The tune was requesting 31-33 degrees of timing, and by 8000 RPM, I was seeing about 7-9 degrees pulled on most cylinders. Does that mean my tune is ‘unsafe’?
Guess quattro, Audi’s RS performance team doesn’t know how to tune because my RS4 is stock tune. Either that or my car could likely do with a carbon clean and an injector cleaning, and in fact the Audi safeguards are working just as they’re supposed to. I was running 94 octane for the record.
Reality is that there’s a lot more going on than just blanket statements. I’ll happily kick APR in the nuts if they fuck up as many on here know. However I will also stick up for them if they’re being unjustly villified.
It’s a very B5 mentality that ‘timing pull = bad’. People don’t understand how tuning works, especially when tuning for a wide market like an OEM tune, or an off the shelf tune. The timing pull = safety, not aggression. It also means not tuning to the lowest common denominator.
The reason the B5 influenced guys think timing pull = bad is because they think a ‘custom tune’ is best. If you’re custom tuning a car in a perfect state with great fuel and no timing is being pulled that’s a nice scenario. As soon as those variables change, so will the correction factors. Is the tune bad? or has the car changed? The latter. What if the modlist improves (guy guts his cats) and the fuel improves (guy moves from 91 to a 93 zone)? Need a new tune.
Anyway, the B5 guys couldn’t grasp anything that differed from the excuses told to them by a couple of custom tuners (EPL for example) who sponsored the site…and who incidentally have the slowest cars in the entire Audi ecosystem :). As a result, that ‘timing pull = bad’ mentality has spread into some of the other platforms as some of the B5 guys have moved on to the B8. Fortunately they skipped the B67.
OK, now this is funny. You think I’m attributing the improved time to the TCU tune alone? Did you even read my OP where I listed item number 1 as no timing pull. Serious question - do you know how to read? As in comprehension? As in when you read a wall of text, do you recall and process more than the closing sentence? How exactly you think I don’t understand that my tune was running properly (e.g. not pulling timing) and wasn’t a compounding factor is beyond me.
Second, you really don’t seem to understand B8.5 DSG acceleration performance, nor what the APR tune does. Which is not surprising since the fastest you have gone was 12.6 with a spoof device. If you knew much of anything about this on the B8.5 vs the B8, you would realize that both the redline has been increased by 800 RPM and that APR has a different amax approach to shifting. What it does, who knows, but as Jeff mentioned, how the fuck were Muneebs car and mine trapping the same but almost .5 seconds off in et? Hmm, sounds like horsepower to me.
Here is the entirety of your post on another site there trash mouth. You know the site you dont like and talk trash about but run to post your timeslip before this one, lol. The one that you posted you ran straight 93 when you added e85 mix (hey, i could care less but at least have a little integrity and post it).
[QUOTE=drob23;11138176]Thanks man, yea the trap is great, et should get better with an improved launch. Pretty sure the improved trap is largely due to the amax mode with the tcu tune. But yea, great feeling to know the car is running right after so much uncertainty regarding knock issues.
[/quote]
Look you cant make these things up. Believe me I think it is as ridiculous as you must. Anyway, drob, you dont think running the additional 6 degrees of timing made a difference?
You do realize that I broke the factory CAT off my car? Not vibrated off…literally sheared off. And that I then broke test pipes off my car?
That’s BS, if people were trying to help they’d come into my threads and offer suggestions. Not take my logs and go run with it as if they understand the factors and collected the data themselves. It’s very simple, and pretty much defines the difference between an educated person and a delusional moron - the ability to critically analyze information, understand bias, and put context to it.
Guys like Mike@CW are the types that jump to conclusions by thinking they are smarter than they are and that information available to them can be spun however they want. Fuck that, I don’t care if you guys want to have a pow wow on AZ and discuss your devices or pocket dynos, but stay the fuck away from bringing my cars data into it without even presenting the context. That is as disrespectful as it gets, which is exactly why I have no respect for you or your pal.
Look you cant make these things up. Believe me I think it is as ridiculous as you must. Anyway, drob, you dont think running the additional 6 degrees of timing made a difference?
Mike
[/quote]
lol that was referencing the fact that the trap is better than most stg 2 times. Obviously it’s better than my previous times due to lack of knock. Hilarious that’s how you took it. But disregard everything from the OP here or the last year + of my issues trying to deal with timing pull. You really are very simple minded.
And I have no issue with AZ, the reference to the morons over there is directed at you and your pal. I post on AZ all the time.
Also funny about the 1.5 gallons of e85 and “the integrity to post it” lol, ok I’ll change it to make you happy. I seriously didn’t even think it mattered.
Guys I have no agenda here. I personally run the B8.5 APR 93 program and love it. I personally tested it against the Chipwerke and posted a thread on AZ how APR (the latest revison) was superior to the CW in power in contradiction to my Mike’s original CW thread.
And yes I see alot of timing pull on APR too. I never said it was unsafe for the engine. It correct right down the 93 knock curve like other tunes, it just has farther to go. We’re just getting to the facts about this so people understand it and don’t necessarily get concerned there’s a problem with their car or their gas when it is an overaggressive timing curve.
BTW Sean@APR has acknowledged the heavy knock correction and his current theory is that people are getting ‘below average’ 93 gas. He said brands can vary greatly in octane and APR even found a 93 pump putting out WAY higher than 93 octane. Based on all the timing and knock data I am inclined to believe they created the timing maps with ‘above average’ 93 gas.
Exactly^^^^ For the record AZT,Jran, or myself have never met and never talked on the phone. I dont think any of us have an “agenda” lol.
There seems to be a whole lot of misunderstanding about how our engine management works and how to extract performance through ECU tuning…a lot.
Sorry, I don’t bash tuners. In fact if you look at those threads that drob linked you’ll see I actually complimented APR in them. I could absolutely care less who the tuner is of the logs from a post that I did not even originate.
Regarding timing calibration, on a car I can have calibrated and calibrate myself Ive got about 10 timing tables each for high and low speed cams. Then I have timing compensation parameters (they are orders given that make changes to all the base tables) based on five different Intake Air Temp thresholds each for both low and high map pressures. Add to that there are 5 different Engine Coolant Temp (Cold) advance tables for each high and low cams and then 5 different Engine Coolant temp (Hot) retard tables for each high and low cams. I’m trying to count them up but so far thats 30 different tables for ignition. Of course within those tables I can retard as needed as well based on knock level (in percent) and knock count. There are 6 different separate knock control maps (two for limits, two for sensitivity, and two for retard amount). Then there is individual cylinder ignition trims if needed.
People who tune their own standalones or with calibration software know it isn’t about a “93 octane program” or a “91 octane” program being right for the car. Its about how the car logs after you make changes. It makes me giggle that we even have programs called “91 octane” programs. You do realize that most higher level calibrating for standalones would have dozens of files to use for different fuels, ambients, seasons, tracks. I have over a dozen for my car.
Anyways
So we have all apparently agreed that it is ghost knock from a loud exhaust (isn’t he now running testpipes?) as well as blown cats.
Remember we have at least 6 logs from different cars all showing the same though. Can we all agree that is not the likely cause for 6 people to have who live in different regions with different gas and different hardware? Maybe they all have blown cats but I’m somehow doubting it. Im sure people will continue to ignore that this is showing up identically on multiple cars in multiple reasons and again resort back to “bad cat, bad cat”
So NO we do not go trash APR. No one has done that. It seems to be the immature people who have come on other threads and said stupid bashing things like “No one should go with anything but APR or GIAC or they are an idiot” etc. I’ll leave the bashing to other people. I’d say all you have to do is read a couple pages of this site and you see threads wholly dedicated to trashing on people. Good work!
Keep in mind I don’t know of another tuner that “modifies” the knock protection maps. I sure don’t mess with mine.
I don even think this is really the worst thing in the world. Sure that amount of timing retard and bleeding of boost is causing some performance loss in the conditions of those posters but if they don’t have the ability to do file switching it also allows them to run race fuel and benefit from it. If you notice the poster did exactly that and picked up all kinds of timing (and power obviously). So maybe you would choose to give a little in one condition to gain a little in another. Ok. No biggie.
Again, no one is bashing your tune but maybe realize they can be improved with feedback. Some of you who have been beta testers would know THAT IS EXACTLY HOW TUNERS DO MAKE CHANGES to their maps. They collect feedback from users in different regions. Why do you think APR came out with an update of their 2014+ tune after I tested it? Uhh, to improve it based on feedback.
You do realize APRs response was for the poster to CHANGE TO THE 91 FILE even though he has 93 OCTANE. Again, that is because his fuel quality was not correct for THAT TIMING MAP/CALIBRATION. APR did not tell him to go replace his cats on his new car, lol. Is that bashing APR? Uhh, no. Its good advice on their behalf and if you go back and read it you’ll see it was the identical advice I gave to the poster a few posts earlier.
Usually these conversations are fruitful and lead to all of us learning from each other new information. Hopefully we wont all be so closed minded.
And lastly, drob, I hope you have a wife and kids and you look them dead in the eye and let them know how using the “c” word is in your classy repertoire of “go to” insults. I’m betting you don’t act this way in person though. I hear you are a peach. I’m betting you wouldn’t say that to my face, lol. Funny how people can have dual personalities, one on the computer and one real world. Do they have a name for that? Is it Sminternet Smuffguy? It’ll come to me. I’m sorry I dont have any demeaning insults for you.
I don’t know wtf elicited that diatribe but I didn’t have “blown cats”. The fucking cat broke. As in the metal went crack. As in I had a car with zero exhaust. Again, you’d probably know that if you followed the my threads. Kind of like how you posted my logs and thought it was from a car with a 100 octane program. It’s not often you see such a big ego propped up by such a weak foundation.
Gotcha drob. That makes all the difference in helping out the other posters that your cat was apparently broken for 6 months “cracked” while you couldnt figure out what was going on.
If I post a log on a public forum, I accept it pretty much belongs to the internet. If someone reposts it and expresses an opinion that I don’t agree with, well that would annoy me, but it is not the worst offense in the world. Especially if their intent was to help someone else. I would disagree with them and maybe try to understand their view. I would not go on a tirade and talk to them like they are a piece of shit.
It’s funny how you paint me as the irrational one, even though this all happened 6 months ago and I was just waiting till I finally figured out my car to prove you guys wrong. That has happened and the middle finger is extended purely in response to this type of shit you posted 3 months ago http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthread.php/658285-13-1-second-APR-Stage-2-w-DSG-tune/page2?p=10870967#post10870967 And if you think that those type of comments are gentlemanly as you portray yourself to be, then I’m at a loss…
LOL, I thought I seemed pretty gentlemanly in that post? Why does there have to be a middle finger even if you proved us wrong? The funny thing is you really haven’t. I see no logs and I re-read your original post:
Did you know 1.5 gallons of E85 to 8 gallons of 93 works out to about 95 octane? My 6-8 degrees of APR knock correction decreased to 2-4 degrees when I went from 93 to 95 octane in the same conditions. Which should be no surprise to anyone. You obviously didn’t log on 93 octane or you wouldn’t ‘highly doubt’ the E85 helped, you would know. Why don’t you post some logs on pure 93.
The issue is you took data assumed you knew all the facts about the data you were reposting and the original user of the data knew how skewed the information was. You used the data to help push your point. You keep going on and on about knock but you leave out all kinds of data like intake temps from the charger outside temps from actual outside temps. You keep harping on your point and no matter when drob says you dont care you just want to make your point. So you and Bvdr keep loosing respect to try to make a point.
So while you can say all the logs you have seen have this same issue you dont seem to be posting any of these so called logs. Even if you did find one other one you would still need to gather all the data before making or trying to make the point.
You can say something someone posts is now public data but at the same time your responsible for the data you repost and the reasons behind it
This actually just ended all the bs conversation and proved drobs point. At this point Its clear drob was correct the entire time and that the CW pimps have been cought in a BS story. Apparently this agressive APR timing isnt really an issue when you actually look at logs taken from a APR customer
I don’t understand who beaverdiver is directing his posts at. Did he just call me insecure about Apr tuning?
Lololol that’s a first.
Anyway, since beaverdiver missed it, let’s recap
This thread is about drob’s car. Not ‘at least 6 other cars’
Drob was seeing 8 degrees of timing btdc correction on 93…and again 8 degrees pulled on 109…so the cause of timing retardation was not ‘insufficient octane’ or 'far too aggressive parameters for 93 tune… there was something else causing it.
He had a bad cat, then a massive exhaust leak and then he fixed it. Result? Car is faster and now he has 2-4 degrees of timing max pulled instead of 8. All on 93.
This contributed to his improvement at the strip, and drob also believes the Apr TCU giving him a 7200 revlim instead of 6500 also gives him some top end.
Does anyone not understand or agree with this? Because it looks like beaverdiver doesn’t so let’s hear what part of this he doesn’t get. Remember…we don’t give a fuck about 9 other cars. This thread is about drob’s car.
