I’ve done a few DE’s…I believe my MAF still worked after this as well…
(Sebring 2009)
https://dell.box.com/shared/static/xrjeocgyx2qep2p64lmp26yx7p25rfu7.jpg
That’s BS. My car pulled that much when I had some crappy gas just as any car would. We’ve seen the same thing on a 100% stock car. My problem was the gas I was using; knock detection looked the same both stock and tuned. My norm now is between 0-4 degrees. I haven’t seen anything over 4-5 in any logging I have done in the past 6 months. I’ll be happy to post all my recent logs if there is any doubt. I’ve logged five different APR/Revo/GIAC cars over the same 6 months, and rarely see anything outside the 0-4 range. I posted several of those in my dyno thread.
Tightened up? Seriously, we’ve seen probably half of the CW cars pulling upwards of double digits on a regular basis. I’m not sure what argument you are trying to make here. Sure, with 93 and good conditions, CW looks OK in this regard. But, anything outside of that and it looks pretty awful.
Lol@ “multiple logs”…about half a dozen with most knocking their tits off…carry on
Mike, the other thing is context… When I am talking about pulling even 3-4 degrees now, I’m talking about it happening as part of my testing. My testing is 5-6 back-to-back WOT 3rd gear pulls. I’m pretty sure if you did the same thing, your spectacularly running CW car would show something similar. All I’ve seen you post is small snippets of one run. Go log 5-6 back-to-back passes over a 5 minute span, and lets see what happens.
I’ll post my last two logging sessions with 5 back-to-back passes, and my 3 back-to-back passes on the dyno. I’m going to guess your car does not look any better if you are willing to do the same. Let’s compare since you seem inclined to bring me into this…
Edit: I just looked at my last set of logs. I have no timing being pulled on my first pass, just over -1 on my second, none on my third, none on my forth, and up to 4 degrees on my fifth. Do the same tests on a CW car, and report back…
Well my mistake apparently, you made it sound like you weren’t quite sure why it was pulling the timing and that it wasn’t just doing it on your 93 octane tune but also on your 100 octane tune even when you were running 104 and of course mentioned you had ruled out gas. Confusing. Ok though.
The thing is that I didnt even say that 6 degrees is going to harm an engine. I think you should be directing your comments to this other new hater, errr, poster…
Again, context… You can quote away from all the year old posts you want, and conveniently leave out the rest. Obviously, I’ve done a lot of testing since then, and have a pretty good grasp on what was happening. Again, my car has been super consistent over the past 6 months in terms of what I have logged, and the only changes I have made have been related to the gas I use, and how I log.
Like I said, post a full log of 5-6 back-to-back runs, and let’s compare. I’m sure we have similar conditions, and I’m at 600 ft. elevation.
I guess I shouldn’t say the only changes I have made are to the gas I use and how I log… That’s not correct. Since then, I have added an intake and cooling system which can help in some instances.
But, more than anything it did turn out to be the gas I was using from one particular “top tier” gas station. My issue with the 100 octane map was that I had too much 93 still mixed in. If you read back through all my posts (not just the ones you want to conveniently quote), I’ve talked a lot about finding that I have to run the tank down 20 miles past empty, fill up with race gas, and then give it another 20 miles or so to adapt.
Hey, I hear you. I get it. If I was pulling a bit of timing like that I would do the exact same thing and try and improve on cooling and/or fuel quality. I honestly dont think 6 degrees or even 8 degrees is going to grenade a motor. I was responding to the guy who comes on and says you should never ever ever see more than 2 degrees. There have been a lot of blanket statements like that in this thread. You know…“piggy backs are dumb and a flash tunes is not dumb” kind of blanket crap that is totally misleading and incorrect.
Look, the people with crappy fuel also are getting timing pull with the CW. The 93 people seem not to. I dont disagree that is is not going to be perfect for everyone. I live in south florida where i travel between -20 feet of sea level and a maximum of about 50 feet above sea level, lol. So, needless to say, I cant test elevation changes like others can. For people who drive back and forth from 50 feet elevation to 3000 to 6000 feet elevation maybe this thing is not the right option. Its just sad to see a group of intelligent people just blanket hate on something even though it could be a safe, powerful, and even smooth option for many (there are several people who have posted zero driveability issues, good timing, and very little knock retard. Probably 93 octane at low elevation).
In November when it cools down here APR should have their program switching out for the b8.5. I’ll probably buy their program again and do back to back logs, 1/4 mile, and even dyno. It will be fun. If APR kicks bootie than i’ll keep it. I happen to be having great luck with the CW right now.
Mike
There are people with 100k on there motor full of carbon that have all kinds of issues that seem to be running fine too but the realty is there not. So the running fine point is empty. As each person will define fine differently.
The next thing is there are several people with drivability issues with the CW. Both in the audi community and other.
The intelligent guys that apposed the idea of a MAF clamp just realize what there priorities are and this to them is what it is a signal interceptor. Some look at this as a half ass way to get your car to make more power. Some think it’s great.
Everyone laughs when you say all the safeties are in place because at the root of this product is a box that is fooling the car of its actual measurements. Tricking the car to not use one of its safety measures.
Also at the heart of your argument about inadequate tunes is a larger version of that with the CW.
Is the CW better then a crappie tune. Yes I would hands down say so. The issue is what’s a crappie tune and who sees it that way. This is solving a problem. It’s a 300$ fix and your getting your money’s worth for 300$ at the same time your getting your money’s worth with the APR or GIAC tunes. Your paying more but your getting more.
The argument is what are you OK with. And what do you feel is OK or safe.
So your only retort to everything I’ve posted today is to just get hung up on the “piggybacks are dumb” line. Like I said earlier, this CW is an insult to something like a JB4 piggyback. This is a simple MAP spoofer, akin to the diode thing mentioned before.
You seem to just want to talk about how great your logs are, how much we are all “hating” on you, and how you have the same performance at a fraction of the cost. This is just going in circles. With no end in sight.
I see stuff on AZ leads me to believe people are having drivability issues and doubts about continuing to run it. Must be bad gas and elevation or the “setting”. Has nothing to do with this being a stupid way to trick a modern ECU into making more power.
The chipwerke works on 4000 different cars, and is the exact same for each car, with a switch to change the settings before the company ships them out.
Being an engineer, I really don’t understand you logic of thinking the CW is safe. I have over 100k on my stg2, and I even run shitty gas in my car sometimes, but the car will adapt. The simos 8 is very complex and fooling the map is just bad form. Sakimono is correct, Mike is too stubborn or financially involved to ever see this. The thread will go in circles forever.
8 degrees of KR is actually audible and would cause a stutter, the ecu probably dumps a load of fuel in as well for safety and over time it will damage the engine.
Regardless of wether that’s from apr, revo or CW, it’s just bad tuning. The tune should be set to cut requested timing as the boost air temperatures climb to avoid this.
Since the thread has gone stale and since I love circular arguments, I though I would wake it back up. 
Doing extensive research (reading engineering papers, etc) on MAF, feedback loops, Short vs. Long Fuel Trims, O2 sensors, etc. Reading through all here and on AZ, consensus seems good flash tune is better that CW/piggy (at least for VAG). Another theme is that CW/piggy are cheap alternatives with minimal engineering while flash tune requires engineering know how and hence better.
Good news is I found this in my research http://www.eobdtool.com/?_xc_ls=en and specifically this http://www.fgtech-galletto.com/. Thanks to our friends in Bulgaria, apparently anyone can be a tuner for $79.
I’m not going to try it on my 2015, but it would be fun… While CW support 4000 vehicles, and Racechip 2800 – FGTECH ships with files for 80,000+ vehicles…lol. I wonder if any of the tuners we discuss here use these tools and/or build off these files. That seems far more dangerous than a curve which attenuates the MAF voltage.
The eobdtool site has some interesting cables.
If this is common knowledge, forgive the repost…it’s new to me.
There are many tools that can flash this car now, and now you are getting it. Now it will come down to dyno/development time. because that’s why an APR flash is 1000$, it has to pay the salary of 10 engineers that worked on the tune for months
Absolutely phenomenal find Drob! Because right there, if my lazy sleep eyes are not wrong, is a board with no upgradability in mind. After our previous discussion I actually went to P3 website and purchased a upgrade to their software to include now Afr readings and different timers. It’s pretty obvious there is no chip socket to be replaced here on the CW board.
So to start the debunking of some information provided:
It was said CW is working on an upgrade of their curve…
Well - false.
One lie is enough for me to discredit either the salesman or the company, whichever of the 2 lied about said upgrade in the future… Which means: either the salesman ja trying to make the product to be better than actually is, or the company flat out lied about future revisions which makes you wonder what else is being lied about…
Either way… We tune our cars based in trust, data and gains-investment ratios.
Once one of these 3 is broken is hard to justify an investment in said product.
My 2 cents.
FWIW- my meeting with a CW user to run a heads up comparison at our local track didn’t pan out. I messaged him Friday and he had something else come up so no comparo. I asked him about how the product is performing and he said although he’s had no CEL’s the hesitation and stuttering in D is an issue- not so in sport/dynamic. My guess is that’s an inherent flaw of the product which I personally wouldn’t be happy about- not trying to pile on but I just don’t see using a patchwork product in a car like ours.
I’m in Austin and running CW Pro if any Stage 1 folk want to get together.
why you hatin’ yo! don’t you know it’s perfect, because bhdvr the North American sales rep for chipwerke ran a mediocre 1/4 mile time with his and said his logs are perfect?
My car can see 6-7 degrees of ignition timing retardation. Guess my tuner doesn’t know what he’s doing? I will have to contact quattro gmbh as they are the ones who tuned my stock tune B7 RS4.
You guys…are you serious? Timing retardation is your car’s way of protecting itself . It does not mean the tune is bad. It means your conditions for making power are bad, or your fuel is bad. If you are running a healthy car in decent conditions with good fuel, you shouldn’t see a bunch of timing being pulled. Stock or modified.
If you are running a tune on your car and are doing so with either bad fuel, or an unhealthy car, you need a slap in the fucking face. That’s why you’re pulling mega timing, not because the tune isn’t tight.