First off, I do applaud you coming to this forum to discuss the CW. I doubt there will be any users here interested in trying this, so I think this kind of goes against the “post for profit” argument.
Regarding your points, I do not contest that you feel the device works well on your car. That is fine. So let’s let that die, you showed a good time at the 1/4 mile, so clearly it makes power.
The issue like Jran points out is you are convinced that it runs better “than some flashes I’ve seen”. Let’s forget about revo for the time being, they have updated the tune and we haven’t seen an engine go boom for a while. The log argument doesn’t hold much weight in my opinion. When I look for logs, I’m looking for signs of “bad things” going on, not verifying it functions correct. The logical leap needed to say “this works flawless in all conditions” needs to be backed up by TONS of miles (from DIFFERENT cars), logs, performance data etc. So the logs you’ve put together don’t tell you if the CW is “good”, only that it is “not bad” for YOUR car in the CURRENT conditions…hopefully that makes sense.
Now I’ve seen quite a few posts about strange behavior, both in terms of drivability concerns…and in terms of CEL’s/misfires etc. This is a red flag in my opinion. I’m not quite sure what are the necessary conditions for those failure modes, but I think it is a lot more complex than simply “go to B1 instead of C1”. I’m not sure how anyone can discount those posts. There are quite a few of them in there.
The other issue, that a friend who does turbocharging control mentioned, is that the wideband O2 sensor will only correct for AFR under steady-state load conditions. So if the ECM is requesting X NM of torque while currently providing Y NM of torque, then after about 1 sec you will hit the correct AFR after you transition to X. But the time leading up to it will not be correct. He said this would feel like surging or bucking. And this can happen both when you go WOT or 1/3 throttle or lift completely. The transient fueling strategy is all look up table stuff based on MAP and other signals.
Second, I’m not sure that logging AFR necessarily tells the whole story. I honestly haven’t followed the thread in close detail, so I can’t comment on exactly what you are logging. Only to say that the sensor readings recorded using VCDS may be filtered or not sampled fast enough to show the AFR issue.
Also, we aren’t clear about the measurements like EGT (which you claimed was good above), because that will typically be a look up table measurement based on IAT, AFR, MAP etc. So I wouldn’t trust signals that don’t have physical sensors.
So like I said from the beginning, it’s fine if you think this is great and that it makes power. But the minute you start making it seem better the flashes available (let’s restrict to the big proven options on this platform) based on some comparisons you’ve made over the last 2 weeks of data (with tons of issues reported) is when people will seriously question your ethics on the subject. Pretty much every owner here with a B8 who wants a tune will shell out the $$ for a proper flash. Hopefully APR’s new offerings will finally remove all the B8.5 issues that still might exist (since it is hypothesized that Audi changed the ECM strategy/sensor/hardware).
Fair?