APR v2.2 occasionally going into limp mode

[apexit1]

It's not a cel, its the EPC light. Search my history and you'll see that I've tried solving this before. Like I mentioned before I've even taken it to a shop.

I found my thread over on AR. Arin please take a look

http://audirevolution.net/forum/inde...39975#msg39975

[littleredwagen]

It's not a cel, its the EPC light. Search my history and you'll see that I've tried solving this before. Like I mentioned before I've even taken it to a shop.

I found my thread over on AR. Arin please take a look

http://audirevolution.net/forum/inde...39975#msg39975

hmmm just noticed that you and the OP both have 2010s (I assume) wonder if its minor ecu difference for that MY, I have no idea

[SwankPeRFection]

It's not a cel, its the EPC light. Search my history and you'll see that I've tried solving this before. Like I mentioned before I've even taken it to a shop.

I found my thread over on AR. Arin please take a look

http://audirevolution.net/forum/inde...39975#msg39975

It's a CEL, don't sugar coat it. Same thing. Also, I don't see anything in those last few posts in that thread that say it solved your issue or that it was something completely different. The dealer was poking fingers around. If you still have this issue, then get flashed back to factory stock and see what happens. If the problem is elsewhere, then it'll continue. As long as the ECM wasn't damaged or somehow corrupted during the flash process, returning to a factory flash should solve the issue if it really is the APR tune or the changed ECM logic they incorporate into their tunes.

[apexit1]

It's a CEL, don't sugar coat it. Same thing. Also, I don't see anything in those last few posts in that thread that say it solved your issue or that it was something completely different. The dealer was poking fingers around. If you still have this issue, then get flashed back to factory stock and see what happens. If the problem is elsewhere, then it'll continue. As long as the ECM wasn't damaged or somehow corrupted during the flash process, returning to a factory flash should solve the issue if it really is the APR tune or the changed ECM logic they incorporate into their tunes.

Considering we actually have a CEL and this is a seperate light yes it is different. It's my car thats experiencing the issue and it isn't reseolved and I'm not aligned with any shop or vendor on here. I'm not sugarcoating anything. It's not cold enough to start happening yet so I can't do much else at this point.

[integroid]

This thread didnt go to shit until Swank chimed in.

[paul]

Arin. Why did APR choose to eliminate cold start routine? Was it because some of us were experiencing cel issues in cold weather on a cold start?

[Deckdout2]

Have exact same problem as OP and a few others here. Usually when it's colder. If I let it sit till the RPM's drop or normal idle (30 secs or so), then it's fine. I've pulled codes with the VAGCOM before, and it's come back with misfire in a couple cylinders. I've had new coilpacks in my trunk for about a year, just never bothered. Limp mode just occurred once last week and it's been since last winter since it last happened. I'm sure if I pull the codes again, it's going to give me the random misfire.

I don't think it's tune related, or cold start related. Coilpacks in our cars don't have a good history for as far as I've read, and can cause this limp mode at startup. I haven't noticed any loss in power, or weird behavior while driving however. I didn't realize this was so common.

I'd like someone to come in here and say they have the same issue who does not have a tune.

[apexit1]

I have fresh coil packs and plugs as of the spring I think. the weather makes it hard to say if it helped or solved the issue.

[toerag]

[Arin@APR]

People wanted it.

[will13k7]

I hate the cold start routine, mainly with exhaust installed, and it was an unexpected bonus when I got stage 2, hopefully its removed for good!

[squashman]

People wanted it.

I'm sure the techs considered this, but no issues in super frigid temps, ie. -20*F?

[rs4dreams]

FWIW the latest version of APR tune for B8.5s has the cold start routine enabled.

[PaperishPlastic]

Ya I hate the coldstart routine especially with headers and an exhaust and an early morning job. My neighbors used to hate it too before I got version 2.2

[integroid]

This is kind of funny....you guys arguing that APR and Revo are messing around with factory standards???? Really??? They are messing around with a lot of factory standards to increase HP. I say if you dont want anyone to change your factory standards, keep your car stock. If you want more HP, choose a tuner you feel comfortable with and live with it.

[helix139]

This is kind of funny....you guys arguing that APR and Revo are messing around with factory standards???? Really??? They are messing around with a lot of factory standards to increase HP. I say if you dont want anyone to change your factory standards, keep your car stock. If you want more HP, choose a tuner you feel comfortable with and live with it.

There's a difference between messing with "factory standards" and OEM safeguards. On ECUs, the OEM has an expected normal range of operation for an engine for a given set of conditions and builds in safeguards with a significant margin of error to deal with conditions that are either outside the safe range of operation or that are unanticipated. Changing what the ECU expects in terms of boost and how much boost it receives is much different than changing how it responds to create a larger margin of safety in the event of an over or underboost condition. Likewise, changing timing is different than changing what the ECU does to create a margin of safety when there is too much timing and detonation is detected. Unless you have access to OEM testing equipment and test data of the quantity and quality that OEMs have, you're better off leaving those types of parameters alone.

[integroid]

There's a difference between messing with "factory standards" and OEM safeguards. On ECUs, the OEM has an expected normal range of operation for an engine for a given set of conditions and builds in safeguards with a significant margin of error to deal with conditions that are either outside the safe range of operation or that are unanticipated. Changing what the ECU expects in terms of boost and how much boost it receives is much different than changing how it responds to create a larger margin of safety in the event of an over or underboost condition. Likewise, changing timing is different than changing what the ECU does to create a margin of safety when there is too much timing and detonation is detected. Unless you have access to OEM testing equipment and test data of the quantity and quality that OEMs have, you're better off leaving those types of parameters alone.

It still doesnt validate the fact that if Audi thought it was safe to run higher boost levels or more timing, they would of done it to begin with. You are changing the parameters of what Audi thinks is safe......everyone knows the risks when they get a tune but there are people like swank and others that are trolling over what APR and Revo have done.

[NWS4Guy]

It still doesnt validate the fact that if Audi thought it was safe to run higher boost levels or more timing, they would of done it to begin with. You are changing the parameters of what Audi thinks is safe......everyone knows the risks when they get a tune but there are people like swank and others that are trolling over what APR and Revo have done.

if you think the reasons behind boost limits were due to engine viability, you are mistaken. This engine is capable for far more without harming much of the longevity - APR showed this with their S4 race car for a few seasons until it became evident that the rules were made to be favorable to NA V8's and harming smaller FI engines in their class.

The primary reason Audi limited boost and the tune from the factory the way they did is to prevent the stock S4 from out performing the already out (and more expensive for no good reason) smaller S5 which initially had the V8, as well as keeping a healthy amount of distance from the RS4 and the eventually planned RS5. How would it look from a marketing perspective to have a stock "S" car matching or beating one of the RS cars which cost 20% or more than the S4?

[Stereodude]

if you think the reasons behind boost limits were due to engine viability, you are mistaken. This engine is capable for far more without harming much of the longevity - APR showed this with their S4 race car for a few seasons until it became evident that the rules were made to be favorable to NA V8's and harming smaller FI engines in their class.

The primary reason Audi limited boost and the tune from the factory the way they did is to prevent the stock S4 from out performing the already out (and more expensive for no good reason) smaller S5 which initially had the V8, as well as keeping a healthy amount of distance from the RS4 and the eventually planned RS5. How would it look from a marketing perspective to have a stock "S" car matching or beating one of the RS cars which cost 20% or more than the S4?

So why does the SQ5 reportedly have a different block (stiffer) and different camshaft instead of just a software tune?

[helix139]

It still doesnt validate the fact that if Audi thought it was safe to run higher boost levels or more timing, they would of done it to begin with. You are changing the parameters of what Audi thinks is safe......everyone knows the risks when they get a tune but there are people like swank and others that are trolling over what APR and Revo have done.

OEM power levels often have nothing to do with safeguarding the engine and everything to do with market segmentation. What APR did with cold start is purely an emissions subroutine. There is no risk of an engine without cold start grenading. What Revo did was mess with OEM safeguards related to knock. That is a clear difference. OEM safeguards =/= OEM power levels

[integroid]

if you think the reasons behind boost limits were due to engine viability, you are mistaken. This engine is capable for far more without harming much of the longevity - APR showed this with their S4 race car for a few seasons until it became evident that the rules were made to be favorable to NA V8's and harming smaller FI engines in their class.

The primary reason Audi limited boost and the tune from the factory the way they did is to prevent the stock S4 from out performing the already out (and more expensive for no good reason) smaller S5 which initially had the V8, as well as keeping a healthy amount of distance from the RS4 and the eventually planned RS5. How would it look from a marketing perspective to have a stock "S" car matching or beating one of the RS cars which cost 20% or more than the S4?

OEM power levels often have nothing to do with safeguarding the engine and everything to do with market segmentation. What APR did with cold start is purely an emissions subroutine. There is no risk of an engine without cold start grenading. What Revo did was mess with OEM safeguards related to knock. That is a clear difference. OEM safeguards =/= OEM power levels

I know why Audi did what they did and understand that the engine is capable of more power than stock. My complaint is people on the Revo and this thread are complaining that these tuners modified the stock safeguards and calibrations. Audi put those safeguards and calibrations in for a reason......these people should be complaining about any tune that changes them not just the Revo and APR tunes.

[Arin@APR]

It's for lighting off the catalyst, not drivability in the cold.

We can turn it on or off on any file.

[wwhan]

It's for lighting off the catalyst, not drivability in the cold.

We can turn it on or off on any file.

If one gets the APR stage 2 tune & pulley, they get cold start turned off, unless they ask for a custom file with it turned on?

I don't see any point in turning it off, when one has stock exhaust.

[SwankPeRFection]

So APR tuned this off because it was making just a bit more noise from an aftermarket exhaust during the startup routine when the engine is completely cold. Yep, that's a really good reason to do it.

I vote for APR to put it back in as default and let people getting their flash pick it as an option if they get their flash. I guarantee you somewhere deep down in that Audi ECU there's a diagnostic routine somewhere wanting to see this routine run its course when the engine is completely cold. If those cats don't heat up quickly enough the back O2 sensors could theoretically read more hydrocarbons than expected during the first few minutes of running a cold engine and could over time start to complain about something or another, unless of course there is no additional check to see how soon the back O2 sensors start seeing a proper reading or APR is also defeating that additional check... which is possible because many catless exhaust people should be running around with ECU based CEL defeats for that rather than rigged O2 spacers on the bungs or other junky ways of doing things.

[NWS4Guy]

So APR tuned this off because it was making just a bit more noise from an aftermarket exhaust during the startup routine when the engine is completely cold. Yep, that's a really good reason to do it.

I vote for APR to put it back in as default and let people getting their flash pick it as an option if they get their flash. I guarantee you somewhere deep down in that Audi ECU there's a diagnostic routine somewhere wanting to see this routine run its course when the engine is completely cold. If those cats don't heat up quickly enough the back O2 sensors could theoretically read more hydrocarbons than expected during the first few minutes of running a cold engine and could over time start to complain about something or another, unless of course there is no additional check to see how soon the back O2 sensors start seeing a proper reading or APR is also defeating that additional check... which is possible because many catless exhaust people should be running around with ECU based CEL defeats for that rather than rigged O2 spacers on the bungs or other junky ways of doing things.

Why, because you "feel" like that is correct? You have zero to prove that doing this is bad, yet any tuner with the ability to do it has at least a minimal amount of information on how the system works compared to you. As for your speculations on the cats not getting hot fast enough, fast idle for a few seconds won't do shit for that - it's what the secondary air system is for, but I am sure you already knew that and this was all a test. You suggest on one hand that they don't have enough knowledge to understand what settings the ECU is checking and expecting, while given them enough credit to be able to disable things like the O2 sensor check - which is it, are they inept or not? Or is it just you?

From the sounds of this, it sounds like the code could well be the Secondary Air CEL if it's happening only in the cold. I should know, I had the same issue, though it didn't coincidentally happen after a new tune.

[SwankPeRFection]

I think I'm starting to understand why Audi is getting so picky over aftermarket flashes for their cars. Seems that they aren't as clear cut and robust as other platforms are. Not once, ever, have I ever had another car that I got flashed which developed CEL issues afterwards that had to be chased.

APR had v2.0 throw CELs for a DSG issue and v2.0 throw CELs for something triggered by colder weather like for the OP. I don't think customers should have to deal with that kind of unknown scenario. The fact that a customer had to find the v2.0 DSG issue kinda shows that APR might not have done enough internal testing to catch it.

But this is all my viewpoint and those of you on their pogo stick won't agree, so whatever.

[AQuattro]

Seems that they aren't as clear cut and robust as other platforms are. Not once, ever, have I ever had another car that I got flashed which developed CEL issues afterwards that had to be chased.

A lot of tuners just remove CEL triggers.

[SwankPeRFection]

I think Audi should offer an SQ5 HP/TQ number upgrade flash to the base S4 for $500 add-on tune option. Would be an easy way for them to make some additional cash and also show the enthusiast they're at least trying to cater to some of us rather than the corporate pukes they seem to be designing these cars for now.

[integroid]

So APR tuned this off because it was making just a bit more noise from an aftermarket exhaust during the startup routine when the engine is completely cold. Yep, that's a really good reason to do it.

I vote for APR to put it back in as default and let people getting their flash pick it as an option if they get their flash. I guarantee you somewhere deep down in that Audi ECU there's a diagnostic routine somewhere wanting to see this routine run its course when the engine is completely cold. If those cats don't heat up quickly enough the back O2 sensors could theoretically read more hydrocarbons than expected during the first few minutes of running a cold engine and could over time start to complain about something or another, unless of course there is no additional check to see how soon the back O2 sensors start seeing a proper reading or APR is also defeating that additional check... which is possible because many catless exhaust people should be running around with ECU based CEL defeats for that rather than rigged O2 spacers on the bungs or other junky ways of doing things.

Wait, I didnt think you had an APR tune? Are you a potential customer? I can understand if you are an APR customer and wanted to request having cold start turned back on. That makes sense and I am sure they would make a different file if there was enough requests. I am going to guess that you have no plans on ever buying an APR tune and just here to troll as usual.

[saxon]

who cares about cold start, ive had it disabled on many of my vehicles

it would be nice to know why its a "common" problem with tuned cars and rarely any mention of it on a stock car though

[pbc]

Is there a thread that outlines the pros and cons of a tune as it relates to engine viability/wear and tear and mileage? Don't want to get this thread any more OT than it is already heading. :)

[SwankPeRFection]

Then the guy who wrote the article is wrong for one reason or another.

[Arin@APR]

I don't. Sorry.

[apexit1]

I'm sure it'll happen sooner rather than later. Some of the competition already offers it so I'm sure they're working on something.

[integroid]

It seems like all the other car platforms I have owned had some sort of either open source tuning or a way to self tune your car. Such a shame we dont have something like that already.

[SwankPeRFection]

German car platform ECU Nazis is to blame.

[integroid]

Dont the people over in the BMW world have the capability to tune their own cars?

[SwankPeRFection]

Dont the people over in the BMW world have the capability to tune their own cars?

OK, you got me there... it must just be the Alabama and California German car tuner Nazis then. lol

[adbender]

Arin... I just ran a scan and pulled up one fault code related to DBW Throttle Monitoring.


Chassis Type: 8T0
Scan: 01 03 05 08 09 10 14 15 16 17 19 1B 22 36 3C 42 46 47 52 53
55 56 5F 62 6C 72

Mileage: 66600km/41383miles

01-Engine -- Status: Malfunction 0010
03-ABS Brakes -- Status: OK 0000
04-Steering Angle -- Status: OK 0000
05-Acc/Start Auth. -- Status: OK 0000
08-Auto HVAC -- Status: OK 0000
09-Cent. Elect. -- Status: OK 0000
10-Park/Steer Assist -- Status: OK 0000
14-Susp. Elect. -- Status: OK 0000
15-Airbags -- Status: OK 0000
16-Steering wheel -- Status: OK 0000
17-Instruments -- Status: OK 0000
19-CAN Gateway -- Status: OK 0000
1B-Active Steering -- Status: OK 0000
22-AWD -- Status: OK 0000
36-Seat Mem. Drvr -- Status: OK 0000
3C-Lane Change -- Status: OK 0000
42-Door Elect, Driver -- Status: OK 0000
46-Central Conv. -- Status: OK 0000
47-Sound System -- Status: OK 0000
52-Door Elect, Pass. -- Status: OK 0000
53-Parking Brake -- Status: OK 0000
55-Xenon Range -- Status: OK 0000
56-Radio -- Status: OK 0000
5F-Information Electr. -- Status: OK 0000
62-Door, Rear Left -- Status: OK 0000
6C-Back-up Cam. -- Status: OK 0000
72-Door, Rear Right -- Status: OK 0000

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Address 01: Engine (J623-CCBA) Labels: 06E-907-551-CAK.clb
Part No SW: 8K0 907 551 A HW: 8K0 907 551 A
Component: 3.0T SIMOS84 H02 0001
Revision: --------
Coding: 0104000A180F0128
Shop #: WSC 06325 000 00000
ASAM Dataset: EV_ECM30TFS8K0907551A A01002
ROD: EV_ECM30TFS8K0907551A.rod
VCID: 2F6DAC22766B5660891

1 Fault Found:
6372 - Control Module Malfunction - DBW Throttle Monitoring
P1388 00 [040] - -
Intermittent - Confirmed - Tested Since Memory Clear
Freeze Frame:
Fault Status: 00000001
Fault Priority: 2
Fault Frequency: 16
Mileage: 60692 km
Date: 2013.08.05
Time: 12:28:12

Readiness: 0000 0001

[apexit1]

Same as me, at least we know it's the same issue.