APR v2.2 occasionally going into limp mode

[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

[SwankPeRFection]

Here you go.

Cool thanks. I'd be interested more in knowing if Audi made the crank and cam shaft changes to change the stroke of the motor to give it more torque lower (for towing, etc.) Also, the block difference would have come due to either that bore/stroke change and possibly also to allow for that 8 speed trans to bold up if the trans is different than the one in the normal Q5 (could be a different bell housing/bolt pattern).

[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.

[helix139]

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.

APR did not change the safeguards, but I would definitely be wary of any tune that did.

[Arin@APR]

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

This is not correct.

The SQ5 has the CTX / CTU engine code.

The camshafts are as follows:

06E 109 101 BG - Inlet 1-3
06E 109 101 BH - Inlet 4-6
06E 109 102 BG - Outlet 4-6
06E 109 102 BF - Outlet 1-3

These cams are found in the A4, S4, A5, S5, Q5, A6, A7, Q7, A8 and Touareg. They first appeared in 2010 and they are even installed on the low output CTVA Q5 engine.

The CTU engine code is found on the following models:

A6, A7, A8, A8L, S4, S5 and Q5

There are several variations through ECU software only:

A - 310 HP
B - 333 HP
C - 272 HP
D - 354 HP

Cool thanks. I'd be interested more in knowing if Audi made the crank and cam shaft changes to change the stroke of the motor to give it more torque lower (for towing, etc.) Also, the block difference would have come due to either that bore/stroke change and possibly also to allow for that 8 speed trans to bold up if the trans is different than the one in the normal Q5 (could be a different bell housing/bolt pattern).

The the pistons, Crankshaft and Rods are all the same, and were available back in 2008. The bore and stroke has not changed.

[rs4dreams]

This is not correct.

The SQ5 has the CTX / CTU engine code.

The camshafts are as follows:

06E 109 101 BG - Inlet 1-3
06E 109 101 BH - Inlet 4-6
06E 109 102 BG - Outlet 4-6
06E 109 102 BF - Outlet 1-3

These cams are found in the A4, S4, A5, S5, Q5, A6, A7, Q7, A8 and Touareg. They first appeared in 2010 and they are even installed on the low output CTVA Q5 engine.

The CTU engine code is found on the following models:

A6, A7, A8, A8L, S4, S5 and Q5

There are several variations through ECU software only:

A - 310 HP
B - 333 HP
C - 272 HP
D - 354 HP



The the pistons, Crankshaft and Rods are all the same, and were available back in 2008. The bore and stroke has not changed.

Great info, thanks. If you've dynoed it, how did Audi tune the SQ5? Does it also start to bleed boost aggressively at 5500 RPM but just has a more aggressive tune down lower, or do they bleed boost later? Is the pulley the same size?

[SwankPeRFection]

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

[Arin@APR]

Great info, thanks. If you've dynoed it, how did Audi tune the SQ5? Does it also start to bleed boost aggressively at 5500 RPM but just has a more aggressive tune down lower, or do they bleed boost later? Is the pulley the same size?

On the surface, the main differences between the different outputs is related to bleeding off boost.

[SwankPeRFection]

On the surface, the main differences between the different outputs is related to bleeding off boost.

You don't happen to have a dyno plot with an SQ5 and S4 overlapping do you? It'd be interested to see how their power curves compare. And I've emailed the article writer to find out where he got his info from on the internals. (Tired of people just making shit up for the public to ingest. If his info is wrong, he needs to correct the article.)

[Arin@APR]

I don't. Sorry.

[AQuattro]

You don't happen to have a dyno plot with an SQ5 and S4 overlapping do you? It'd be interested to see how their power curves compare.

You'd need engine dyno plots to make a meaningful comparison. Transmission and drive train differences alone will skew the curves from a chassis dyno.

[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]

You'd need engine dyno plots to make a meaningful comparison. Transmission and drive train differences alone will skew the curves from a chassis dyno.

I know that. Jesus... I knew I should have put that disclaimer in there... even wheel size will throw it off a little. Still, I would of liked to see them both on the same dyno, but he doesn't have it, so it's a moot point.

[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.

[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.

[PaperishPlastic]

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.

that sounds like a winning situation for us but might really hurt their on dealer lot car sales. If I were to order another car I would pay $500 for any power upgrade option they may have. If they have a power upgrade option and I was not ordering a car I would rule out every single car on the lot that didn't include this option, and I think most enthusiasts will do the same thing.

[SwankPeRFection]

that sounds like a winning situation for us but might really hurt their on dealer lot car sales. If I were to order another car I would pay $500 for any power upgrade option they may have. If they have a power upgrade option and I was not ordering a car I would rule out every single car on the lot that didn't include this option, and I think most enthusiasts will do the same thing.

Who says that the dealer won't be able to just flash it via the SVM network tool if you pay them for the package? I never said that....

Keep in mind that this new flash is nothing more than just another ECU image for a specific tune. Technically speaking, if the software existed (hint hint!!!) I could go image my buddy's SQ5 ECU and blow the image onto mine. Now granted, there are variable to consider, but calibration for calibration and the engine being the same, there's nothing technically limiting this short of the proper software/hardware tools to make this happen. It would be super simple to set up and since the calibration is already in use by a mass produced vehicle already in the Audi lineup, Audi has already done the necessary testing... (granted load points, etc. would be slightly different due to trans, weight of vehicle, etc. but you get my point.) It would be easy to do and it may even satisfy those folks looking for just a Stage 1 kind of flash and nothing more from their car. They'll have a bit more power than stock, they won't have to flash via aftermarket and get TD1 for no good reason, and Audi and the owner won't have to worry as much about crap.

[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.

[adbender]

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

That is interesting...

[apexit1]

Since you seem to be in a colder climate can you try and take note of what temps you get this? I only know its in colder temps, I haven't gotten a range yet.

[adbender]

Thats a good idea....

I will have to go Celsius but im confident you can do the conversion.

[Arin@APR]

Looks like it's only happened twice or were codes cleared? Do you get this every morning? If so, try switching back to stock for a coupe days and see if it goes away. IIRC we don't have any global changes on our stock program (example, if you have an exhaust file for no cats, stock mode should check and throw a CEL for catalyst efficiency.) So if this is a daily occurrence, I would expect moving to stock mode would result in it staying if it's hardware or going away if it's software. However, switching may clear adaptation, so if switching does clear the problem for an extended period of time, switch back and see if it's still gone for an extended period of time to help rule out any adaptation related issues.

Let me know if all of that makes sense.

[adbender]

Looks like it's only happened twice or were codes cleared? Do you get this every morning? If so, try switching back to stock for a coupe days and see if it goes away. IIRC we don't have any global changes on our stock program (example, if you have an exhaust file for no cats, stock mode should check and throw a CEL for catalyst efficiency.) So if this is a daily occurrence, I would expect moving to stock mode would result in it staying if it's hardware or going away if it's software. However, switching may clear adaptation, so if switching does clear the problem for an extended period of time, switch back and see if it's still gone for an extended period of time to help rule out any adaptation related issues.

Let me know if all of that makes sense.

I cleared my codes in mid August...so this would represent the last two months.

Its certainly not a daily occurance. About 20% of time on first start only. My engine light came on yesterday after going limp, which showed with this fault, and cleared when the code was cleared.

I will go to stock mode (assume thats different than flashing back to stock) and then switch back after a few days.

As noted on my initial entry...my adaptation might have been an issue given that unusual incident with my AC not pumping cold air/ADS button not switching for 4 days and then spontaneously resolving.

[paul]

Same code I was getting when running 2.1. 2.2 with the cold start delete eliminated the issue. Not sure I prefer having CS removed but at least the car doesn't fire up in limp mode. Putting it into stock tune got rid of the issue. Re-flashing to stock got rid of the issue. Upgrading to 2.2 got rid of the issue. Although it could be that CS was removed upon request but it could also be how the issue was resolved. Note the date on the code.. I'm in SD only time it tripped was when the car was parked outside in the cold. Parked in the garage the car never had issues on start up.

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: 2
Mileage: 67367 km
Date: 2012.12.16
Time: 17:36:41

[adbender]

So...I have been in stock mode for 2 days now.

Cold start is operational in this mode.

No issues with bogging/limping on first departure in the am.

This weekend its getting pretty cool (6 C) ...should be fair test condition.

If no issues...will go back to 93 and see if it sorts out any issues with adaption.

[Pgr1990]

This is what happened before my cats melted.. Exact same symptoms but I was getting misfires when I scanned.

[apexit1]

In my case I have no cats

[adbender]

Been about two weeks since my last post.

Switched (not flashed) back to stock mode (temps as low as 6.5 C)
-cold start was operational
-no bogging or limping as experienced before

After about 1 week, switched back to 93 program
-cold start function no longer operational
-Went limp once on 1st day (6.5 celcius) after backing out of my driveway in reverse without any warmup
-no other issues over the past week under similar situations (temps as low as 4.5 c and it went below zero overnight)

Overall...it seems be be a software issue, but not certainly less frequent than previous even with lower temps.

Wonder if it was an issue with adaptation as Arin conjectured.

Of note, I had not had it in stock mode more than a day or two since my first flash.

Will keep you guys posted if there is a recurrence.

[SwankPeRFection]

Gee, look at that... maybe there's not that much smoke coming from me after all.

I'd be interested to see you get put on a map that's identical to what you have now EXCEPT for the cold start routine being put back in.

[adbender]

Gee, look at that... maybe there's not that much smoke coming from me after all.

I'd be interested to see you get put on a map that's identical to what you have now EXCEPT for the cold start routine being put back in.

That would be interesting. Cold weather is coming soon. In the mean time I am going to give the car that extra minute that the cold start makes you take because of the throaty sound.

[2000S4]

Any updates on this? I am having the same issue. APR v2.2

[integroid]

Gee, look at that... maybe there's not that much smoke coming from me after all.

I'd be interested to see you get put on a map that's identical to what you have now EXCEPT for the cold start routine being put back in.

Can they not flash V2.1 back on the car? That still has the cold start enabled.

[SwankPeRFection]

Can they not flash V2.1 back on the car? That still has the cold start enabled.

If the ONLY change between 2.1 and 2.2 is the cold start routine disable, then yes... going back to 2.1 would be a good test, but ONLY if that's the case. If there were any other changes in the map, ideally, you'd want to just edit the 2.2 map and re-enable the cold start routine in it. That was, that's the only change you're undoing on the 2.2 version and seeing if that's really the issue or not, but I suspect that it is at this point just like I did before. Until more definitive proof can come out as to something else causing this in 2.2, I'm sticking to what I said before.

[adbender]

same issue again with cold starts. about 1 in 5 mornings it goes limp with epc light coming on and normal function resuming after a restrart.

[Arin@APR]

Anyone with an issue please send me your vin so I can investigate.