Stage 2 Dyno Results: 2014 GIAC V1 and V2, 2014 Revo, 2012 APR

[mmmkam]

Both were spewing copious amounts of black smoke every 1000 RPMs or so where the APR and Revo car had no noticeable exhaust particulates.

Didn't the Canada guys see the same thing? Did you guys happen to log any misfires like they did on their two cars?

[tgsweat]

Thanks Saxon...didn't know they changed that. AWE site still says it is just recommended for DSG equipped cars.

I still see they say 105-130 HP gains too though.

I think that maybe crank HP and not to the wheels which would be inline with a 93 or 104 tune. We have been mostly seeing around 60whp gains on 93oct on here lately which is close to 80 crank hp which is short of their 105hp but different dynos, different days, different cars **shrugs**

[Skywagon]

I've seen almost 18lbs in 40°weather with apr

That's very good. I've not seen 40F in NC since my first APR flash, not even close. Regardless, owning a B8 certainly makes things considerably less complicated than owning a B8.5.

[SwankPeRFection]

One other interesting thing, both GIAC tunes seemed to run richer than APR and Revo. Both were spewing copious amounts of black smoke every 1000 RPMs or so where the APR and Revo car had no noticeable exhaust particulates.

Didn't the Canada guys see the same thing? Did you guys happen to log any misfires like they did on their two cars?

Not necessarily richer, but could have been misfiring. You can see from the fueling curve that it's crap. I'm surprised they're running as strong as they say they are at the track with such bad tuning. Maybe it was just these two cars, but two cars with identical problems and not blamable on the tune itself but rather other issues? I wouldn't think so.

[saxon]

Not necessarily richer, but could have been misfiring. You can see from the fueling curve that it's crap. I'm surprised they're running as strong as they say they are at the track with such bad tuning. Maybe it was just these two cars, but two cars with identical problems and not blamable on the tune itself but rather other issues? I wouldn't think so.

i wouldnt say horrible tuning, if they arent having any detonation issues i dont see a problem with that fuel curve as it closely resembles stock and with Direct Injection you can run much leaner than you could in the past with a standard port fuel injected vehicle

[saxon]

Thanks Saxon...didn't know they changed that. AWE site still says it is just recommended for DSG equipped cars.

I still see they say 105-130 HP gains too though.

no worries, its very conflicting IMO.

whats even worse is that the software company doesnt even sell their software, instead they refer everyone to a hardware company ?

[BoostEasy]

We had four stage 2 cars get together for a dyno today. Testing was done on a Mustang AWD at PRT Performance in Lewisville, TX. First, let me say, a dyno is a tool, and a very imperfect one if not used correctly. In general, I don't put a lot of weight into it unless it is the same car, same dyno, and there is a good baseline. In this case, we don't have all that, so take it for what you want. I think there are a few things you can take from this, but at the end of the day, it was four different cars that were all slightly different.

Today was the coolest day we have had in DFW in about 6 months. 60 degrees, 82% humidity, and 30.1 barometer. DA was around 1200. Results shown are corrected numbers. All four cars made 3 passes. Highest is shown. First two runs were pretty close, and the last run on all four cars dropped 5-10 AWHP (none of the cars had coolant systems). All cars on 93 octane gas and tunes..

Nice work putting this together! You gents learned a lot, as did we on AZ.

It sounds like you used VCDS to log each car. Would you care to share those logs? I can put them up on datazap for viewing if you want. You also can create an account (easy) and do it yourself as well but if VCDS you have to clean up the first few rows so it imports properly.

Datazap is pretty cool as you can perform all sorts of adjustments in real time, remove/add chart series, resize, zoom etc.

Here is my stock 2014 S5 doing two uphill pulls in 84'F weather for comparison (it's many minutes long. Section and zoom in on the two higher RPM spots). http://datazap.me/u/boosteasy/s5-sto...=2-3-4-5-6-8-9

You can see how the stock setup manages boost and timing depending on IAT. I saw boost as high as 12psi and as low as 6psi. Interestingly it bypassed more boost when IAT was lower, probably just to keep power at a given level.

Milk242: 2014 S4 DSG, GIAC V1 stage 2, AWE pulley, Eurocode intake
308 AWHP, 315 AWTQ
Timing was really low. Topped out at 11 degrees with 2-3 degrees being pulled at higher RPM's..

Really looks like it has a timing problem as the HP and torque curves are pretty choppy. Things get really bad after 5400rpm and HP is clearly way down but torque never even materializes down low/mid. Would be nice to see logs as it could be the boost bypass oscillating up/down try to hit a boost target. Pretty low A/F ratio for post-cat- roughly 11/1.

kappax12: 2014 S5 DSG, GIAC V2 stage 2, AWE pulley, Roc-Euro intake, GIAC DSG tune
358 AWHP, 330 AWTQ
Timing was up to 17-18 degrees, but was pulling 5-6 degrees up top..

Worst graph from smoothness but torque is better than Milk's car. Takes two big hits in the power curve. 1st is at 4700rpm, second is even bigger 5800rpm and goes to hell by 6400. Looks like it would have made close to 390WHP if the tune was sorted out. Heat issue? Octane would certainly help.

Spawn350: 2014 S4 DSG, Revo stage 2, AWE pulley, Eurocode intake, Revo DSG tune
358 AWHP, 345 AWTQ
Timing was high at 21-22 degrees max, and it was not pulling ANY timing on any runs (not sure why it was not making more power.

By far cleanest power curve of the 4 and makes good power to 6800rpm. Why not 7100? Dyno overspeed? Looks like it has some timing/bypass issue starting around 5300rpm and get worse by 5800 and 6300 seems to be richening, possibly from bypass oscillating, misfires or timing pulls.

jran76: 2012 S4 DSG, APR stage 2, APR pulley, CTS intake, AWE exhaust (my exhaust has a blown center muffler right now that may be restricting flow a little).
349 AWHP, 335 AWTQ
Timing was up to 17-18 degrees, with 2-3 degrees being pulled..

Good power. Curve has small bump at 4650 and gets a little wavy until 5400rpm then gets worse possibly from bypass oscillating, misfires or timing pulls.

Conclusions:
**GIAC V1 on the 2014 is a joke
**GIAC V2 is a big improvement
**Revo on the 2014 has the highest timing values, and none being pulled (aggressive for sure, unsafe, I don't know...)
**My APR car is a little low, and my times at the strip bare this out too. The blown AWE exhaust is not helping. I have a new muffler on the way from AWE and it will be installed next week. I also have an AMS cooling kit that will go on soon, with a follow up dyno.
**The Revo DSG tune allows the car to avoid the kick down switch altogether, stock and GIAC (?) do not.

[BoostEasy]

FWIW, the most I ever saw on my APR tune was 15.9 psi, using my P3 gauge with Euro code boost tap. The most with the REVO 16.5. 89F, Baro 29.97

If you're boost tapping the bypass valve tunnel that's pre-intercooler/heat-exchanger. The TMAP sensors are post-IC which the OBD and VCDS report. There should be a 1-2 psi difference post-IC vs pre. Try plugging in your VCDS and see what it says and compare to the max logged by the P3 recall feature. That should give you a starting point on the difference and will provide useful info on the HE pressure drop.

[BoostEasy]

I've seen almost 18lbs in 40°weather with apr

With or without water injection and are you measuring with VCDS or off of a boost tap?

Thanks

[SwankPeRFection]

i wouldnt say horrible tuning, if they arent having any detonation issues i dont see a problem with that fuel curve as it closely resembles stock and with Direct Injection you can run much leaner than you could in the past with a standard port fuel injected vehicle

I don't agree with that. The problem isn't just the fuel curve. It's the power curve too. Put those together and something's not right based on what is shown in the OP. That's all I'm saying. You need to remember that the stock tune is outputting less power and boost when it's still running closed-loop and then all of a sudden you get another small additional increase of power you can feel in the car. That's when the car goes open-loop on you and you get the full potential of the output. I know what it feels like because even my old WRX in stock tune setup would do it. It was a crap config that the factory uses. It had other problems caused by it like bad bucking intermittently if you got off the accelerator too quickly, etc. Once it went aftermarket tune and that fuel curve was flattened out with none of the bs the factory was doing, the power was smooth all the way from down low to redline and no more quirky behavior anywhere. The S4 in stock tune definitely has some behavioral issues depending on certain conditions. If GIAC is maintaining the status quo for how the factory handles fueling demand and flip from closed to open loop and just modifying fuel output and timing while maintaining this same logic, it's going to be a bit hectic. Like I said, either there's something terribly wrong with these two cars or GIAC's tune is a bit wonky. What I don't understand is how they can still post fast times with such a ragged power curve. I asked them before in other threads why they have really bad dips in their power band... nothing ever came of it.

[Austin@GIAC]

This is only for B8 models. B8.5 models do NOT require DSG software. I will have this information updated on our site.

As for the results here, it seems some people are taking these results as the gospel over real world results, which I find incredibly troubling. Our software will still pull timing if the IATs get too hot on a dyno that does not have sufficient cooling. Turning off these safeties causes Exhaust Gas/cylinder temperature issues in the real world and can lead to catalytic converter failure and/or catastrophic engine failure. These cars have long gearing in 4th gear and if the dyno shop does not have a very strong fan setup, the car will likely see some timing correction in the higher RPM band due intake air temperatures rising beyond what you would see on the street. This information can be confirmed by simply comparing a 4th gear pull on the street and comparing it to the dyno IATs.

Our times aren't a fluke as we literally hold all of the records for the 3.0T:

• Quickest ¼ mile E.T (Race DSG): 11.6108 seconds
• Fastest ¼ mile Trap speed (Race DSG): 119.77 mph
• Quickest 1/8 mile elapsed time: 7.4671 seconds
• Quickest ¼ E.T (Race 6MT – B8.5): 11.855 seconds
• Fastest ¼ Trap speed (Race 6MT – B8.5): 117.90 mph
• Quickest ¼ E.T (Pump DSG): 11.844 seconds
• Fastest Trap ¼ speed (Pump DSG): 116.49 mph
• Quickest 60’ time: 1.6042 seconds (using GIAC launch control, street tires)
• GIAC is the ONLY software tuner to run 11 second ¼ mile times with B8.5 platform S4/S5 models.

[Austin@GIAC]

I don't agree with that. The problem isn't just the fuel curve. It's the power curve too. Put those together and something's not right based on what is shown in the OP. That's all I'm saying. You need to remember that the stock tune is outputting less power and boost when it's still running closed-loop and then all of a sudden you get another small additional increase of power you can feel in the car. That's when the car goes open-loop on you and you get the full potential of the output. I know what it feels like because even my old WRX in stock tune setup would do it. It was a crap config that the factory uses. It had other problems caused by it like bad bucking intermittently if you got off the accelerator too quickly, etc. Once it went aftermarket tune and that fuel curve was flattened out with none of the bs the factory was doing, the power was smooth all the way from down low to redline and no more quirky behavior anywhere. The S4 in stock tune definitely has some behavioral issues depending on certain conditions. If GIAC is maintaining the status quo for how the factory handles fueling demand and flip from closed to open loop and just modifying fuel output and timing while maintaining this same logic, it's going to be a bit hectic. Like I said, either there's something terribly wrong with these two cars or GIAC's tune is a bit wonky. What I don't understand is how they can still post fast times with such a ragged power curve. I asked them before in other threads why they have really bad dips in their power band... nothing ever came of it.

You're making a strong assumption that this dyno is outputting real world-like numbers with literally no data to back it up. Our software will absolutely move around if the temperatures being measured on the dyno aren't like what the car would see in the real world. This is a GOOD thing. There are plenty of timing logs, fueling and boost logs on the street that don't show any sort of oscillation at all. Our cars go fast because they're tuned to do so in the real world, not on a random dyno, which may not have a proper fan setup to properly test 3.0Ts to achieve real world results.

[SwankPeRFection]

You're making a strong assumption that this dyno is outputting real world-like numbers with literally no data to back it up. Our software will absolutely move around if the temperatures being measured on the dyno aren't like what the car would see in the real world. This is a GOOD thing. There are plenty of timing logs, fueling and boost logs on the street that don't show any sort of oscillation at all. Our cars go fast because they're tuned to do so in the real world, not on a random dyno, which may not have a proper fan setup to properly test 3.0Ts to achieve real world results.

Yet the only two cars that were in this dyno test that behaved like this were both GIAC cars. Hey, I have no doubt your tune is fast, there's one or two people posting record times at the strip, but based on what I'm seeing here and in comparison to the other two, your tune and it's fuel curve aspect isn't one I agree with. I've asked you before why every single plot of your cars (even ones on your own dyno sheets posted on the website) shows some dips in the power band and you've always skirted around them. That's cool, whatever. All I'm saying is that if I came to you and you gave me this tune, I'd tell you to go back to the drawing board with it. I've done it with other companies in the past when I've seen similar results. Each and every time there was someone else out there private or public that had a much better tune and much smoother one. Everyone tunes different and if you're happy with what you have and your customers are supposedly happy, then so be it. What I'm telling you is that I wouldn't be happy with it if this is what I got. Your excuse of the dyno setup not being optimal to match what you've done on the street (somewhere where you cannot measure output, but go by logs and trial and error) is not good enough. People have to have a way to measure what you advertise and sell. Just like you don't want us to take the OP results as gospel, you cannot expect everyone else to take your word as gospel either.

Here's the deal. There are tunes that run fast as shit and on the ragged edge at the strip and post the highest times. Then there's tunes that can run those same stints for long periods of times and be measured and repetitively show the stability of the setup. This is just my humble opinion, but I think a lot of you in this particular tuning industry should probably thank Audi's safety systems that are in place because that's probably what's keeping these motors safe to some degree. That is all.

[Austin@GIAC]

Yet the only two cars that were in this dyno test that behaved like this were both GIAC cars. Hey, I have no doubt your tune is fast, there's one or two people posting record times at the strip, but based on what I'm seeing here and in comparison to the other two, your tune and it's fuel curve aspect isn't one I agree with. I've asked you before why every single plot of your cars (even ones on your own dyno sheets posted on the website) shows some dips in the power band and you've always skirted around them. That's cool, whatever. All I'm saying is that if I came to you and you gave me this tune, I'd tell you to go back to the drawing board with it. I've done it with other companies in the past when I've seen similar results. Each and every time there was someone else out there private or public that had a much better tune and much smoother one. Everyone tunes different and if you're happy with what you have and your customers are supposedly happy, then so be it. What I'm telling you is that I wouldn't be happy with it if this is what I got. Your excuse of the dyno setup not being optimal to match what you've done on the street (somewhere where you cannot measure output, but go by logs and trial and error) is not good enough. People have to have a way to measure what you advertise and sell. Just like you don't want us to take the OP results as gospel, you cannot expect everyone else to take your word as gospel either.

Here's the deal. There are tunes that run fast as shit and on the ragged edge at the strip and post the highest times. Then there's tunes that can run those same stints for long periods of times and be measured and repetitively show the stability of the setup. This is just my humble opinion, but I think a lot of you in this particular tuning industry should probably thank Audi's safety systems that are in place because that's probably what's keeping these motors safe to some degree. That is all.

You're painting a picture that is completely backwards. You can see that our software moves around and isn't on the ragged edge at all. These dyno tests prove that. You can also see that the hot weather caused power degradation as well. Anyone can make a smooth high plot, but you need to turn off a lot of things to make that plot smooth in ALL conditions. We've gotten these better real world results because we haven't turned any of this off. If you're looking for a company to turn off/desensitize knock sensors or any temperature related safeties, we're not the company for you. Conversely, if you want a company that retains reliability while still breaking records, that is what we're doing.

As for only 2 people cracking records, JJones and Auditude do run a great deal more, but it's because they want to push the envelope. Free ride was the first 2013 to break 11s on pump gas with his 2013 S4 using GIAC Stage 2, GIAC DSG software and an intake ([email protected] mph). AWE Then broke that record with their [email protected], on 93 octane with their full stage 2 outfit, GIAC DSG software (and 20 inch rims+2013 model). Then bigjohn009 ran [email protected] mph on 93 octane with GIAC Stage 2, GIAC DSG software and an intake (2014 model). Supreme Power's S4 ran [email protected] mph on 91/E85 which at the time was the fastest B8.5 time run before Auditude took that time with the 2013 DSG they have.

[jran76]

You're painting a picture that is completely backwards. You can see that our software moves around and isn't on the ragged edge at all. These dyno tests prove that. You can also see that the hot weather caused power degradation as well. Anyone can make a smooth high plot, but you need to turn off a lot of things to make that plot smooth in ALL conditions. We've gotten these better real world results because we haven't turned any of this off. If you're looking for a company to turn off/desensitize knock sensors or any temperature related safeties, we're not the company for you. Conversely, if you want a company that retains reliability while still breaking records, that is what we're doing.

I'll agree in that the GIAC V2 logs are what I typically expect to see, and it definitely does not look like it is on the ragged edge. Quite the opposite really. Knock/timing pull sucks in terms of power delivery, but it is a necessary evil when it comes to protecting the engine. This dyno had two cooling fans, but they were not huge (the industrial type you might see used to dry carpet). I would expect some timing being pulled as things heated up, and the fact the GIAC setup made as much power as the Revo setup that had no timing pulled on any runs is a good sign. The Revo looks smoother because they have obviously taken a different approach to tuning this engine that doesn't involve pulling timing in this type of scenario (again, I can't comment on what this really means in terms of our engines; I do understand what is happening in both cases....).

The only troubling sign with the GIAC runs is both cars were spewing out quite a bit of back smoke every few seconds (not constant) which I think would indicate a rich fuel mixture at those points. It does make me nervous that the Revo car did not pull any timing at all, but I would have to reserve final judgement until they explained why they did it that way, and why it is as safe as pulling timing. Even the boost bypass was pretty minimal. Less than 1% on the first run, and up to 4% on the last run, but only at really high RPM's.

Austin, I don't think you need to vigorously defend your tune (at least not V2). This thread definitely was not intended to dissuade anyone from any of these tunes. It was just to add one more data point to the tuning picture. Real world results do matter, and all logs I have seen from APR and GIAC seem fine for the most part. I don't have any real-world logs from Revo, so can't comment there. All three seem to be pretty even at this point (yes, yes, yes, Jones took the top spot from Ron and Ryan, but his car is slightly more modded, and at the end of the day all are REALLY too close to call). The only unknown for me at this point is how safe is the Revo tune long-term compared to the others. It looks great on paper, but I do have concerns about no timing being pulled, but I can't say it's an issue for sure; I just know from experience that 23 degrees with no knock/timing pull is a lot.

[milk242]

I'm going to schedule another dyno for v2 without dsg to see if v1 sucks or my car sucks.

[jran76]

I'm going to schedule another dyno for v2 without dsg to see if v1 sucks or my car sucks.

Just seeing the timing on V1, I have to believe your issues are tune related. I think V2 is the way to go. I'm going dyno again the my exhaust fixed and the AMS cooling kit, so let me know when you're ready, and I'll try to go up there with you.

[SwankPeRFection]

You're painting a picture that is completely backwards. You can see that our software moves around and isn't on the ragged edge at all. These dyno tests prove that. You can also see that the hot weather caused power degradation as well. Anyone can make a smooth high plot, but you need to turn off a lot of things to make that plot smooth in ALL conditions. We've gotten these better real world results because we haven't turned any of this off. If you're looking for a company to turn off/desensitize knock sensors or any temperature related safeties, we're not the company for you. Conversely, if you want a company that retains reliability while still breaking records, that is what we're doing.

As for only 2 people cracking records, JJones and Auditude do run a great deal more, but it's because they want to push the envelope. Free ride was the first 2013 to break 11s on pump gas with his 2013 S4 using GIAC Stage 2, GIAC DSG software and an intake ([email protected] mph). AWE Then broke that record with their [email protected], on 93 octane with their full stage 2 outfit, GIAC DSG software (and 20 inch rims+2013 model). Then bigjohn009 ran [email protected] mph on 93 octane with GIAC Stage 2, GIAC DSG software and an intake (2014 model). Supreme Power's S4 ran [email protected] mph on 91/E85 which at the time was the fastest B8.5 time run before Auditude took that time with the 2013 DSG they have.

So you're saying both APR and REVO have desensitized their OTS tunes to make the power curve and fuel curve as smooth and as expected as shown in the OP? That's what you're saying?

[SwankPeRFection]

I'll agree in that the GIAC V2 logs are what I typically expect to see, and it definitely does not look like it is on the ragged edge. Quite the opposite really. Knock/timing pull sucks in terms of power delivery, but it is a necessary evil when it comes to protecting the engine. This dyno had two cooling fans, but they were not huge (the industrial type you might see used to dry carpet). I would expect some timing being pulled as things heated up, and the fact the GIAC setup made as much power as the Revo setup that had no timing pulled on any runs is a good sign. The Revo looks smoother because they have obviously taken a different approach to tuning this engine that doesn't involve pulling timing in this type of scenario (again, I can't comment on what this really means in terms of our engines; I do understand what is happening in both cases....).

The only troubling sign with the GIAC runs is both cars were spewing out quite a bit of back smoke every few seconds (not constant) which I think would indicate a rich fuel mixture at those points. It does make me nervous that the Revo car did not pull any timing at all, but I would have to reserve final judgement until they explained why they did it that way, and why it is as safe as pulling timing. Even the boost bypass was pretty minimal. Less than 1% on the first run, and up to 4% on the last run, but only at really high RPM's.

Austin, I don't think you need to vigorously defend your tune (at least not V2). This thread definitely was not intended to dissuade anyone from any of these tunes. It was just to add one more data point to the tuning picture. Real world results do matter, and all logs I have seen from APR and GIAC seem fine for the most part. I don't have any real-world logs from Revo, so can't comment there. All three seem to be pretty even at this point (yes, yes, yes, Jones took the top spot from Ron and Ryan, but his car is slightly more modded, and at the end of the day all are REALLY too close to call). The only unknown for me at this point is how safe is the Revo tune long-term compared to the others. It looks great on paper, but I do have concerns about no timing being pulled, but I can't say it's an issue for sure; I just know from experience that 23 degrees with no knock/timing pull is a lot.

It shows (if you were to log it) that timing is probably getting pulled and that there is now an excess of unburnt fuel in the mix.

While I agree that the GIAC tune is not on the ragged edge in terms of timing, the thing that I don't like is that the fuel curve is crap and on top of that timing is getting pulled. This is what I'm trying to say. It looks like insufficient fuel tuning is being used and because of that, timing is having to be dialed back due to knock events, etc. Maybe I didn't say that clearly enough in my previous posts, but here it is now.

[Docwyte]

I'd much rather have timing pulled then have a reliability issue...

[SwankPeRFection]

I'll agree in that the GIAC V2 logs are what I typically expect to see, and it definitely does not look like it is on the ragged edge. Quite the opposite really. Knock/timing pull sucks in terms of power delivery, but it is a necessary evil when it comes to protecting the engine. This dyno had two cooling fans, but they were not huge (the industrial type you might see used to dry carpet). I would expect some timing being pulled as things heated up, and the fact the GIAC setup made as much power as the Revo setup that had no timing pulled on any runs is a good sign. The Revo looks smoother because they have obviously taken a different approach to tuning this engine that doesn't involve pulling timing in this type of scenario (again, I can't comment on what this really means in terms of our engines; I do understand what is happening in both cases....).

The only troubling sign with the GIAC runs is both cars were spewing out quite a bit of back smoke every few seconds (not constant) which I think would indicate a rich fuel mixture at those points. It does make me nervous that the Revo car did not pull any timing at all, but I would have to reserve final judgement until they explained why they did it that way, and why it is as safe as pulling timing. Even the boost bypass was pretty minimal. Less than 1% on the first run, and up to 4% on the last run, but only at really high RPM's.

Austin, I don't think you need to vigorously defend your tune (at least not V2). This thread definitely was not intended to dissuade anyone from any of these tunes. It was just to add one more data point to the tuning picture. Real world results do matter, and all logs I have seen from APR and GIAC seem fine for the most part. I don't have any real-world logs from Revo, so can't comment there. All three seem to be pretty even at this point (yes, yes, yes, Jones took the top spot from Ron and Ryan, but his car is slightly more modded, and at the end of the day all are REALLY too close to call). The only unknown for me at this point is how safe is the Revo tune long-term compared to the others. It looks great on paper, but I do have concerns about no timing being pulled, but I can't say it's an issue for sure; I just know from experience that 23 degrees with no knock/timing pull is a lot.

They had indicated that the most current calibration of their tune (as of possibly more than a year) they are no longer messing with the safety margins and there was another thread where someone logged a current gen tune from them and showed knock correct and timing values at expected numbers. Considering the car was a 2014, you'd think they had this newest code.

[sigaddict]

Who is they? APR, REVO, or both? My assumption is your are talking about REVO, just want to verify

Sent from my Nexus 5

[SwankPeRFection]

Who is they? APR, REVO, or both? My assumption is your are talking about REVO, just want to verify

Sent from my Nexus 5

What did I bold? That's what I'm talking about. You have to have some historical knowledge of several threads and discussions on here prior to your joining up in order to understand a lot of this discussion.

[Austin@GIAC]

It shows (if you were to log it) that timing is probably getting pulled and that there is now an excess of unburnt fuel in the mix.

While I agree that the GIAC tune is not on the ragged edge in terms of timing, the thing that I don't like is that the fuel curve is crap and on top of that timing is getting pulled. This is what I'm trying to say. It looks like insufficient fuel tuning is being used and because of that, timing is having to be dialed back due to knock events, etc. Maybe I didn't say that clearly enough in my previous posts, but here it is now.

Knock events (pre-detonation) create white smoke, not black (which denotes being rich, something that prevents knock). If the timing is pulled, there is a momentary event where the O2 sensors need to adjust, and yes there would be unburnt fuel. But it is happening to prevent knock, not due to it. This is more noticeable on a direct injection car than a conventional injection one. Again you have it backwards, if we were running TOO much timing, it would be more knock prone. Too little timing wouldn't cause that to occur, especially since these are target lambda cars that will adjust to hit our target no matter the timing maps we run. In any event, the timing numbers they quoted are low for what we see when logging the cars on the street. The car would make quite a bit more power than that if the safeties weren't tugging the timing down.

[sigaddict]

Sorry, didn't notice the bold on my phone, but looking into tunes for my car, so that's why I'm asking questions. Btw, I've been a member for a while and a serious lurker before actually joining :)

Sent from my Nexus 5

[jran76]

Knock events (pre-detonation) create white smoke, not black (which denotes being rich, something that prevents knock). If the timing is pulled, there is a momentary event where the O2 sensors need to adjust, and yes there would be unburnt fuel. But it is happening to prevent knock, not due to it. This is more noticeable on a direct injection car than a conventional injection one. Again you have it backwards, if we were running TOO much timing, it would be more knock prone. Too little timing wouldn't cause that to occur, especially since these are target lambda cars that will adjust to hit our target no matter the timing maps we run. In any event, the timing numbers they quoted are low for what we see when logging the cars on the street. The car would make quite a bit more power than that if the safeties weren't tugging the timing down.

Thanks. That make sense. What do you normally see for timing on 93 with you V2 tune? I have not seen anything over 18-19 degrees on APR or GIAC, but all my testing has been in pretty hot weather (that dyno day was the lowest at 1200 DA). Everything else has been 2000 DA or higher, which is definitely effecting timing....

[jran76]

They had indicated that the most current calibration of their tune (as of possibly more than a year) they are no longer messing with the safety margins and there was another thread where someone logged a current gen tune from them and showed knock correct and timing values at expected numbers. Considering the car was a 2014, you'd think they had this newest code.

I'd much rather have timing pulled then have a reliability issue...

At this point it is just speculation unless Revo comes on here to discuss (which I don't think it is going to happen). I wouldn't call it a reliability problem right now. There are just too many unknown factors to determine exactly what it means. All things being equal, the timing is high, and it did not pull any timing compared to the other 3 cars, but again, I don't know that you can draw any definitive conclusions without more details on their logic. I'm not trying to defend anyone here, but there is only so much you see on a dyno chart and minimal logging.

[SwankPeRFection]

Knock events (pre-detonation) create white smoke, not black (which denotes being rich, something that prevents knock). If the timing is pulled, there is a momentary event where the O2 sensors need to adjust, and yes there would be unburnt fuel. But it is happening to prevent knock, not due to it. This is more noticeable on a direct injection car than a conventional injection one. Again you have it backwards, if we were running TOO much timing, it would be more knock prone. Too little timing wouldn't cause that to occur, especially since these are target lambda cars that will adjust to hit our target no matter the timing maps we run. In any event, the timing numbers they quoted are low for what we see when logging the cars on the street. The car would make quite a bit more power than that if the safeties weren't tugging the timing down.

I don't care if detonation is causing the timing to get pulled down or a predefined safety doing it. To some extent, only results of the combustion process will cause those safeties to come into play that quickly and pull timing back. Usually if the safety measure like temp correction pulls down the timing to combat "possible" knock as opposed to actual knock, the fuel curves get pulled back into line as well. Abrupt changes in timing usually causes two things... rich condition to occur due to unburnt fuel sporadically and hiccups int he power curve.

Anyway, I don't agree with what that fuel curve looks like in comparison to the other two and in comparison to what I know based on my experiences over the past 15 years. I don't like how it looks on these two S4's and I don't like how it looks like when I saw it on some preliminary new M4 tunes someone was working on. Power was flat at crap or only slightly climbing and then when fuel opened up, all of a sudden a surge of additional power came on. There's no argument about it that it has to deal with open/closed loop fueling.

[Jeff@RevoUSA]

Sorry for the late reply...

Here is a response from Robin, one of our engineers who works on the Siemens projects:

The numbers would be higher if the car was allowed to rev-- with the DSG flash, 7000-7100RPM is possible and the car will continue to make peak power the higher it revs. We usually see another 15-20HP when the car is at redline vs when the standard DSG file changes gear. These dyno charts don’t show the actual benefit of having the DSG controller flashed.

To properly interpret the data, you have to have an understanding of how the SIMOS ECU works. It has three different timing tables that it will interpolate from to arrive at a final ignition timing value after passing through many factors for cat temp, intake air temp, load, etc etc... Precise calibration of these tables is necessary to achieve a smooth and strong timing curve. The fact that the car wasn't pulling anything out is GOOD, that means it's running happily and not having to make many adjustments. After 4-5 pulls, it will have adapted to the load and conditions on the dyno and would have started pulling a degree or two out now and then. We usually find the cars make peak power after a few pulls, not on the first pull like most cars. If you ask for too much timing, the car will actually make much less than is actually achievable. Best results are achieved with tables that are actually conservative! The stock strategy is EXTREMELY conservative with how it responds to knock. When it picks up a little bit, it will pull out MUCH more timing than is necessary, creating higher EGTs and a sloppy curve. We modify the factory strategy in a way that keeps the factory safety routines in place, but changes the response loop so it will pull less timing and add it back in quicker. It’s not “turning off the knock sensors” as posted above. Obviously we don't recommend this, but the car can still remove enough timing to safely run the 100 program on 93, or the 93 program on 91. The stronger timing curve helps torque, power, and keeps EGTs under control. A word that keeps getting thrown around in this thread is "desensitizing"... that's not what's occurring, we're simply changing the OEM strategy to allow the car to run as we desire. The OEM engineers who tuned this car weren't looking for peak power, or pretty curves. They were given a power level, CO2 and NOx emissions limits, and fuel consumption limits and they had to make everything work in a package that has to satisfy everybody. This is why we are able to make such good gains on these cars, because of the highly conservative factory logic and the fact that the motor runs at about 70HP off of it's potential. From a reliability standpoint, we have thousands of 3.0Ts running all over the world in various platforms without any reliability issues.

The factory fuel strategy in the 3.0T is modified as well with our code. The stock car will run fairly lean until crossing a modeled EGT threshold of about 900C, then will enrich heavily at that point to cool things off. If this strategy isn't modified, the fueling will be inconsistent. The car is always in a targeted lambda closed loop mode, it never runs "open loop" as stated in this thread. The ECU targets a specific lambda based on mass air flow and RPM. We go richer earlier, to keep EGTs in control and allow for more ignition timing. In this case, the Revo car started to enrich at about 6500rpm probably because it was starting to get hot. On the street this will usually not happen until 5th gear or so, but it can happen sooner on the dyno with less airflow and different loading. Keep in mind a tailpipe wideband sensor as used on this dyno will read about half a point leaner than the car is actually running due to the catalyst. The black smoke noticed on the other cars is most likely a result of knock. The car will enrich under knock to try and cure it, and it's usually visible as small puffs of smoke under heavy load.

Regards,

[sigaddict]

Thanks for the explanation! Wow, hopefully you didn't give up the secret sauce there :)

Sent from my Nexus 5

[tgsweat]

Thanks for the explanation! Wow, hopefully you didn't give up the secret sauce there :)

Sent from my Nexus 5

+1

[jran76]

Sorry for the late reply...

Here is a response from Robin, one of our engineers who works on the Siemens projects:

The numbers would be higher if the car was allowed to rev-- with the DSG flash, 7000-7100RPM is possible and the car will continue to make peak power the higher it revs. We usually see another 15-20HP when the car is at redline vs when the standard DSG file changes gear. These dyno charts don’t show the actual benefit of having the DSG controller flashed.

To properly interpret the data, you have to have an understanding of how the SIMOS ECU works. It has three different timing tables that it will interpolate from to arrive at a final ignition timing value after passing through many factors for cat temp, intake air temp, load, etc etc... Precise calibration of these tables is necessary to achieve a smooth and strong timing curve. The fact that the car wasn't pulling anything out is GOOD, that means it's running happily and not having to make many adjustments. After 4-5 pulls, it will have adapted to the load and conditions on the dyno and would have started pulling a degree or two out now and then. We usually find the cars make peak power after a few pulls, not on the first pull like most cars. If you ask for too much timing, the car will actually make much less than is actually achievable. Best results are achieved with tables that are actually conservative! The stock strategy is EXTREMELY conservative with how it responds to knock. When it picks up a little bit, it will pull out MUCH more timing than is necessary, creating higher EGTs and a sloppy curve. We modify the factory strategy in a way that keeps the factory safety routines in place, but changes the response loop so it will pull less timing and add it back in quicker. It’s not “turning off the knock sensors” as posted above. Obviously we don't recommend this, but the car can still remove enough timing to safely run the 100 program on 93, or the 93 program on 91. The stronger timing curve helps torque, power, and keeps EGTs under control. A word that keeps getting thrown around in this thread is "desensitizing"... that's not what's occurring, we're simply changing the OEM strategy to allow the car to run as we desire. The OEM engineers who tuned this car weren't looking for peak power, or pretty curves. They were given a power level, CO2 and NOx emissions limits, and fuel consumption limits and they had to make everything work in a package that has to satisfy everybody. This is why we are able to make such good gains on these cars, because of the highly conservative factory logic and the fact that the motor runs at about 70HP off of it's potential. From a reliability standpoint, we have thousands of 3.0Ts running all over the world in various platforms without any reliability issues.

The factory fuel strategy in the 3.0T is modified as well with our code. The stock car will run fairly lean until crossing a modeled EGT threshold of about 900C, then will enrich heavily at that point to cool things off. If this strategy isn't modified, the fueling will be inconsistent. The car is always in a targeted lambda closed loop mode, it never runs "open loop" as stated in this thread. The ECU targets a specific lambda based on mass air flow and RPM. We go richer earlier, to keep EGTs in control and allow for more ignition timing. In this case, the Revo car started to enrich at about 6500rpm probably because it was starting to get hot. On the street this will usually not happen until 5th gear or so, but it can happen sooner on the dyno with less airflow and different loading. Keep in mind a tailpipe wideband sensor as used on this dyno will read about half a point leaner than the car is actually running due to the catalyst. The black smoke noticed on the other cars is most likely a result of knock. The car will enrich under knock to try and cure it, and it's usually visible as small puffs of smoke under heavy load.

Regards,

Thanks for the reply (I'll take back what I said about us not likely getting an explanation, and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't). That's a lot to digest, so I need to let it sink in. I will add that the Revo car had the DSG tune, and in fact it did rev to almost 7000 RPM on at least one of the passes without much of a change. I think the dyno was reading slightly less RPM's than what the logs were showing.

[SwankPeRFection]

Sorry for the late reply...

Here is a response from Robin, one of our engineers who works on the Siemens projects:

The numbers would be higher if the car was allowed to rev-- with the DSG flash, 7000-7100RPM is possible and the car will continue to make peak power the higher it revs. We usually see another 15-20HP when the car is at redline vs when the standard DSG file changes gear. These dyno charts don’t show the actual benefit of having the DSG controller flashed.

To properly interpret the data, you have to have an understanding of how the SIMOS ECU works. It has three different timing tables that it will interpolate from to arrive at a final ignition timing value after passing through many factors for cat temp, intake air temp, load, etc etc... Precise calibration of these tables is necessary to achieve a smooth and strong timing curve. The fact that the car wasn't pulling anything out is GOOD, that means it's running happily and not having to make many adjustments. After 4-5 pulls, it will have adapted to the load and conditions on the dyno and would have started pulling a degree or two out now and then. We usually find the cars make peak power after a few pulls, not on the first pull like most cars. If you ask for too much timing, the car will actually make much less than is actually achievable. Best results are achieved with tables that are actually conservative! The stock strategy is EXTREMELY conservative with how it responds to knock. When it picks up a little bit, it will pull out MUCH more timing than is necessary, creating higher EGTs and a sloppy curve. We modify the factory strategy in a way that keeps the factory safety routines in place, but changes the response loop so it will pull less timing and add it back in quicker. It’s not “turning off the knock sensors” as posted above. Obviously we don't recommend this, but the car can still remove enough timing to safely run the 100 program on 93, or the 93 program on 91. The stronger timing curve helps torque, power, and keeps EGTs under control. A word that keeps getting thrown around in this thread is "desensitizing"... that's not what's occurring, we're simply changing the OEM strategy to allow the car to run as we desire. The OEM engineers who tuned this car weren't looking for peak power, or pretty curves. They were given a power level, CO2 and NOx emissions limits, and fuel consumption limits and they had to make everything work in a package that has to satisfy everybody. This is why we are able to make such good gains on these cars, because of the highly conservative factory logic and the fact that the motor runs at about 70HP off of it's potential. From a reliability standpoint, we have thousands of 3.0Ts running all over the world in various platforms without any reliability issues.

The factory fuel strategy in the 3.0T is modified as well with our code. The stock car will run fairly lean until crossing a modeled EGT threshold of about 900C, then will enrich heavily at that point to cool things off. If this strategy isn't modified, the fueling will be inconsistent. The car is always in a targeted lambda closed loop mode, it never runs "open loop" as stated in this thread. The ECU targets a specific lambda based on mass air flow and RPM. We go richer earlier, to keep EGTs in control and allow for more ignition timing. In this case, the Revo car started to enrich at about 6500rpm probably because it was starting to get hot. On the street this will usually not happen until 5th gear or so, but it can happen sooner on the dyno with less airflow and different loading. Keep in mind a tailpipe wideband sensor as used on this dyno will read about half a point leaner than the car is actually running due to the catalyst. The black smoke noticed on the other cars is most likely a result of knock. The car will enrich under knock to try and cure it, and it's usually visible as small puffs of smoke under heavy load.

Regards,

I'm just going to quote this because I like it so much. Especially the last few sentences. lol But what do I know... I'm apparently just a stupid user on forum who represents the customer base that gets belittled by other companies who think we're too stupid to know anything.

I will say that one thing I wasn't aware of is that this ECU never throws the car into open loop. I have no doubt that this is some kind of EPA mandate or something, but either way, it's good info. Wish more companies trusted in the idea that sharing knowledge like this is a good thing.

[saxon]

Thank you so much for the reply. That's the first time I've been happy with a response from a vendor about their tune on this forum!!

Now go and break the 1/4 mile record

[migo1980]

Thanks revo

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Southern]

I really hope the local installer here in Atlanta gets this new Revo tune soon.

[raudiace4]

Thank you so much for the reply. That's the first time I've been happy with a response from a vendor about their tune on this forum!!

Now go and break the 1/4 mile record

All those GIAC cars that set the records or that got close to 11.6ish were running meth correct? They should have an asterisk after their times IMO.

[Jeff@RevoUSA]

I really hope the local installer here in Atlanta gets this new Revo tune soon.

They already have it

[jran76]

All those GIAC cars that set the records or that got close to 11.6ish were running meth correct? They should have an asterisk after their times IMO.

Jones said he was not running with meth went he set his record. Just race gas.

[saxon]

All those GIAC cars that set the records or that got close to 11.6ish were running meth correct? They should have an asterisk after their times IMO.

no, jones2012 didnt have meth running on his record tying runs