worked out for you but the TGV's do mechanically alter the mixture by creating turbulence in the intake tract , so removing them CAN and probably will , especially in cold weather enviornments with long warm up times, cause fuel droplets and inconsistent mixture distribution that can cause the things I am talking about.... a tuner can compensate for the mixture distribution changes, by changing the fuel mixture tables cold, whether or not there are noticeable driveability issues was not my point. Raw fuel in cylinders can over time increase bore wear, most arent going to care about the minimal risk though.

That said, might as well just get a rotated turbo(which is going to give you more sizing options and better power potential) and keep the TGV's and have the best of both worlds, at the end of the day its probably easier to install a rotated turbo and not have to mess with the intake manifold. No??
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,234 Posts
Iwhether or not there are noticeable driveability issues was not my point. Raw fuel in cylinders can over time increase bore wear, most arent going to care about the minimal risk though.
but thats what you led off with and what I responded to . . . here it is again

I wouldnt delete the Tumble generator valves on a daily driven car that sees a cold start up every morning. The uneven mixture distribution without them is going to cause driveability issues until the intake heats up

If i were tying to get 1M miles out of my engine I be concerned too. We'll never get near that though.

if I started my car every every hour in the cold, let it run for a few minutes, and shut it down it might be issue too. But since I start my car, let it warm up regardless, and drive it till that warm up time as a percentage of run time is inconsequential I'm not going to worry.

If you were knowledgeable and cared about your car, you'd be concerned about the dinosaurs in your pan. When you hear em tryin to get out its too late :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,953 Posts
but thats what you led off with and what I responded to . . . here it is again




If i were tying to get 1M miles out of my engine I be concerned too. We'll never get near that though.

if I started my car every every hour in the cold, let it run for a few minutes, and shut it down it might be issue too. But since I start my car, let it warm up regardless, and drive it till that warm up time as a percentage of run time is inconsequential I'm not going to worry.

If you were knowledgeable and cared about your car, you'd be concerned about the dinosaurs in your pan. When you hear em tryin to get out its too late :)
eh,is it worth the trouble that it potentially could cause over say 50,000 miles just to get a 10 horsepower gain? The fact that the mixture isnt going to seperate when the intake manifold is warmed up is true but dont forget 90% of engine wear occurs from just starting the car..and then you have cold oil and a possibly fuel saturated intake "washing"(not literally but contaminating) the oil in the first several minutes of operation. To me it takes away from the stock location turbo upgrades a bit. I'm pretty sure the Cobb 20G fits without having to remove the TGV's. Easier just to go rotated and keep the stock intake setup.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,234 Posts
Know anyone who is rotated and has functional TGVs?
Thats rhetorical (don't answer).

Plenty of people with TGV deletes.
Some with upgraded turbos
Fewer rotated

They are all looking for power, and ya know what? Not one of gives a crap about minuscule wear and tear compared to ring land failure or spun bearings. Not one. You shouldn't either!

Question? Do you really think SOA gave STIs TGVs to solve wear issues?
Again rhetorical. I need no response.

K, I'm sure there's one out there :) . Always is :rofl:
You can be the second !

eh,is it worth the trouble that it potentially could cause over say 50,000 miles just to get a 10 horsepower gain?
Sure you'd not be eliminating trouble? The electro/mechanical parts fail and cause error codes.

But we're off on a tangent again. Here's what I responded to that you denied writing:

Iwhether or not there are noticeable driveability issues was not my point. Raw fuel in cylinders can over time increase bore wear, most arent going to care about the minimal risk though.
It's what you led off with and what I responded to with:

No, Just No. I have not had TGVs in years now and they create no drivability issues.
None.
Zip.
0.

Plenty of people delete on their own, while many run aftermarket parts - even on the new VA. The one I drove a bit ago had IAGs on it. TGV deletes are not normally an issue . . .
 
21 - 27 of 27 Posts
Top