Dyno Results - Stock vs. APR Stage 1 vs. ???

[Avned]

*** UPDATE 9/21/16 APR Stage2 w/downpipes dyno results added ***

I wanted to create a thread to put all of my dyno results in one place. Also, for those curious as to what each stage is doing in real world numbers. In addition, to make sure I was really making the power that I was paying for.

All dyno runs were performed on the same mustang dyno by the same tech. Ambient conditions were very similar. ~4000-5000 DA

I'm glad to see a decent increase with the RocEuro intake (may actually be E85blend that caused the increase). Also, the AMS cooler was working beautifully. We did 6 back to back runs today (7/2) with only a couple minutes between runs and the car pulled consistent numbers throughout each. All within 1-3hp of each other. The tech was very impressed on how smooth and consistent the power curve is and surprisingly how stable the AFR was with the E85 blend. I was also data logging throughout to make sure timing was good. I will be going through that data later.

Mustang Dynamometer, uncorrected, ~4000+DA

	Stock -91 octane	APR Stage 1 -91 map	APR Stage 1 -91 map +E85blend (E25)	APR Stage 1 -93 map +E85blend (E25)	APR Stage 2 -93 map +E85blend (E36)	APR Stage 2 -100 map +E85blend (E36)
AWHP actual	369.3	395.5	416.9	433.2	437.5	453.7
AWTQ actual	352.3	469.2	497.5	523.9	559.7	583.9

STOCK
-no mods
- 91 octane

vs.

APR Stage 1
- 91 map
- AWE Touring Exhaust
- 21" TSW Bathurst ~5lbs/ea. weight savings

	Stock - 91 octane	APR Stage 1-91 map
AWHP actual	369.3	395.5
AWTQ actual	352.3	469.2

APR Stage 1
- 91 map
- AWE Touring Exhaust
- 21" TSW Bathurst ~5lbs/ea. weight savings

vs.

APR Stage 1
- 91 map
- 91/E85 blend (~E25)
- AWE Touring Exhaust
- 21" TSW Bathurst ~5lbs/ea. weight savings
- RocEuro Intake
- AMS Cooler

	APR Stage 1-91 map	APR Stage 1-91 map + RocEuro
AWHP actual	395.5	416.9
AWTQ actual	469.2	497.5

APR Stage 1
- 91 map
- 91/E85 blend (~E25)
- AWE Touring Exhaust
- 21" TSW Bathurst ~5lbs/ea. weight savings
- RocEuro Intake
- AMS Cooler

vs.

APR Stage 1
- 93 map
- 91/E85 blend (~E25)
- AWE Touring Exhaust
- 21" TSW Bathurst ~5lbs/ea. weight savings
- RocEuro Intake
- AMS Cooler

	APR Stage 1-91 map	APR Stage 1-93 map
AWHP actual	416.9	433.2
AWTQ actual	497.5	523.9

APR Stage 1 93 vs. APR Stage 2 93 vs. APR Stage 2 100

APR Stage 2
- 93/100 map
- 91/E85 blend (~E36)
- 2.5oz Aces IV
- AWE Touring Exhaust
- APR downpipes
- 21" TSW Bathurst ~5lbs/ea. weight savings
- RocEuro Intake
- AMS Cooler

[bhvrdr]

Looks like you were running 91 octane on the runs with the stock intake and some e85 with the roc - euro intake runs. If that's the case it's not possible to say the intake gave any gains or not.

Mike

[fatboydelights]

Wow nice numbers!!! I wonder if there will be similar gains with the roc-euro on stock tune? Not wanting to risk my warranty quite yet. Btw thanks for the spacers, they're awesome!

[Avned]

Looks like you were running 91 octane on the runs with the stock intake and some e85 with the roc - euro intake runs. If that's the case it's not possible to say the intake gave any gains or not.

Mike

That could be the case, but I don't see how just the E85 could bump HP that much when both are on the 91 file. Either way, I like the sound and glad its running smoothly.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow nice numbers!!! I wonder if there will be similar gains with the roc-euro on stock tune? Not wanting to risk my warranty quite yet. Btw thanks for the spacers, they're awesome!

Thank you! And glad the spacers are working out for you.

[pez81]

I wanted to create a thread to put all of my dyno results in one place. Also, for those curious as to what each stage is doing in real world numbers. In addition, to make sure I was really making the power that I was paying for.

All dyno runs were performed on the same mustang dyno by the same tech. Ambient conditions were very similar.

I'm glad to see a decent increase with the RocEuro intake. Also, the AMS cooler was working beautifully. We did 6 back to back runs today (7/2) with only a couple minutes between runs and the car pulled consistent numbers throughout each. All within 1-3hp of each other. The tech was very impressed on how smooth and consistent the power curve is and surprisingly how stable the AFR was with the E85 blend. I was also data logging throughout to make sure timing was good. I will be going through that data later.

	Stock -91 octane	APR Stage 1 -91 octane	APR Stage 1 -91 octane + RocEuro	APR Stage 1 -93 octane
AWHP actual	369.3	395.5	416.9	433.2
AWTQ actual	352.3	469.2	497.5	523.9

Great post its about time someone did this. Very detailed and thorough thanks for sharing.
Nice to see the AMS cooler working well. Btw is this the same as say the forge FMIC?

[kouzman]

Excellent post mate. Thanks for sharing.

[Avned]

Great post its about time someone did this. Very detailed and thorough thanks for sharing.
Nice to see the AMS cooler working well. Btw is this the same as say the forge FMIC?

Thanks! My understanding is that the forge FMIC only comes with the radiator. While the AMS setup also includes an additional pump to help with flow.

[Avned]

Excellent post mate. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks! Hopefully when the weather cools off I can add some track time to go with these numbers.

[LINDW4LL]

Very weird that you only gained 25whp with the 91 tune when APR advertises 75whp.

[Dguth]

If I am reading this right. It looks like the Roc Euro is adding a little power which is good. Surprised to see that. Hopefully it's the intake and not just the E 85 fuel.

Your stock to stage 1 comparison on whp seems a little light. For example I'll show you the comparison on my runs when I was comparing stage 1 to stage 3. These are on 93 files with 93 octane gas.

This is stage 1 to stage 3. My stage 1 had APR stage 1 tune and AWE exhaust. Stage 3 comparison had all the upgrades: turbo, intake, downpipes and coolant with APR ECU/TCU tune.




Sent from my iPhone using Audizine mobile app

[sciblades]

Glad to see some real world numbers with back to back dyno. Great data thank you for sharing

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Avned]

Very weird that you only gained 25whp with the 91 tune when APR advertises 75whp.

Definitely the peak numbers are a quite low. This could be due to a number of factors. APR is using a dyno jet at near perfect conditions, ~0 DA. Mine is on a Mustang dyno at close to 5000 DA. Though the peak numbers really taper off compared to APR, the midrange is where the huge gains are. Closer to +100 whp @3200rpm. I'm confident as the temps drop the peak numbers will rise accordingly.

[kouzman]

If I am reading this right. It looks like the Roc Euro is adding a little power which is good. Surprised to see that. Hopefully it's the intake and not just the E 85 fuel.

Your stock to stage 1 comparison on whp seems a little light. For example I'll show you the comparison on my runs when I was comparing stage 1 to stage 3. These are on 93 files with 93 octane gas.

This is stage 1 to stage 3. My stage 1 had APR stage 1 tune and AWE exhaust. Stage 3 comparison had all the upgrades: turbo, intake, downpipes and coolant with APR ECU/TCU tune.




Sent from my iPhone using Audizine mobile app

Different dynos. If their mustang dyno is uncorrected then add about 15-18% on top to compare to a dynojet...

[boomtime]

That 4.0T is such a beast

[Avned]

Different dynos. If their mustang dyno is uncorrected then add about 15-18% on top to compare to a dynojet...

Thanks for the comparison. Yes, these are uncorrected numbers. I do have the WCF numbers, but feel like showing what I'm actually putting down. Of course, when I'm bragging to my buddies I'm using those numbers

[bhvrdr]

That could be the case, but I don't see how just the E85 could bump HP that much when both are on the 91 file. Either way, I like the sound and glad its running smoothly.

- - - Updated - - -
7


Thank you! And glad the spacers are working out for you.

e85 could easily be responsible for all of those gains. For all we know the intake could have actually lost power but probably not. The car retards timing on 91 octane and when you put in e85 you get that timing back. Still cool to keep a running log but that set is confounded by the e85.

Mike

[Avned]

e85 could easily be responsible for all of those gains. For all we know the intake could have actually lost power but probably not. The car retards timing on 91 octane and when you put in e85 you get that timing back. Still cool to keep a running log but that set is confounded by the e85.

Mike

I could understand if I was stock since full power is set for 93. But isn't that the reason for a tune such as 91 on the APR? I could put in 100 and power wouldn't be bumped up unless I switched to 93 or 100 file.

I guess the only way to really know is if I dyno again with 91 only.

[bhvrdr]

I could understand if I was stock since full power is set for 93. But isn't that the reason for a tune such as 91 on the APR? I could put in 100 and power wouldn't be bumped up unless I switched to 93 or 100 file.

I guess the only way to really know is if I dyno again with 91 only.

Logs from APR tunes lately have been showing pretty aggressive timing curves on all their files with cars pulling back in some cases 8 degrees and more of timing. If you were pulling that timing on 91 fuel on the 91 program and then added some e85 you could get a lot of gains.

I'm not saying APR is wrong for doing this. Apparently the knock control is pretty darn effective on our cars so you can get away with asking for a decent bit of timing.

For sure, the intake could have given some gains. Not trying to crap on it or anything, lol, just saying e85 can definitely give some gains even on a 91 file so its hard to know.

Yes, there is only so much gain to be had on a 91 octane tune, though. If you added 100 octane you may only get the benefit of, say, 95 of that octane whereas with a 93 file you may get the benefit of 98 of that octane and on the 100 octane file you would get full benefit and likely be able to benefit up to 104 octane or so using moderately aggressive timing curves.

Mike

[Avned]

OP updated with APR Stage 2 numbers.

So, got to run my stage 2 at the dyno. I'm very pleased with the numbers, although it seems that the peak numbers at the 93 map were tapering off quite a bit. I did start the dyno run with the 100 map since its what I've been on for the last several days. Then after 3 runs, I switched to the 93 map. Perhaps, it was not enough time for the ECU to adapt because the 100 map had such a more consistent curve. If you figure in mustang dyno loss (~10%) + ~3300DA, it is pretty close to what APR was advertising on their dynojet at zero altitude.

The torque increase is awesome, and is definitely felt on the road. I am incredibly happy with this upgrade and my tuner and dyno tech seemed really pleased with it too.

I logged timing on all runs. On the 93 map was absolutely no timing pulled, crystal clear log. On the 100 map, one of the runs had a slight pull of -3 degrees on cylinder #3 near redline. Other than that, very clean as well.

[pez81]

Hey dude thanks for the update any change of a dyno sheet

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

[MikeDwerks]

OP updated with APR Stage 2 numbers.

So, got to run my stage 2 at the dyno. I'm very pleased with the numbers, although it seems that the peak numbers at the 93 map were tapering off quite a bit. I did start the dyno run with the 100 map since its what I've been on for the last several days. Then after 3 runs, I switched to the 93 map. Perhaps, it was not enough time for the ECU to adapt because the 100 map had such a more consistent curve. If you figure in mustang dyno loss (~10%) + ~3300DA, it is pretty close to what APR was advertising on their dynojet at zero altitude.

The torque increase is awesome, and is definitely felt on the road. I am incredibly happy with this upgrade and my tuner and dyno tech seemed really pleased with it too.

I logged timing on all runs. On the 93 map was absolutely no timing pulled, crystal clear log. On the 100 map, one of the runs had a slight pull of -3 degrees on cylinder #3 near redline. Other than that, very clean as well.

Good stuff, thanks for taking the time to do the comparisons, it is much appreciated by many of us here

For sure it would be best to have as many variables controlled as possible, but only so much one can do without making too much of a PITA. Like comparing the stag1 vs stag2 on the exact same fuel or giving the car some road time between the map switching.

Those down pipe gains are about what I thought they would be (fuel type vs fuel type). Increase in tq and hp in the low and mid rpm range, but not much past 5K. I bet for sure it can be felt on the street and that mid range tq bump is fun, but for those who care most or judge things by 1/4 gains, that is not where the downpipes shine.

I believe the small factory turbo's are for the most part maxed out with a stage 1 tune, more power can be had with fuel type and timing but that basically is all the turbo's got in them.

For hypothetical discussion purposes and using a dollar per results as a measure of success, my thought is that RS7/RS6/S8 turbo upgrade on stock downpipes could be significantly better vs S6/S7 turbo's on upgraded down pipes. APR downpipes are $2K, used RS turbo's are about $2K, and don't think labor for install between the two might be much different.


Thanks for sharing and taking the time to do the comparisons. It's getting to become a better platform for modding as the cars are getting older.

[Ze_Nardo6]

Good stuff, thanks for taking the time to do the comparisons, it is much appreciated by many of us here

For sure it would be best to have as many variables controlled as possible, but only so much one can do without making too much of a PITA. Like comparing the stag1 vs stag2 on the exact same fuel or giving the car some road time between the map switching.

Those down pipe gains are about what I thought they would be (fuel type vs fuel type). Increase in tq and hp in the low and mid rpm range, but not much past 5K. I bet for sure it can be felt on the street and that mid range tq bump is fun, but for those who care most or judge things by 1/4 gains, that is not where the downpipes shine.

I believe the small factory turbo's are for the most part maxed out with a stage 1 tune, more power can be had with fuel type and timing but that basically is all the turbo's got in them.

For hypothetical discussion purposes and using a dollar per results as a measure of success, my thought is that RS7/RS6/S8 turbo upgrade on stock downpipes could be significantly better vs S6/S7 turbo's on upgraded down pipes. APR downpipes are $2K, used RS turbo's are about $2K, and don't think labor for install between the two might be much different.


Thanks for sharing and taking the time to do the comparisons. It's getting to become a better platform for modding as the cars are getting older.

First of all OP, great thread and great info!

What's in bold above was my question. These ECU's need time to adapt to a new tune. The S4s are the same way. Some have complained to not feel much of a difference initially then after a few hundred miles, the car really starts to wake up. Wouldn't this skew the numbers? For example, if you dyno the car stock, flash the stage 1 tune, then immediately dyno again. I don't think you would see the full benefits of the tune right away. Maybe that's part of the reason for your minimal whp gains from your stage 1 dyno numbers? I'm curious

[pez81]

Good stuff, thanks for taking the time to do the comparisons, it is much appreciated by many of us here

For sure it would be best to have as many variables controlled as possible, but only so much one can do without making too much of a PITA. Like comparing the stag1 vs stag2 on the exact same fuel or giving the car some road time between the map switching.

Those down pipe gains are about what I thought they would be (fuel type vs fuel type). Increase in tq and hp in the low and mid rpm range, but not much past 5K. I bet for sure it can be felt on the street and that mid range tq bump is fun, but for those who care most or judge things by 1/4 gains, that is not where the downpipes shine.

I believe the small factory turbo's are for the most part maxed out with a stage 1 tune, more power can be had with fuel type and timing but that basically is all the turbo's got in them.

For hypothetical discussion purposes and using a dollar per results as a measure of success, my thought is that RS7/RS6/S8 turbo upgrade on stock downpipes could be significantly better vs S6/S7 turbo's on upgraded down pipes. APR downpipes are $2K, used RS turbo's are about $2K, and don't think labor for install between the two might be much different.


Thanks for sharing and taking the time to do the comparisons. It's getting to become a better platform for modding as the cars are getting older.

I was thinking the same thing myself. £1600GBP for reconditioned turbos. Bit of labour and then a tune and you're running 10s.
I don't get why the downpipes for our motor are so expensive. For 6 cylinder cars you're talking £300-400. I'm sure stage 2 in the midrange is really good but like you said are you better off just getting RS turbos?
Would our engine not do well with a bigger Intercooler? Rs3 does so why not ours? The stage 1 transforms a stock car but at the minute the flood gains aren't huge from the looks of it after that without going bigger turbos

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

[MikeDwerks]

First of all OP, great thread and great info!

What's in bold above was my question. These ECU's need time to adapt to a new tune. The S4s are the same way. Some have complained to not feel much of a difference initially then after a few hundred miles, the car really starts to wake up. Wouldn't this skew the numbers? For example, if you dyno the car stock, flash the stage 1 tune, then immediately dyno again. I don't think you would see the full benefits of the tune right away. Maybe that's part of the reason for your minimal whp gains from your stage 1 dyno numbers? I'm curious

I know that when I loaded my EPL stg 1 map, initial 10 mile drive with some spirited pulls did not impress me that much. Next day after 10 miles on the highway at normal cruising, then getting off onto the side streets and doing 1-2-3 gear pulls it was a beast.

I believe there is something to it, but don't think "learning" would be the most accurate term, as that indicates the ECU can know something it is not original programed to know. More accurate would probably be along the lines of it won't maybe run the full timing or boost pressure the map calling for until a certain number of miles or time elapsed after a re-flash. it's just semantics I know, but I think we sound a little silly saying the ECU is "learning", as if it is some high level artificial intelligence or something.

[MikeDwerks]

I was thinking the same thing myself. £1600GBP for reconditioned turbos. Bit of labour and then a tune and you're running 10s.
I don't get why the downpipes for our motor are so expensive. For 6 cylinder cars you're talking £300-400. I'm sure stage 2 in the midrange is really good but like you said are you better off just getting RS turbos?
Would our engine not do well with a bigger Intercooler? Rs3 does so why not ours? The stage 1 transforms a stock car but at the minute the flood gains aren't huge from the looks of it after that without going bigger turbos

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

To continue the comments on just dong RS turbo upgrade and no downpipes, there are a couple other things that could be beneficial.

1) Stock hardware appearance to an Audi tech and TD1 implications. I would bet 95% of tech's would not notice a S6/S7 has RS turbo's and would probably never be even be looked at close enough to be realized unless one is dealing with a lost engine and a very expensive warranty situation. One could have RS turbo's and full RS intake and it probably never be noticed. Add on top of that "at home flash" ability like EPL has, and the entire package makes taking the car in for Audi service much safer. Something that someone like me who has CPO for the next 3yrs just much easier.

2). The peak tq with RS turbo's and stock downpipes could very well be less than peak tq with down pipes, stg2, on stock turbo's... but at the same time make significantly more hp up top and a overall faster car. I will take a little less of that peak tq to be easier on the DSG.

Look at Dguth car making about 100whp over stg 1 from 5K rpm's to redline on RS turbo's

[pez81]

To continue the comments on just dong RS turbo upgrade and no downpipes, there are a couple other things that could be beneficial.

1) Stock hardware appearance to an Audi tech and TD1 implications. I would bet 95% of tech's would not notice a S6/S7 has RS turbo's and would probably never be even be looked at close enough to be realized unless one is dealing with a lost engine and a very expensive warranty situation. One could have RS turbo's and full RS intake and it probably never be noticed. Add on top of that "at home flash" ability like EPL has, and the entire package makes taking the car in for Audi service much safer. Something that someone like me who has CPO for the next 3yrs just much easier.

2). The peak tq with RS turbo's and stock downpipes could very well be less than peak tq with down pipes, stg2, on stock turbo's... but at the same time make significantly more hp up top and a overall faster car. I will take a little less of that peak tq to be easier on the DSG.

Look at Dguth car making about 100whp over stg 1 from 5K rpm's to redline on RS turbo's

See I thought that same as you about an Audi tech probably not even notice the turbos. Doesn't an rs7 stage 1 make a lot more torque than stage 2 s6/7?

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

[Dguth]

I was thinking the same thing myself. £1600GBP for reconditioned turbos. Bit of labour and then a tune and you're running 10s.
I don't get why the downpipes for our motor are so expensive. For 6 cylinder cars you're talking £300-400. I'm sure stage 2 in the midrange is really good but like you said are you better off just getting RS turbos?
Would our engine not do well with a bigger Intercooler? Rs3 does so why not ours? The stage 1 transforms a stock car but at the minute the flood gains aren't huge from the looks of it after that without going bigger turbos

Sent from my XT1580 using Tapatalk

Good discussions and updates here. I'm hoping more seriously consider the benefits and costs for stage 3 builds. This will only help as more tuners evaluate whether they are going to support or not. As far as coolant/intercooler upgrade, I went with the AMS coolant upgrade. Pretty pricey in my opinion but I've heard the upgrades turbos, tune, etc increases the heat and to keep IATs down, this is recommended. I haven't logged my car or beat it at the track. I can only assume it's working as designed and keeping IATs and engine coolant in check. I would think you can go more aggressive with the tuning for those that do have the coolant upgrade versus those that do not. One of the disadvantage of the current APR stage 3 tune. I don't believe that tune is taking full advantage of the setup. Something I'm hoping someone else like EPL will do at least to justify the additional cost I spent


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine mobile app

[Avned]

Good discussions and updates here. I'm hoping more seriously consider the benefits and costs for stage 3 builds. This will only help as more tuners evaluate whether they are going to support or not. As far as coolant/intercooler upgrade, I went with the AMS coolant upgrade. Pretty pricey in my opinion but I've heard the upgrades turbos, tune, etc increases the heat and to keep IATs down, this is recommended. I haven't logged my car or beat it at the track. I can only assume it's working as designed and keeping IATs and engine coolant in check. I would think you can go more aggressive with the tuning for those that do have the coolant upgrade versus those that do not. One of the disadvantage of the current APR stage 3 tune. I don't believe that tune is taking full advantage of the setup. Something I'm hoping someone else like EPL will do at least to justify the additional cost I spent


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine mobile app

I definitely plan on going stage 3! Your car is my inspiration.

I appreciate all the input and comments.

[MikeDwerks]

Doesn't an rs7 stage 1 make a lot more torque than stage 2 s6/7?

Using APR published info, since they are the only place where you can gather the most comparable date on both the S and RS, a Stg 1 RS does show it makes somewhere around 30-50 more peak tq than a Stg 2 S. so that gives us a ball park. But its not comparing apples to apples with some differences in the two motors and the transmission (gearing). But maybe more useful to look at is the APR data on their stg 3 S6 showing less peak tq than a stg 2 S6.

But regardless of the above, on a RS turbo S car the peak torque could be "managed" in the tune to keep it in check while at the same time making more HP up top. Controlling boost pressures or using throttle closure the peak tq could be held to levels more DSG friendly at the same time getting the befits of the large turbo's at higher rpm's. At least that is what think could be done, but I am no tuner...

[Djpeaksd]

OP updated with APR Stage 2 numbers.

So, got to run my stage 2 at the dyno. I'm very pleased with the numbers, although it seems that the peak numbers at the 93 map were tapering off quite a bit. I did start the dyno run with the 100 map since its what I've been on for the last several days. Then after 3 runs, I switched to the 93 map. Perhaps, it was not enough time for the ECU to adapt because the 100 map had such a more consistent curve. If you figure in mustang dyno loss (~10%) + ~3300DA, it is pretty close to what APR was advertising on their dynojet at zero altitude.

The torque increase is awesome, and is definitely felt on the road. I am incredibly happy with this upgrade and my tuner and dyno tech seemed really pleased with it too.

I logged timing on all runs. On the 93 map was absolutely no timing pulled, crystal clear log. On the 100 map, one of the runs had a slight pull of -3 degrees on cylinder #3 near redline. Other than that, very clean as well.

Great stuff! Thanks for taking the time to do all of this. Really helps the community a lot! So Im gonna go back to the track next weekend and I want to try running that E25 mix on my custom 91 EPL map (Seems like that is the best bang for buck performance wise). What is the mixture I need to do to achieve E25?

[Avned]

Great stuff! Thanks for taking the time to do all of this. Really helps the community a lot! So Im gonna go back to the track next weekend and I want to try running that E25 mix on my custom 91 EPL map (Seems like that is the best bang for buck performance wise). What is the mixture I need to do to achieve E25?

E25 is about 15.9gal 92 and 4 gal E85.

Good luck!

[DirtyVegasTT]

Great stuff! Thanks for taking the time to do all of this. Really helps the community a lot! So Im gonna go back to the track next weekend and I want to try running that E25 mix on my custom 91 EPL map (Seems like that is the best bang for buck performance wise). What is the mixture I need to do to achieve E25?

Here is a calculator to help with mixing, go down to the very last bottom section of the page:
https://www.intercepteft.com/calc.html

[Ze_Nardo6]

I know that when I loaded my EPL stg 1 map, initial 10 mile drive with some spirited pulls did not impress me that much. Next day after 10 miles on the highway at normal cruising, then getting off onto the side streets and doing 1-2-3 gear pulls it was a beast.

I believe there is something to it, but don't think "learning" would be the most accurate term, as that indicates the ECU can know something it is not original programed to know. More accurate would probably be along the lines of it won't maybe run the full timing or boost pressure the map calling for until a certain number of miles or time elapsed after a re-flash. it's just semantics I know, but I think we sound a little silly saying the ECU is "learning", as if it is some high level artificial intelligence or something.

I agree with you, but I never said the ECU needs to "learn" the new mapping. I said adapt. As you stated, it makes some sense that the ECU doesn't go all-in as soon as it is flashed to protect engine parameters. I am certainly no tuner, maybe someone from APR or EPL can chime in here.

[Bassler]

I agree with you, but I never said the ECU needs to "learn" the new mapping. I said adapt. As you stated, it makes some sense that the ECU doesn't go all-in as soon as it is flashed to protect engine parameters. I am certainly no tuner, maybe someone from APR or EPL can chime in here.

I think it is all semantics, whether "learning", "adapting" or otherwise. The ECU needs some time to settle in and get comfy. I know in my Subi it is a similar scenario for the ECU to learn and populate the various fueling tables after a reflash. I would imagine the Audi is the similar if not directly or effectively the same.

Can't wait to have to adapt my EPL 93 tune. I'm the only one on this E box code i believe and still waaaaiiiittttiiiinnngggggg. Come on Tony, you can do it!

[MikeDwerks]

I agree with you, but I never said the ECU needs to "learn" the new mapping. I said adapt. As you stated, it makes some sense that the ECU doesn't go all-in as soon as it is flashed to protect engine parameters. I am certainly no tuner, maybe someone from APR or EPL can chime in here.

For sure, sorry how that came off, really did not have you specifically in mind with my reply and indeed that is not what you said. Was just thinking about comments I hear/read in general.

Hate to clutter up the thread with this response, do don't feel the need to reply.