APR v2.2 occasionally going into limp mode

[AQuattro]

APR telling people to call in and they'll deal with it without documenting the issue here is hiding the cause/fix of the issue.

Obviously the problem will be easier to trouble shoot through direct communication. Seems like a reasonable request by APR. Just ask the OP to fill you in or update the thread once its resolved. I doubt APR will hold a gun to his head and tell him not to talk about it.

[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.

[SwankPeRFection]

Swank - you should probably take a Xanax before before getting on this board. Seems like you are always high strung and think everyone is out to get you.

I believe paper was talking about why the cold start got eliminated.

I dont understand what you want APR to do? try to help the customer over a forum that could take days instead of having the customer call them which could take minutes to fix?

I believe this was bench flashed because he had it done prior to the port flashing being available. He gives the date above in the OP.

That is incorrect. Read the OP's post. Second sentence says it wouldn't accept the OBDII port flashing process, that's why it was bench flashed. I don't make these things up man... I just want to get to the bottom of them. That's all.

[integroid]

That is incorrect. Read the OP's post. Second sentence says it wouldn't accept the OBDII port flashing process, that's why it was bench flashed. I don't make these things up man... I just want to get to the bottom of them. That's all.

Well damn, he is Canadian...that must be the problem......those damn Canadians:)

[integroid]

I should. I anticipate they will suggest a reflash which means a trip to the shop during a crazy fall.

Will keep u posted.

You can actually flash back to stock through the OBDII port....even before the OBDII port flashing was available. It was just when trying to flash back to Stage 1/2 is when the ecu had to be pulled.

[adbender]

You can actually flash back to stock through the OBDII port....even before the OBDII port flashing was available. It was just when trying to flash back to Stage 1/2 is when the ecu had to be pulled.

good point....I'll never be eager to go back to stock

[helix139]

Really... Repetitive limp mode with APR 2.2 has been covered before? Maybe the OP's at fault for not searching either. What amazes me is that the people that posted in here having this issue, have just kinda overlooked it up until now it seems. Why would someone just "deal with it" day in and day out?

Also, I don't wanna hear all this "just call us and we'll take care of it" deal. I want to know why this is happening with more than just the OP because if someone was to get an APR flash, I'm sure they don't want the chance of this happening being in the back of their minds if it truly is linked to the 2.2 flash and nothing else. APR telling people to call in and they'll deal with it without documenting the issue here is hiding the cause/fix of the issue. The OP made a correlation that this issue started for them after the 2.2 update. Are they right, are they wrong? We don't know yet, but I want to get to the bottom of it and want to know exactly what it is. That said, I also don't believe that APR should be messing with the cold start routing on the car. I want a flash, but now have to rule out APR because they don't want to put an OTS flash that doesn't have this change in it. I most certainly don't want to flash my car with a product that's going to cause CEL issues time and time again. Last car I had was flashed at 10k miles and was CEL free all the way up to 130k miles. That's what I want, not viagra needing limp mode day in and day out cuz it's a bit cold outside.

So why weren't you demanding the same level of accountability with Revo in their thread re: the blown engines, melted cats, etc? I never saw you demanding they come document every part of their process on the forums.

On top of that, as Arin said you really don't have a clue what you're talking about with the cold start thing. It's purely an emissions nanny for people who idle their cars to warm them up. Nothing else. disabling it isn't going to cause a CEL when it is cold outside. There is something else going on here and without at the very least a VCDS scan, your blaming this on APR removing cold start is purely conjecture, exactly like you and Thomas were accusing everyone of in the Revo thread.

As far as "call us and we'll take care of it," facts are that is going to be the quickest way to get a resolution. You'll get to speak with the right person and get immediate help and feedback rather than having to wait for Arin to see your post and reply to it. I don't really see how that is unreasonable. And fact is, APR does take care of their customers, and they've always been pretty open in their sharing of information (like when Primetime found the DSG problems with the V2.0 files that were promptly fixed) and thus they aren't going to object to the results being posted, whatever they are

Honestly given your posts towards Eurocode and now APR, I am thinking APR is glad you're choosing not to become one of their customers.

[gendry]

Really, you don't see a difference? The point of the REVO thread was to see if said rumored issues actually exist. In contrast, this thread is started by someone who said "I DO have this problem, help me figure out what is wrong" and multiple folks chimed in to say they also DO have this problem.

If several people were chiming into the REVO thread to say "I have REVO and I blew my engine/melted my cat/etc." that would have answered the point of that thread. The next logical question would then be WTF REVO would be doing wrong to create those issues. If Swank or whomever else then said "okay I see REVO blows engines, no further question" that would be a disparity. The problem is, unlike this thread, there was never any solid evidence for the REVO problems. Especially not for any current versions.

You are looking for a pro REVO/anti APR bias where there is none.

So why weren't you demanding the same level of accountability with Revo in their thread re: the blown engines, melted cats, etc? I never saw you demanding they come document every part of their process on the forums.

[integroid]

This thread didnt go to shit until Swank chimed in.

[helix139]

Really, you don't see a difference? The point of the REVO thread was to see if said rumored issues actually exist. In contrast, this thread is started by someone who said "I DO have this problem, help me figure out what is wrong" and multiple folks chimed in to say they also DO have this problem.

If several people were chiming into the REVO thread to say "I have REVO and I blew my engine/melted my cat/etc." that would have answered the point of that thread. The next logical question would then be WTF REVO would be doing wrong to create those issues. If Swank or whomever else then said "okay I see REVO blows engines, no further question" that would be a disparity. The problem is, unlike this thread, there was never any solid evidence for the REVO problems. Especially not for any current versions.

You are looking for a pro REVO/anti APR bias where there is none.

Well IIRC Swank was the one in that thread saying it's ok for tuners to dick around with OEM knock detection (which requires dicking with component protection). It's ok to do that but not to disable a worthless emissions nanny that he thinks is far more important than it is?

[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.

[gendry]

I agree with you that Swank is being quite critical here on APR but wasn't on REVO in the other thread. But that is simply because this thread is about troubleshooting an issue that is shown to exists whereas the other thread was about proving an issue exists.

To the extent someone started a thread where a bunch of people honestly chimed in to say "REVO blew my engine" and then Swank argued that the changes you mentioned were kosher and not relevant in analyzing why the engines blew - I would agree with you 100% that he is inconsistent or trolling. But that isn't what was happening.

I'm not hating on APR. When I tune, APR is probably what I'll end up with. But the pro APR people on this [edit: board] make it very hard to dig in on other tunes or question things about APR.

Well IIRC Swank was the one in that thread saying it's ok for tuners to dick around with OEM knock detection (which requires dicking with component protection). It's ok to do that but not to disable a worthless emissions nanny that he thinks is far more important than it is?

[toerag]

[SwankPeRFection]

So why weren't you demanding the same level of accountability with Revo in their thread re: the blown engines, melted cats, etc? I never saw you demanding they come document every part of their process on the forums.

On top of that, as Arin said you really don't have a clue what you're talking about with the cold start thing. It's purely an emissions nanny for people who idle their cars to warm them up. Nothing else. disabling it isn't going to cause a CEL when it is cold outside. There is something else going on here and without at the very least a VCDS scan, your blaming this on APR removing cold start is purely conjecture, exactly like you and Thomas were accusing everyone of in the Revo thread.

As far as "call us and we'll take care of it," facts are that is going to be the quickest way to get a resolution. You'll get to speak with the right person and get immediate help and feedback rather than having to wait for Arin to see your post and reply to it. I don't really see how that is unreasonable. And fact is, APR does take care of their customers, and they've always been pretty open in their sharing of information (like when Primetime found the DSG problems with the V2.0 files that were promptly fixed) and thus they aren't going to object to the results being posted, whatever they are

Honestly given your posts towards Eurocode and now APR, I am thinking APR is glad you're choosing not to become one of their customers.

I am basing it on exactly what the OP wrote. He had V1.0 and no issues. He got updated to V2.2 (with flash problem nonetheless) and now started to have issues. Is it related? Is it not? We don't know yet, but unless there's a laundry list of other variables that changed (parts, etc.) we have to go by what's been presented to us. Also, I'd like to point out that the OP isn't the only one who's experienced this same behavior under the newest version of the flash. That's all I'm saying we should look at. Also, APR saying they test their flashes in all conditions around the world isn't exactly like Audi saying the same thing. These guys utilize their dealers and other home offices around the country/world to run these tunes either on customer cars (after internal testing) as well as their own cars to see if anything comes up. If all looks OK, then there's no issues in their book, but that small vastness of testing samples is not enough to say it's at the same reliability level as Audi's is.

I get on Audi's ass too about their shitty mech problems on B8's, so it's not like I just pick on APR. EuroCode got dinged by me about their V1 builds of their sway bars too. I pick on everyone equally in hopes of pushing them to solve their issues quicker and faster so that everyone gets what they pay for. Small companies don't always get enough of a push to make things happen. Bringing light to problems will sometimes help this push.

[SwankPeRFection]

Well IIRC Swank was the one in that thread saying it's ok for tuners to dick around with OEM knock detection (which requires dicking with component protection). It's ok to do that but not to disable a worthless emissions nanny that he thinks is far more important than it is?

Actually, the point I'm trying to get across here is that APR bitched and complained that REVO is messing with some Audi factory standards, yet they go and do the same thing and it's all of a sudden OK. Technically speaking, they're dicking around with EMISSIONS STANDARDS!!! That's illegal by Federal law... but then again, who really pays attention when you have people yanking out their cats for performance purposes. The point is... Why is APR excused from the same argument they used against REVO or anyone else who'd mess with anything else that has ZERO affect on improving the performance of the vehicle. I don't think I've EVER heard of ANY other tuner for any other brand of vehicles that disabled cold start routines from an ECU as part of their tuning ideals.

[Arin@APR]

I told people REVO made more ignition advance than APR because they desensitized the knock sensors, said they didn't, and I showed proof. I did this because the changes were dangerous enough to destroy the engine, and as we've seen, they did. I felt that was the right thing to do, and it was.

You are trying to argue turning off cold start is somehow the same the same...

I don't follow your line of logic.

[SwankPeRFection]

I told people REVO made more ignition advance than APR because they desensitized the knock sensors, said they didn't, and I showed proof. I did this because the changes were dangerous enough to destroy the engine, and as we've seen, they did. I felt that was the right thing to do, and it was.

You are trying to argue turning off cold start is somehow the same the same...

I don't follow your line of logic.

I didn't say it would destroy the engine. You think I'm making that correlation, but I'm actually stating that just as REVO had no business messing with some set standards per your principals, I don't see you having a need to do away with the cold start routine. So, seeing as a couple of people have asked in this thread and you've yet to answer....


WHY DID APR DISABLE THE COLD START ROUTINE?

[Arin@APR]

People wanted it.

[rs4dreams]

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

[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!

[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.

[squashman]

People wanted it.

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

[Arin@APR]

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

We can turn it on or off on any file.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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. :)

[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?

[NWS4Guy]

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

Why was the V8 in the B8.5 RS4 upgraded from the B7 RS4, and then upgraded again for the RS5? Because of advances, learning about what makes each iteration better. It's called progress! Of course you also have to consider that the SQ5 is a sport ute, and will have to be able to haul more weight and tow things - potentials that the S4 was never designed around.

[SwankPeRFection]

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

Please post the source of this. Thanks.

[Stereodude]

Please post the source of this. Thanks.

Here you go.