Category Archives: Flow Tests

RS6 Turbocharger Flowbench Test

All of the turbochargers I have had my hands on lately have been put on the flowbench to have the airflow through the turbine housing recorded.

The most recent B5 S4 suitable turbocharger to show up is a pair of the Audi RS6 K04 turbo’s.  Because in OEM form these will not fit on the 2.7T engine this pair has been modified to work with B5 S4 components.

Audi RS6/K04 Turbocharger mounted to Flowbench
Audi RS6/K04 Turbocharger mounted to Flowbench

Unlike with the TTE turbo’s that also showed up with turbo to downpipe studs firmly stuck in the turbine housing, I chose not to pay a shop to remove the studs out of the RS6 turbo’s turbine housing.  Instead I’ve modified the adapter used to attach the turbocharger to the flowbench to accommodate the studs.

Following alteration of the adapter I went through the normal process of testing an article on the flowbench, beginning with a calibration test.   Results of the flow test are shown below:

Audi RS6/K04 Turbocharger Flow Test
Audi RS6/K04 Turbocharger Flow Test

It is clear that the airflow through the RS6 turbine housing is substantially greater than of that through the RS4 K04 and FrankenTurbo F21 turbochargers.  (The F21, TTE550, and TC Stg1 flowed approximately the same so I have omitted the TTE550 and TC Stg1 data from the chart to make following the lines easier.)

I have found the results on the flow bench to correlate with the exhaust back-pressure readings that I have made on my S4.  That the RS6 K04 turbocharger is able to flow higher than RS4 K04’s comes as no surprise, the magnitude of the increase is the most noteworthy finding from this test.

More MAF Flow Testing

Today I conducted a flow test comparison of a pair of RS4 MAF’s and an EPL MAF housing.

For some time I’ve wondered how much, if any, restriction the screen on the RS4 MAF housing causes.  A parts car that came through the garage was equipped with a Bosch MAF housing that is the same size as the Bosch RS4 MAF but had a set of screens that are removable.

MAF housing lineup

I decided I would pull the RS4 MAF from my car along with the RS4 airbox top and stick them on the flowbench with the rest of the stock intake to see how the screen affected the airflow through the intake.  I also decided I would retest the EPL MAF housing attached to the stock airbox top as that combination had out-flowed the RS4 MAF and RS4 airbox combination previously.

The results of the flow test are shown below:

Interestingly the removal of the screen from the RS4 MAF provided only a little benefit.  The EPL MAF and stock airbox still provided a little more airflow than the screen-less RS4 MAF and RS4 Airbox top.  All tests were conducted with a stock air filter, modified lower airbox (Darintake modification), and the snorkel attached.

I also have a large K&N cone filter available, so I attached the RS4 MAF to the K&N filter and retested using the RS4 MAF housings.

The results of this test are shown below:

The removal of the screen from the RS4 MAF housing produces a larger increase in airflow with the K&N filter versus the RS4 MAF with the screen in place.

More dramatically, the K&N filter allows for much higher airflow at the test depression of 10″ of H2O.

A couple of things should be noted, first is that a test depression of 10″ of H2O is not very much pressure.  In these tests there is a substantial amount of airflow passing through the intake with minimal pressure drop.  It’s common to test at 28″ of H2O, nearly three times the level this test was conducted at.  This test was performed at 10″ due to a bench limitation of around 600 CFM.

From this test it would seem that the K&N cone filter would be a desired substitute for the stock intake.  What this test does not account for is the potential disruption of airflow over the MAF sensor caused by the cone filter, which could lead to tune problems.

Nor does it show how engine compartment temperatures may alter intake air temperatures with the cone filter.


Turbo Concepts Stage 1 Bench Test

Prior to installing a turbocharger on my S4 I make an effort to flow test the turbine side to see how it compares with the other turbochargers that I have tested.


For this test I run a 100 CFM calibration plate since it is the closest to where these turbo products fall out, generally around 45-55 CFM at 28″ of H2O.

Turbo Concepts Stage 1 Turbocharger on Flowbench
Turbo Concepts Stage 1 Turbocharger on Flowbench

After performing the bench calibration I place the turbocharger onto an adapter for transitioning to the flowbench.  The compressor wheel is fixed in place, I hold it still with a finger, and then I slowly run the flow bench up to 28″ recording several data points along the way.


The chart above is a consolidation of the various turbochargers that I have tested thus far.  Of note, the BorgWarner RS4 K04 has been the highest flowing turbocharger that I have tested.

The Turbo Concepts Stage 1 performed similar to the FrankenTurbo and Turbo Engineers products, as well as BorgWarner K03’s, still below where the K04’s placed.

While this is a test that I don’t put a lot of stock in to give insight into how the product will perform on the car, it is notable that the exhaust backpressure measured on the vehicle has been lowest with the BW K04’s, supporting the flow bench measurement.