APR v2.2 occasionally going into limp mode

[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?

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.