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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?