[Rebel_yell]

That sounds fantastic Snowek! Thanks for sharing your findings and congrats on your monster #s.

It looks like RICA has greatly improved their tune for your mods and also corrected their mistake on your tune from months ago.

I would love to see the graphs when you have a chance to upload them.

 

[tunedxc60]

Great numbers! Pretty shocking that the Snabb gear caused you to lose power. I'd like see others input on this - just ordered both of the products that you just have proven to be for show and not go..

To be clear you are running an engineered Polestar car with what other mods? Ferrita Downpipe, Do88 intercooler, what exhaust? Anything else ? Are those torque/hp figures both at the crank?

At what rpm does the max torque curve kick ? Can you post the dynos sheets?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[CMOD_R]

Great numbers! Pretty shocking that the Snabb gear caused you to lose power. I'd like see others input on this - just ordered both of the products that you just have proven to be for show and not go..

To be clear you are running an engineered Polestar car with what other mods? Ferrita Downpipe, Do88 intercooler, what exhaust? Anything else ? Are those torque/hp figures both at the crank?

At what rpm does the max torque curve kick ? Can you post the dynos sheets?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

You won't lose power with them. I did extensive DYNO testing with all the components including stock on multiple tune files and each time with stock components lost power, SIGNIFICANT power. I gained power with the highflow on both stock AND tuned Tune files.

You won't be disappointed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[tunedxc60]

You won't lose power with them. I did extensive DYNO testing with all the components including stock on multiple tune files and each time with stock components lost power, SIGNIFICANT power. I gained power with the highflow on both stock AND tuned Tune files.

You won't be disappointed.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Can't wait.....



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[david2015plstr]

I never understood why Polestar R&D would design a 60K sports sedan and say, well we have bigger turbos on this, what say we narrow out the intake and choke em down. We only want 350 hp anyway. If they could have gotten a significant power increase from basically a rerouted, larger pipe, they would have done it. Their cost would have been minimal. It would not be for sound. Anyone buying a Polestar is not worried about that. I'm not saying it may be needed to support other mods, but that also seems iffy at best.

 

[Bunnspeed]

I never understood why Polestar R&D would design a 60K sports sedan and say, well we have bigger turbos on this, what say we narrow out the intake and choke em down. We only want 350 hp anyway. If they could have gotten a significant power increase from basically a rerouted, larger pipe, they would have done it. Their cost would have been minimal. It would not be for sound. Anyone buying a Polestar is not worried about that. I'm not saying it may be needed to support other mods, but that also seems iffy at best.

It's more complicated than that, even if a factory-designed change to the intake could (possibly) give more power. First of all, do they want to design these to have more power? Maybe not. Perhaps Volvo met their performance targets and didn't feel the need to make the cars any faster, more powerful, and potentially more prone to breaking or being compared directly with other performance sedans that might end up trouncing it in a direct performance comparison as you might find in a car magazine review. Volvo possibly meant to bypass all that by slotting-in close-to, but not directly-with, competitors' more conventional performance-oriented volume sellers (think dime-a-dozen B8 S4 or BMW 335) with Volvo's more-unique take on the performance car experience: excellent more for subjective reasons such as character, uniqueness, style, handling, etc., and not meant to be compared directly to those other cars strictly as a "numbers car". In any case, these cars leave power on the table with their factory ECU tuning decisions. If Volvo wanted more power, they could have simply turned up the wick on the factory tune, which they didn't, which I think adds evidence to the fact that they met certain performance targets and didn't feel the need for more. (Holding back those numbers may have also been done in order to make the upcoming 2.0T P* cars more appealing, if they were to be introduced with even better numbers than the 3.0T cars, to silence the anticipated pushback from "purists" complaining about the 3.0T being axed)

The aforementioned considerations are likely only part of what's at play here. I suspect it has more to do with the fact that these cars are selling in tiny quantities and the R&D and tooling costs to produce a batch of new intakes for a relatively small bump in power simply wouldn't have been worth the effort from a cost/ benefit point of view. Especially when raising output could easily be accomplished with a software tweak if that was the desired effect. Also keep in mind that these low-volume cars are being sold globably in different markets each with their own set of emissions standards, crash standards, pedestrian-hitting standards (making underhood packaging a very real issue, which may, in fact, be the biggest reason that the intake is routed this way). Changing the intake design might be enough to make the car not warm up as quickly, which could impact upon how it performs during aspects of emissions testing. Or it could reduce the space between hood and engine designed to cushion pedestrians in certain markets' pedestrian safety testing, making it not meet current or future safety standards within those markets. Adding extra NVH, warmup time, etc., might also have been biproducts of a change to intake design that Volvo engineers wished to avoid.

 

[Young Satchel]

*Drops mad knowledge*

Was gonna respond similarly to that guy's post earlier but had to split and get kids to school. You did it more intelligently and eloquently than I coulda anyway



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gtsxr]

It's also important to remember that Polestar had to meet the existing emissions and mpg ratings for the T6, per Volvo. That doesn't leave too much room for expanding the envelope. We've seen what they could to with the T6 if left to their own devices, the S60 concept.

 

[Bunnspeed]

Was gonna respond similarly to that guy's post earlier but had to split and get kids to school. You did it more intelligently and eloquently than I coulda anyway



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ha, thanks! I have a snow day, and I'm spending much of it on the throne, so I have some time to kill, hence the opportunity to pinch off a few extra-long and rambling "tech" posts

 

[david2015plstr]

I guess we will keep on guessing. Perhaps if they left low fruit, extra power on the table, it was to be very conservative and not break the transmission. For me the key is to try and get a safe amount of extra power (which I really don't need) for a reasonable price. Seems like the TDI tune may be a good place to start.

 

[Flotschi81]

Hello, have you also tested the Snabb 2.75" turbo charge piping kit vs. original intercooler piping kit on the dyno?
Greets Florian

 

[[email protected]]

Its interesting reading this old thread. Wondering if the differences I note below contributed to R-Design cars gaining power while Polestar cars lost power with the Snabb intake.

Known difference for the Polestar Engineered over the R-Design 3.0 T6:

• slightly larger turbo, camshaft, conrods, fuel pump, catalytic converter, AWD optimization (DEM),
• slight alteration between the +45 P* tune map (ECU) and the 25hp P* Optimized tune on the R-Design over a base 300hp T6.
• Polestar (TCM) programming allows for higher torque

In total, there are 260 new part numbers that were created for the Polestar engineered cars from the powertrain, chassis, brakes, exterior and interior.

FWIW: The results of my 2015.5 V60 R-Design T6 AWD project.

Stock is 325hp = 269hp at the wheels (whp).

Dyno: DynoJet 424x (awd)
Car: 2015.5 V60 R-Design AWD automatic (22k miles)

KPAX+Snabb Intake
274whp | 348 lb-ft
269whp | 347 lb-ft
267whp | 347 lb-ft

KPAX exhaust-only
270whp | 356 lb-ft
269whp | 342 lb-ft
268whp | 354 lb-ft

Stock Baseline
269whp | 333 lb-ft
268whp | 335 lb-ft

Thoughts:

• There was a roughly a 17% drivetrain loss with Volvo's automatic transmission and the AWD system.
• Approximately a 2% increase (+6.5hp 331hp at the crank, rough math) with just bolt-ons and the stock tune.
• The R-Design cars are limited by the torque controlled by the TCM, which in the Polestar cars is higher. Volvo was going to release the transmission tune as an installable upgrade, like the optimized tune but the sale of Polestar Racing and the Polestar Performance line of parts ended.

Not sure what snowek's uncorrected numbers were but if we apply a 17% drivetrain loss to 350hp, that would be the wheel horsepower at ~290whp which is about 20 more WHP than my R-Design results which is about seems to be within a reasonable margin of error.

To tie back into a previous post in this thread and to my listing of parts above. A 25hp increase (325 RD vs 350 P*) seems low for the many Polestar specific improvements which reinforces Volvo's need to remain within emissions and fuel economy ratings versus increasing engine output to its higher potential.

 

[BellevilleV70]

I wish some people with these high numbers would get to the track!

 

[OscarII]

Its interesting reading this old thread. Wondering if the differences I note below contributed to R-Design cars gaining power while Polestar cars lost power with the Snabb intake.

Known difference for the Polestar Engineered over the R-Design 3.0 T6:

• slightly larger turbo, camshaft, conrods, fuel pump, catalytic converter, AWD optimization (DEM),
• slight alteration between the +45 P* tune map (ECU) and the 25hp P* Optimized tune on the R-Design over a base 300hp T6.
• Polestar (TCM) programming allows for higher torque

In total, there are 260 new part numbers that were created for the Polestar engineered cars from the powertrain, chassis, brakes, exterior and interior.

FWIW: The results of my 2015.5 V60 R-Design T6 AWD project.

Stock is 325hp = 269hp at the wheels (whp).

Dyno: DynoJet 424x (awd)
Car: 2015.5 V60 R-Design AWD automatic (22k miles)

KPAX+Snabb Intake
274whp | 348 lb-ft
269whp | 347 lb-ft
267whp | 347 lb-ft

KPAX exhaust-only
270whp | 356 lb-ft
269whp | 342 lb-ft
268whp | 354 lb-ft

Stock Baseline
269whp | 333 lb-ft
268whp | 335 lb-ft

Thoughts:

• There was a roughly a 17% drivetrain loss with Volvo's automatic transmission and the AWD system.
• Approximately a 2% increase (+6.5hp 331hp at the crank, rough math) with just bolt-ons and the stock tune.
• The R-Design cars are limited by the torque controlled by the TCM, which in the Polestar cars is higher. Volvo was going to release the transmission tune as an installable upgrade, like the optimized tune but the sale of Polestar Racing and the Polestar Performance line of parts ended.

Not sure what snowek's uncorrected numbers were but if we apply a 17% drivetrain loss to 350hp, that would be the wheel horsepower at ~290whp which is about 20 more WHP than my R-Design results which is about seems to be within a reasonable margin of error.

To tie back into a previous post in this thread and to my listing of parts above. A 25hp increase (325 RD vs 350 P*) seems low for the many Polestar specific improvements which reinforces Volvo's need to remain within emissions and fuel economy ratings versus increasing engine output to its higher potential.

Could you share the parts number for the P* camshaft and con rods?

 

[[email protected]]

I don't happen to have them. I can reach out to a dealer and see if I can get the info.