# PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important**



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important**updated 2/6/2006*

Hi Everyone,
The new TFSi system for the VAG product line brings quite a few new challenges to the table and the learning curve is / and will be steep! 
One of the problem areas that seems to be cropping up is the ability of the original “Rail” pump to sustain the spec’d pressure (about 110 BAR) under high torque conditions. This is a problem that has been known to GIAC for some time and has been checked during the development of the programs that are now being released.
The data group that shows pump rail pressure is 205; I suggest that you log this in conjunction with another group that shows RPM. Also please note that this should be checked under high load conditions. I.e. The problem is more pronounced in a 5th gear pull than a 2nd gear pull (this also relates to dynos that do not have enough load). Some examples below:

SF’s B7 A4 stock








SF’s B7 A4 GIAC “03b”








JT’s B7 A4 “Brand X”








JT’s B7 A4 GIAC “03ba”









The normal range appears to be about 110 BAR at wide open throttle. And from my understanding there is a fault code that pops up when pressure drops below about 90ish bar. The car shown above with the dropping pressure did not have a code, and it is suspected that some are turning off this feature. GIAC does not.
Before everyone panics!
There is a replacement pump that will be available to GIAC dealers shortly that will help with this problem. If you see this problem, please call regardless of the brand of chip that you have. We do not want to create an environment of fear in tuning these excellent motors, surely when all of the tuner take a look and correct this it will no longer be an issue.
Please note that the fuel delivery system operates in a range of 725 to about 1750 psi. This can SEVERLY injure you if the system is not bled down properly before removal of the original pump. So if in doubt, DO NOT DO IT!
If any of you are in the Los Angeles area and are interested in the GIAC product I hope to hear from you. 
Take care, and have fun all!

Jeff Moss 
Torque Factory, Inc.
2304 Zeno place
Venice, CA 90291
310-466-4296
http://www.torque-factory.com
[email protected]
To find a local GIAC dealer:
http://www.giacusa.com

_*Below is modified Feb 6 2006 by J. Moss. No changes to original post*_
My friend Shaun G made some runs with the StaSis engineering shop A3. Here are the details:
Car has a turbo back exhaust
GIAC FX with 1.5 bar peak
* The only change was the pumps*








I will be doing the same test with an A4 in the next few days. 
_Modified by J. Moss at 12:59 AM 2-6-2006_

_Modified by J. Moss at 1:54 AM 2-6-2006_

_Modified by J. Moss at 9:46 AM 2-6-2006_
Below was added 2/14/2006
A4 testing was done a few days ago.
GIAC made a file that was specifically made to max out the pumps for testing. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS FOR SALE!








Only change was the pumps…. Exact same test conditions. 
B pump cannot hold the same pressure as the F pump. 



_Modified by J. Moss at 7:36 PM 2-14-2006_


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

*Good to see others finally making some progress on these FSI systems*

However, I am a little bit turned off by the scare tactics and alarmist attitude. Rest assured that APR is well aware of the issues with fueling on these vehicles (capacity is an issue.) We have been working with this system considerably longer than any other company in the U.S. Our calibrators are specifically educated in internal combustion engines (and on FSI specically) and have worked in manufacturer laboratories. I do not know whose product in particular you tested but your statements come across generally so I will set the record straight concerning our products: *Our product is completely safe and reliable in terms of taxing the fuel system. No safeguards are disabled!*
Even if the high pressure did drop on the fuel rail due to calibration do you understand the implications? There are many factory safeguards in place. *There is nothing to worry about in terms of component safety.*
Although we would like to share as much technical data with consumers as possible, we have not had this luxury with the ME9 FSI system as the competition has been somewhat behind and we cannot give away trade secrets. Similarly, we have not had the chance to log competitors products (there were none) and post comparisons to our product.
Bottom line, in all likelihood whatever you are running in your car is probably safe. If it is APR I can assure you it is.


_Modified by [email protected] at 11:13 PM 12-11-2005_


----------



## Liquid1.8T (Dec 20, 1999)

*Re: Good to see others finally making some progress on these FSI systems ([email protected])*

wow. 27 pages.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: Good to see others finally making some progress on these FSI systems (Liquid1.8T)*

Here is a log of the APR software I am using right now. Just took the log right now. Vag-com is a bummer as it took three times to get a clean run, but thankfully everything appears ok here. cheers! Mike
Blocks 2 and 205...
Column 1 = time stamp, Column 2 = RPM, Column 3 = Load, Column 4 = Injector On-Time, Column 5 = Mass Airflow, LAST COLUMN = Pressure.








Do you think there is a problem with JT's car? It look like with the new program it still is trying to touch 100 in that same area it had a problem. Here's a graph of mine...


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (J. Moss)*

Sorry to anyone who was offended if I came across a little too strong in my original post. I just hate to see people scared away from modifying these great engines. It would be somewhat difficult for a tuner to do something to these engines to make them pop- there are alot of safeguards in place.
I will say though that this engine is going to be one heck of a mod monster. With just a good chip and a catback these cars are a heck of alot of fun and FAST. More potential than the 1.8T for sure and that says alot. The market is still in it's infancy but we expect great things from the 2.0T!


----------



## Matt-K (Jan 21, 2005)

Brett, I don't mean to hyjack at all but do you have a release date for ECUX 2.0?
edit: Update/discount for existing owners of ECU Explorer?


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

*Re: (Matt-K)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Matt-K* »_Brett, I don't mean to hyjack at all but do you have a release date for ECUX 2.0?
edit: Update/discount for existing owners of ECU Explorer?

Sorry but we don't have a solid release date yet. ECUX 2.0 (and 1.0, for that matter) are/were internal tools first, and then end products second. IOW, we have been giving ECUX 2.0 more priority in terms of adding functionality for internal development than finalizing it for retail sale. ECUX 2.0 will of course support ME9 and have a host of other improvements. There will be a upgrade path for existing owners of ECUX but the exact details of how this will work has not been set in stone. You will need to get our new interface cable in order to log the ME9/2.0T cars.


----------



## Misano (May 29, 2003)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (J. Moss)*

3 cars tested all 100% perfect


----------



## Matt-K (Jan 21, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Sorry but we don't have a solid release date yet. ECUX 2.0 (and 1.0, for that matter) are/were internal tools first, and then end products second. IOW, we have been giving ECUX 2.0 more priority in terms of adding functionality for internal development than finalizing it for retail sale. ECUX 2.0 will of course support ME9 and have a host of other improvements. There will be a upgrade path for existing owners of ECUX but the exact details of how this will work has not been set in stone. You will need to get our new interface cable in order to log the ME9/2.0T cars.

Sounds good. I wasnt expectiing it to be anytime soon. Take your time. Ill wait for quality. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (J. Moss)*

Jeff, two questions for you.
One you menioned duty cycle for the injectors was high.. what was high?
And two did you log AF, if AF is fine then theoretically it doesn't matter what the rail pressure is, unless the lower pressure is affecting atomization or resulting in the way high duty cycle.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_Jeff, two questions for you.
One you menioned duty cycle for the injectors was high.. what was high?
And two did you log AF, if AF is fine then theoretically it doesn't matter what the rail pressure is, unless the lower pressure is affecting atomization or resulting in the way high duty cycle.

Duty was about double what it was with the pressure where it is supposed to be. The A/F was stable. The concern is that as thing wear, the fuel filter gets a little gunky, people use a jumbo sized exhaust/no cat, pump get a little wear... It could lead to many problems and many are using up the cusion that helps save the motor.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (J. Moss)*

Small update everyone:
The pump testing is coming along well. As of today GIAC has the new pump on the dyno and has pumped up the boost in the midrange to the 1.4-1.5 bar range with 110's in the pressure range. 
When the testing is complete I will post the data along with how and where to purchase the pumps.
Happy Holidays all
Jeff


----------



## Matt-K (Jan 21, 2005)

I am curious.... where are these companies sourcing the new "upgraded" pumps from? Is it a VAG part?


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (Matt-K)*

People are looking at plenty of Hitachi pumps with apparently various results. cheers! Mike


----------



## Misano (May 29, 2003)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (J. Moss)*

I am running 1.4-1.5 midrange boost my pump stays in the 110 area with only 7.5-8.6 ms on the injectors. All OK


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_
Duty was about double what it was with the pressure where it is supposed to be. The A/F was stable. The concern is that as thing wear, the fuel filter gets a little gunky, people use a jumbo sized exhaust/no cat, pump get a little wear... It could lead to many problems and many are using up the cusion that helps save the motor.



Do you have any logs of it being double?
Why is one method of tuner worse for possible wear of other items down the road. so your car adapts and makes more power.. who is to say that the pump trying to maintain higher presure and flow more is not going to wear and not be able to maintain that higher pressure. If you are assuming that duty cycle can increae to compensate for that style of tuning. then why not assume that the pressure can compensate for the other style of tuning and increase on demand if need be.
The point is they are really two different styles of tuning that are working, its like low compression high boost, high compression low boost, some people like one or the other, neither is perfect, neither is wrong.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (PD Performance)*

I think the point is that the added boost demands added fuel. While new pumps are able to keep up with the boost levels, will these mechanical pumps be able to keep up when the fuel system's got 45K on it?
If anything, I see it as politics between different tuners, along the lines of "Sure, our boost's a little low, but at least we're not taking undue risks like 'Brand-X.'"
And the use of "Brand-X" is actually brilliant. It's noble, because it doesn't attack another product directly. It causes panic and confusion because nobody knows for sure whether they're running "Brand-X." And it's immune from challenge, since no competitor wants to step forward as "Brand-X" to defend their product.
I think the most telling part is that, whatever "Brand-X's" problem is, nobody's got enough conviction to step out into the light, point a finger, and unmask it. At the risk of offending, to me it sounds like TorqueFactory's trying to create a market for new pumps.
Personally, I'd like someone to prove me wrong.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (cpurick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_I think the point is that the added boost demands added fuel. While new pumps are able to keep up with the boost levels, will these mechanical pumps be able to keep up when the fuel system's got 45K on it?


No that is well understood that the higher boost demands more fuel.. The thing is both methods are producing similar power levels with theoretical good AF. I see no claims even that one tuner is running more boost causing the pump to fall off, just that it does. 
The most confusing part is that one company is saying they can tune around the problem electronically which points to the pressure being related to tuning not it starving for fuel and dropping off pressure. While they are saying another one which is running supposedly fine AF is running similar boost and making similar power with a lower pressure. Its simply just two different menthods of tuning.. Neither one is in a better position to be safer in the future. A failure is a failure and everyone is at risk for one. If anything running a pump as a higher pressure could theoretically cause it to wear out sooner and running it at a lower pressure could make it last longer. Just one way to look at it.
This fuel system is new and fairly complex. Its not just one pump suppling a constant pressure to a rail. Its one pump which varies flow via a pulsed but constant voltage to supply the mechcanical pump. Which is well mechanical although still pressure is controlled by the ECM depending on the demand. Firing injectors that now go right into the cylinder. The system is too new for people just to jump out and say others are doing it wrong.

And while it does not directly attack any brand in particular, It is one brand saying they dont' have the "problem" so its still a scare tactic in a way becuase the only way to guarantee according to them that you don't have the problem is to go with them. Not saying the brand is the right thing to do as far as really starting a war, but at the same time not knowing who is is means that both sides can't present their reason for tuning the way they do.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (PD Performance)*

I don't see the tuners taking such different approaches. Seems to me they're all doing pretty much the same thing.
Each tuner has to make their own decision about how much boost to maintain as RPM increases. How close do you want to come to the limits of the pump, considering that the pumps have individual manufacturing tolerances, and considering that the efficiency of the fuel system will likely decline with mileage?
One tuner may take a conservative approach, regulating boost to match anticipated pump performance, while another may be more optimistic about the pump's longevity. This opens the door for tuners to point fingers at each other, some claiming higher performance while they're criticized for taking unnecessary risks by others. 
Jeff's original post conjures up images of melting pistons, but APR says there are a lot of safeguards, which suggests the worst-case scenario would be "limp-home" mode.
As for the novelty of high-pressure direct injection, that's only true for gasoline. Diesel engines have been using these systems for years.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (cpurick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_I don't see the tuners taking such different approaches. Seems to me they're all doing pretty much the same thing.

This right here is a possible example of differnet tuners taking different approaches to tuning. The orginal post assumes the tuner did not want the resulting fuel pressure.

_Quote »_
As for the novelty of high-pressure direct injection, that's only true for gasoline. Diesel engines have been using these systems for years.

Just becuase direct injection has been done with diesels for a long time does not make any of that relate to what we have no. Diesels don't have to worry about fuel being properly atomized and mixed befoer a plug fires. The only thing similar to this with a diesel is that it sprays directly into the cylinders, nothing else really. It still is a completely new system or you'd see all of the diesel chip tuners on top of the game instaed of having nothing available yet.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_T Diesels don't have to worry about fuel being properly atomized and mixed befoer a plug fires. 

Diesels [tdi's] don't have [spark]plugs.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Diesels [tdi's] don't have [spark]plugs.

Yes, I know that was my entire point.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_Do you have any logs of it being double?

Yes

_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_Why is one method of tuner worse for possible wear of other items down the road. so your car adapts and makes more power.. who is to say that the pump trying to maintain higher presure and flow more is not going to wear and not be able to maintain that higher pressure. If you are assuming that duty cycle can increae to compensate for that style of tuning. then why not assume that the pressure can compensate for the other style of tuning and increase on demand if need be./QUOTE]
First chance I get I will take apart a pump. Most pumps that operate with a regulator cannot increase flow. Only not return as much to meet a demand. So if the demand is causing the pressure to be low, the regulator is likely already maxed and the pump cannot keep up the pressure. 
Since no one can say for sure if one way will break your motor how should this be worded? Something like:
"The fuel pressure in 50% of what VW/Audi designed, and we think it is OK??" My thought is to be cautious with a new system and bring the power up as the level of understanding permits. From what I have seen from and heard from these posts many tuners were not even aware that this could be checked..


PD Performance said:


> The point is they are really two different styles of tuning that are working, its like low compression high boost, high compression low boost, some people like one or the other, neither is perfect, neither is wrong.






PD Performance said:


> I see your point. Just want to add that there is no signifigant pool of experience to say one way or the other yet.
> Take care Chris.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (cpurick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_At the risk of offending, to me it sounds like TorqueFactory's trying to create a market for new pumps.


Torque Factory does not want to market pumps. PITA to get, install, and it seems as of now to explain. No much $$ either.
When the testing is done the part numbers will likely be public.
Jeff


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_This right here is a possible example of differnet tuners taking different approaches to tuning. The orginal post assumes the tuner did not want the resulting fuel pressure.

From what I have seen C, the tuner in question did not test it before they installed it. 
I am really just try to be respectful in not making this a witch hunt. I think everyone should check for themselves and ask questions about whatever the results are to their tuner of choice.


----------



## steggie (Aug 12, 2004)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_
From what I have seen C, the tuner in question did not test it before they installed it. 
I am really just try to be respectful in not making this a witch hunt. I think everyone should check for themselves and ask questions about whatever the results are to their tuner of choice. 









i agree, but any chance you can get a second car with brand-x programming installed to see if it shows similar (negative) results ?


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (steggie)*


_Quote, originally posted by *steggie* »_i agree, but any chance you can get a second car with brand-x programming installed to see if it shows similar (negative) results ?









I have not yet. GIAC has done the same testing on some Beta chips and seen the same results.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

sheesh, just tell them who it is. its not like it matters anyways. its not one of the big 3 as some peeps like to call us.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_sheesh, just tell them who it is. its not like it matters anyways. its not one of the big 3 as some peeps like to call us.

I don't think it matters who it is, even if it IS apr. I think Jeff pointed something out that could be of concern either now, or more than likely over time. He also posted how to monitor things with a vag-com.
Most people just install a chip and never monitor. In my book, that's a no-no, but it certainly is reality. You should always monitor things before a problem arises. Technology keeps on getting better and better. That usually means that a problem is going to be more expensive to fix.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif to Mr. Moss for opening peoples eyes a little wider.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

I wasn't saying anything negative. I know who they speak of and so does everyone else in the industry. I haven't logged the particular company in question nor has anyone at APR so its not our place to say.
My issue is the secrecy seems to be an attempt to discredit all of us.
Just come out and say who it is so others can attempt to prove or disprove those claims independently.
Don't just say, Careful! There's a bad tuner out there! I won't say who it is but its not us!!
That just points at everyone else besides the company calling foul.
Yes, the fuel is the first, sorta, limiting factor in the power capabilities of the 2.0T. Woot! Finally, some parts to upgrade besides the turbo. To me that means the jury is still out on how much power can be made from the oem turbo. I have a good guess on how far it will go but the fuel has to be taken care of first.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: Sheesh......... I try and do something nice....*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_I wasn't saying anything negative. I know who they speak of and so does everyone else in the industry. I haven't logged the particular company in question nor has anyone at APR so its not our place to say.
My issue is the secrecy seems to be an attempt to discredit all of us.
Just come out and say who it is so others can attempt to prove or disprove those claims independently.
Don't just say, Careful! There's a bad tuner out there! I won't say who it is but its not us!!
That just points at everyone else besides the company calling foul.
Yes, the fuel is the first, sorta, limiting factor in the power capabilities of the 2.0T. Woot! Finally, some parts to upgrade besides the turbo. To me that means the jury is still out on how much power can be made from the oem turbo. I have a good guess on how far it will go but the fuel has to be taken care of first.

Keith,
-I think everyone gets that it is not APR according to you. And I still have industry people begging me to out who the company is. 
-This is something that the more techy consumers would want to know and check themselves. If this leads to the tuners to learn something IMO they should consider this a freeby.
-Does GIAC have a product to sell? Yes. 
-Do I want people to check for themselves? Yes
-Do I care who the tuner is? Not really. They just need to fix it, or when they are eventually outted explain their stance.
-Am I trying to scare people into buying the GIAC product instead of others? No. We should both know that this can get super nasty as the introduction of the B6 A4 software should have tought both APR and GIAC. Let's keep it mellow. Not get all spun and defensive. Mike has shown his APR software as being good in every thread I have started, but I still think the consumers have a right to check for themselves.
If you feel the need to out the company go ahead, but consider that this may be more global than just one tuner.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: Sheesh......... I try and do something nice.... (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_
Keith,
-I think everyone gets that it is not APR according to you. And I still have industry people begging me to out who the company is. 


Not just according to me, now say according to you as well. Quit leaving hints that it could be us.

_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_

If you feel the need to out the company go ahead, but consider that this may be more global than just one tuner. 

Nope, not anymore. You just told everyone that can put 2 and 2 together. Thanks. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: Sheesh......... I try and do something nice.... ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Not just according to me, now say according to you as well. Quit leaving hints that it could be us.
Nope, not anymore. You just told everyone that can put 2 and 2 together. Thanks. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

How about this:
I have not tested every brand and stage of tuning for this car. If *I* were a consumer I would check myself.
Or,
It is not my job to test other tuners stuff. It is their job. 
Keith, start your own thread and show your results.
You are killing me. Going back to work.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: Sheesh......... I try and do something nice.... (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_
How about this:
I have not tested every brand and stage of tuning for this car. If *I* were a consumer I would check myself.
Or,
It is not my job to test other tuners stuff. It is their job. 
Keith, start your own thread and show your results.
You are killing me. Going back to work.

Don't mean to upset you. I don't expect you to test everyone. Our results are in this thread by an independent tester. Also, I'll see if I can get some more for you next week and we can just keep it all on this thread as I see this thread continuing for some time.
This is a great thread nonetheless. We will continue to support the discussion of new technology as long as we all get along. Challenging debate can be good as long as we are respectful.
So, are you guys of the position that you had to dial back because of the fuel issue?
What did you find with the addition of a full exhaust on a transverse car and longitudinal car?


----------



## mack73 (Jan 2, 2002)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif to Mr. Moss for opening peoples eyes a little wider.









Ditto, I don't see this as much of a "marketing strategy", but I do see it as bringing accountability to tuners, which makes the entire marketplace stronger as a whole. And also looking out for us. By identifying a problem with a tuner (unknown) it will give us/tuners something to keep in mind when modding these engines http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Sheesh......... I try and do something nice.... ([email protected])*

Here's my pressure, logged w/ APR 93 octane program. This is the current A4 1.3 release, on a full throttle third gear pull. I do see some instability as the RPM approaches (and goes into) the red, but not the sort of drop-off in Jeff's "Brand-X." My lowest value is 103, but in the same range I also have highs of 119. There seems to be more of a problem regulating pressure than achieving it. Frankly, my car will never be in that RPM range for more than a moment.










_Modified by cpurick at 5:58 PM 12-23-2005_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Sheesh......... I try and do something nice.... (cpurick)*

Good stuff ^^^^^
Try 5th or 6th if you can, the first post here says that it's more pronounced under load.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Sheesh......... I try and do something nice.... (syntrix)*

Not bloody likely -- that's a street run to nearly 100mph. We won't be doing that in a higher gear. Maybe when I'm more familiar with logging I'll book some time on a dyno.
These loads are plenty high; they're just not prolonged. Either way, this is harder than my car will ever have to work in my real-world highway driving.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Sheesh......... I try and do something nice.... (cpurick)*

Good point, the gli is geared pretty tall. I find myself in 4th on the freeway and then I'm like... oh there's two more gears








Safety first!


----------



## steggie (Aug 12, 2004)

i'm still lost though. so far the issue is over fuel pressure, correct?
is there any evidence that this fuel pressure problem actually causes physical engine problems ... excessively high A/F ratios, pinging, burnt plugs, etc? for sure i'm not condoning this issue - but is some of the conclusions/warnings based on projections and maybe not on witnessed failures?
personally, it is a mute point since my MK5 aspirations were dashed upon taking a career promoting opportunity at the expense of immediate monetary compensation. i'd still like to know the situation however !


----------



## Matt-K (Jan 21, 2005)

im thinking its more of a precaution, robert.... i think that because of its inconsistency, it would cause problems such as a lean mix.
I mean even if it doesnt cause problems, it still doesnt look good. It would make me worried to see something like that when logging fuel.
so basically i think that if you pushed the proggramming any harder, which from what i understand...theres alot more room to push, then that could result in complete pump failure.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (Matt-K)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Matt-K* »_so basically i think that if you pushed the proggramming any harder, which from what i understand...theres alot more room to push, then that could result in complete pump failure.

Actual mechanical failure of the pump is not the concern. If they push too far, at some point there won't be enough fuel to match the volume of air delivered by the increased boost. The risk is not that the pump would break, but that the pressure will drop too far as the airflow exceeds the fuel flow. Even if that were to happen, the ECU should shut the engine down before it would allow it to run at a dangerously lean mixture.
APR has indicated that the stock limitation is not the fuel system; it's the airflow through the stock intake and exhaust plumbing. Presumably, they're bumping the boost as much as they can in Stage 1 without seeing problems. However, Stage 2 is more complicated, because if you make significant improvements to the airflow alone, you find out that there's not always enough fuel to use it all.
Tuners welcome this because they'd rather engineer a fuel upgrade than a turbo upgrade. However, this is not your run-of-the-mill fuel system. Even if they can add fuel capacity, it remains to be seen whether aftermarket tuners want to be liable for 1500psi gasoline plumbing under the hood.
The more I think about this, the more interested I am in the car Jeff dyno'd. The pump in that car may not be typical. If GIAC holds fuel pressure with that car's pump, then it suggests they're holding back some boost, potentially developing less power than Brand-X. This is in contradiction to what APR has said -- specifically that fuel is not an issue with stock intake and exhaust. Even if GIAC holds pressure on that car, the pressure's obviously not as stable on that car as it appears to be on others.
Does that car have stock plumbing? And is that car's fuel system really within specs, or does that one car have an anomaly/defect that affects fuel pressure regulation in a certain RPM range?


----------



## Matt-K (Jan 21, 2005)

*Re: (cpurick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_Actual mechanical failure of the pump is not the concern. If they push too far, at some point there won't be enough fuel to match the volume of air delivered by the increased boost. The risk is not that the pump would break, but that the pressure will drop too far as the airflow exceeds the fuel flow. Even if that were to happen, the ECU should shut the engine down before it would allow it to run at a dangerously lean mixture.

correct.. i should of clarified that i meant "complete pump failure to provide enough fuel"

_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_APR has indicated that the stock limitation is not the fuel system; it's the airflow through the stock intake and exhaust plumbing.

I was unaware of the intake being restrictive. I knew about the exhaust though.

_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_Presumably, they're bumping the boost as much as they can in Stage 1 without seeing problems. However, Stage 2 is more complicated, because if you make significant improvements to the airflow alone, you find out that there's not always enough fuel to use it all.

That why im pretty sure that a Stage 2 will include the required fuel pump.

_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_Tuners welcome this because they'd rather engineer a fuel upgrade than a turbo upgrade. However, this is not your run-of-the-mill fuel system. Even if they can add fuel capacity, it remains to be seen whether aftermarket tuners want to be liable for 1500psi gasoline plumbing under the hood.

Thats deffently going to be interesting.

_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_The more I think about this, the more interested I am in the car Jeff dyno'd. The pump in that car may not be typical. If GIAC holds fuel pressure with that car's pump, then it suggests they're holding back some boost, potentially developing less power than Brand-X. This is in contradiction to what APR has said -- specifically that fuel is not an issue with stock intake and exhaust. Even if GIAC holds pressure on that car, the pressure's obviously not as stable on that car as it appears to be on others.
Does that car have stock plumbing? And is that car's fuel system really within specs, or does that one car have an anomaly/defect that affects fuel pressure regulation in a certain RPM range?

I would like to see some more logs of "brand x" cars. i know theres quite a few out there, its just getting them to log there stuff. I dont think APR meant that fuel in not an issue generally, but specifically to their programming. Sort of a.. With our programming, fuel is not an issue when all other stock parts are retained. Now if other companies programming is similar then they shouldn't have a problem. But when you get companies that push there programs...possibly brand x... problems arise.
All in all, Id like to see more independent logs with brand x to single out if this is a one time occurance.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (Matt-K)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Matt-K* »_I was unaware of the intake being restrictive. I knew about the exhaust though.

Well, I don't know if the intake always is; I know APR has told me it's the reason the A4 produces less power than the A3.
Do you know who Brand-X is?


----------



## Matt-K (Jan 21, 2005)

merry christmas


_Modified by Matt-K at 9:29 PM 12-24-2005_


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: (Matt-K)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Matt-K* »_

I would like to see some more logs of "brand x" cars. i know theres quite a few out there, its just getting them to log there stuff. I dont think APR meant that fuel in not an issue generally, but specifically to their programming. Sort of a.. With our programming, fuel is not an issue when all other stock parts are retained. Now if other companies programming is similar then they shouldn't have a problem. But when you get companies that push there programs...possibly brand x... problems arise.
All in all, Id like to see more independent logs with brand x to single out if this is a one time occurance.

 
The bottom line is going to be who has the most experience with the top notch engineers on staff that study Bosch management







.Im sure there are TONS of different ways to tune this engine and it will be OK , but i know who i would put my trust in to do it the RIGHT WAY because they understand how it " ticks" . Its the only company that has a COMPLETE TURN KEY BT KIT that has a awesome track record make 300WHP on pump gas all day long with the predecessor of 2.0FSI engine and they still continues to develop and push the limits of the 1.8T and once they have a BT kit for the 2.0T FSI im sure they will continue to push it limits also ( ill predict 385-400whp on 93 pump ).
Im sure you can figure out who im talking about







Bob.G

_Modified by rracerguy717 at 10:04 AM 12-25-2005_

_Modified by rracerguy717 at 10:05 AM 12-25-2005_


_Modified by rracerguy717 at 9:53 PM 12-25-2005_


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (rracerguy717)*

Shall we just call it "Brand Y"?
This is getting pathetic. Why is everyone so afraid to name names?
Unscientific poll: who do you think "Brand X" is?


----------



## Matt-K (Jan 21, 2005)

if you cant figure out who Bob.G is talking about then.....uhh well damn you should just know. I know who brand x is but im not at liberty to go blabering it around because its not my place to do that.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (Matt-K)*

I don't really care who Bob's talking about. I'm more interested in why he doesn't just name them.
Also, there are no good reasons to keep "Brand X" secret if what's being said about them is true. Frankly, I have serious doubts about Jeff's motives. And the car in question looks iffy even on GIAC's software.
My main interest in knowing who Brand X is stems from wanting to get some more samples to see if there's any truth to the claims. This Brand X crap benefits nobody but GIAC, and right now they're moving down on my list because of these tactics. That's a shame, because at one point they would have been my first pick.


_Modified by cpurick at 1:51 PM 12-25-2005_


----------



## Matt-K (Jan 21, 2005)

The idea is that if it turns out that brand x is ok and this is only a single case then because brand x is never discovered then there will not be any bad blood on here. sort of like inocent untill proven guilty. if we can find more cars with similar graphs with brand x then im sure that you will find out who it is soon enough.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (Matt-K)*

Well, I agree, which is why I wouldn't have said anything until I'd checked multiple vehicles. 
Declaring that a "Brand X" even exists -- based upon the limited samples that seem to exist -- creates bad blood, too. Except that this way hurts everyone; not just Brand X. It's not better.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (cpurick)*

Before I get to the updates I would like to go over a few things before we proceed.
-Multiple vehicles were checked before this post was made. The decision was made to let people know that GIAC was aware of this problem and was working on solutions. By coincidence someone came by for the GIAC flash that had another brand of software installed. He was complaining of surging/bucking so I took the time to run some tests and you have seen the results. 
-There is no conspiracy. I really like to present the product and the facts when it is released and avoid mentioning any competitors. 
OK guys here are some updates:
There seems to be two pumps that came on the TFSi cars. The early Jetta and B7 A4 both came with “B” pumps; I am not sure at this time about the A3’s. The cars with the “B” pump seem to be the ones that are not up to the higher torque files. What can be confusing to tuners is that if you test a car with the “F” pump and use those settings in a “B” pump equipped car it will likely have some surging and low fuel pressure. Here are some shots of the pumps:















My understanding is that this is, or will be the replacement part for all of the 2.0 cars. Supply is very scarce, but it can be sourced by any VW or Audi dealer. So if your car has the “B” pump and is dropping pressure this is a good idea.







Remove the plastic cover on a transverse car and this is the view. 







I figured this was something that not many had seen yet. 







The “FX” (F is for fuel) programs are being worked on now. This is a preliminary dyno of GIAC’s test car on 91 octane. Please note that it has only 300 miles on the clock and will likely even make more once it loosens up a little more. A similar car with the “B” pump was throwing codes for low fuel pressure.



_Modified by J. Moss at 1:52 AM 12/26/2005_


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (J. Moss)*

Is that JT's car from the original samples? What was the exhaust/intake configuration on JT's car?
How much are the pumps? 
A couple of people have mentioned that the only change is the addition of a bleed valve. I have a B pump, and while it's not perfectly stable above 6000rpm, it doesn't exhibit the pressure drops you've reported. I'm running APR's 93 octane program on a B7. Are you sure you're not seeing individual manufacturing variation in the pumps -- something that could be independent of the P/N?


_Modified by cpurick at 5:08 PM 12-26-2005_


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (cpurick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_Is that JT's car from the original samples?

Nope. JT's car will get the "F" pump first week of January.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (J. Moss)*

What was JT's intake/exhaust setup?
How much are the pumps?


_Modified by cpurick at 5:11 PM 12-26-2005_


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (cpurick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_What was JT's intake/exhaust setup?
How much are the pumps?

_Modified by cpurick at 5:11 PM 12-26-2005_

High flow cat and exhaust. At this time a stock intake. 
The pumps are about $235. The last one I ordered had to be air shipped for another $50-60.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_High flow cat and exhaust. At this time a stock intake.

Would you agree with the generalization that fuel flow only becomes critical following exhaust mods, and that stock exhaust plumbing won't permit enough boost/airflow to outpace the pump (even the "B" pump)?
If that's the case, then what we're really talking about is the definition of Stage II modification, isn't it?
Is it possible that Brand X's program only has a problem if the exhaust is opened up?


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (cpurick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_Would you agree with the generalization that fuel flow only becomes critical following exhaust mods, and that stock exhaust plumbing won't permit enough boost/airflow to outpace the pump (even the "B" pump)?
If that's the case, then what we're really talking about is the definition of Stage II modification, isn't it?
Is it possible that Brand X's program only has a problem if the exhaust is opened up?

The software was requesting 1.45 bar. From what we have been seeing so far this is too much down low for the "B" pump.
The intake and exhaust upgrades will bleed the pump dry sooner. IMO the "X" car would still have been pretty far out even with standard exhaust. 
You have a point about the "Stage 2." GIAC is calling this "FX" as the power can be pushed further.


----------



## Matt-K (Jan 21, 2005)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_The software was requesting 1.45 bar. From what we have been seeing so far this is too much down low for the "B" pump.
The intake and exhaust upgrades will bleed the pump dry sooner. IMO the "X" car would still have been pretty far out even with standard exhaust. 
You have a point about the "Stage 2." GIAC is calling this "FX" as the power can be pushed further.

about 240wheel right?


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (Matt-K)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Matt-K* »_about 240wheel right?

Please explain what you mean.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_The software was requesting 1.45 bar. From what we have been seeing so far this is too much down low for the "B" pump

Without an exhaust mod, how much boost is actually _possible_ (at the point where the 1.45 bar is requested)? And is _that_ value too much for the B pump? Do you see what I'm saying? If the boost was regulated to stock exhaust-like levels regardless of available flow, then could the B pump keep up?
How much better do you think the F pump is? Is it marginal, or do you think the pump's actually spec'd for higher output?


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (cpurick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_Without an exhaust mod, how much boost is actually _possible_ (at the point where the 1.45 bar is requested)? And is _that_ value too much for the B pump? Do you see what I'm saying? If the boost was regulated to stock exhaust-like levels regardless of available flow, then could the B pump keep up?
How much better do you think the F pump is? Is it marginal, or do you think the pump's actually spec'd for higher output?

Let's start from the beginning:
If 1.45 is too much why even request it? The car can make more than 1.45 bar in the midrange.
The "B" pump seems to keep up fine to about 1.2ish bar in the middle with stock hardware. 
I cannot give you a value for how much better the "F" pump is. It keeps the pressure up at 1.4-1.5 bar with all the bolt ons. The pumps have been superceded for a reason. Most likely not just to include a bleed valve.
The 2.0t is available in multiple power levels. The "B" pump is likely fine in the lower powered cars. From the buzz that I hear some of the oem cars in Europe were having some drive-ability glitches that may have led to the "F" pump.


----------



## Misano (May 29, 2003)

*Re: (J. Moss)*

I have been running a "b" fuel pump on my A3 for 7,000 miles and 11,000 on my A4, i have been running between 1.45-1.54 Bar with zero fault codes, surging , glitching .


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (Misano)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Misano* »_I have been running a "b" fuel pump on my A3 for 7,000 miles and 11,000 on my A4, i have been running between 1.45-1.54 Bar with zero fault codes, surging , glitching . 

Put up some logs like the rest and prove it. That way your information can be independantly verified. 
I run a third gear pull from about 2k to about 6500. Log 002, 205 and 115.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (J. Moss)*

What groups have the boost values, Jeff?


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (cpurick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_What groups have the boost values, Jeff?

115 has actual and requested boost.


----------



## Misano (May 29, 2003)

*Re: (cpurick)*

115 shows actual and requested


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (J. Moss)*

Jeff, did you notice if the spring is any different between the B and F series of the pump?


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (cpurick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_Jeff, did you notice if the spring is any different between the B and F series of the pump?

I will have the "JT" car here around the first week of January. I will check everything.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_
Let's start from the beginning:
If 1.45 is too much why even request it? The car can make more than 1.45 bar in the midrange.
The "B" pump seems to keep up fine to about 1.2ish bar in the middle with stock hardware. 
I cannot give you a value for how much better the "F" pump is. It keeps the pressure up at 1.4-1.5 bar with all the bolt ons. The pumps have been superceded for a reason. Most likely not just to include a bleed valve.
The 2.0t is available in multiple power levels. The "B" pump is likely fine in the lower powered cars. From the buzz that I hear some of the oem cars in Europe were having some drive-ability glitches that may have led to the "F" pump.


I guess they request 1.45 bar on a 2.0T the same way you guys request 1.5 bar on a x+ for the 1.8T. We all know the turbo can't make it but yet you guys request more than it can make as well.








I think the point is that requesting 1.45 is ok cause the turbo can't make it so there is no issue. However, the problem then presents itself with the addition of a full exhaust because the turbo can now make that request for which there is not enough fuel; then comes fuel cut.
What it sounds like you have done is take a car with programming designed for stock componentry, added additional mods, i.e. full exhaust, and then experienced some issues which you feel relate to a company's ability to tune. Whereas the real problem is your company's ability to use the product for what it was designed. You added mods and then cry that the software is bad and will harm your car.
Basically, you have discovered that Optican's standard software doesn't work with a full exhaust. Congratulations. We all know this but maybe they didn't. So, I'm sure they appreciate the help, if that was your true intention. Why didn't you just tell them?
Our software requires an exhaust specific upgrade on the 2.0T transverse mounted engines and it doesn't on the longitudinal mounted ones. Maybe all of our long mounts are the new pump and none of the trans are the updated pump? I'll check.


_Modified by [email protected] at 2:48 PM 12-27-2005_


_Modified by [email protected] at 4:29 PM 12-27-2005_


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (Misano)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Misano* »_I have been running a "b" fuel pump on my A3 for 7,000 miles and 11,000 on my A4, i have been running between 1.45-1.54 Bar with zero fault codes, surging , glitching . 


Which brand are you running. Did you tell me (using another alias on AZ) that you're running Neuspeed on those cars?
BTW, what kind of exhausts are on those cars?


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_I guess they request 1.45 bar on a 2.0T the same way you guys request 1.5 bar on a x+ for the 1.8T. We all know the turbo can't make it but yet you guys request more than it can make as well.








I think the point is that requesting 1.45 is ok cause the turbo can't make it so there is no issue. However, the problem then presents itself with the addition of a full exhaust because the turbo can now make that request for which there is not enough fuel; then comes fuel cut.
What it sounds like you have done is take a car with programming designed for stock componentry, added additional mods, i.e. full exhaust, and then experienced some issues which you feel relate to a company's ability to tune. Whereas the real problem is your company's ability to use the product for what it was designed. You added mods and then cry that the software is bad and will harm your car.
Basically, you have discovered that Optican's standard software doesn't work with a full exhaust. Congratulations. We all know this but maybe they didn't. So, I'm sure they appreciate the help, if that was your true intention. Why didn't you just tell them?
Our software requires an exhaust specific upgrade on the 2.0T transverse mounted engines and it doesn't on the longitudinal mounted ones. Maybe all of our long mounts are the early pump and none of the trans are the updated pump? I'll check.


_Modified by [email protected] at 2:48 PM 12-27-2005_

I will call APR in the AM.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_
I will call APR in the AM.

We will be here for another hour this evening if you need to call today. Our hours are from 8am-7pm cst. You are in luck as our sale is extended to the end of the month so you can take advantage of some great deals!
All of our software including our FSI software is buy one program, get one free so we can save you $149 if you get it installed before the end of the month.
You missed the opportunity for our Stage 3+ raffle by a week!
When you call ask for me and I will be sure to help you with whatever products you may be interested in and I will be sure to steer you in the right direction.
Thanks for your interest!
Keith


----------



## m-dub2.0 (Feb 14, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Keith RULES!!!!


----------



## Matt-K (Jan 21, 2005)

*Re: (m-dub2.0)*


_Quote, originally posted by *m-dub2.0* »_Keith RULES!!!!

+1


----------



## pechspilz (Dec 8, 2005)

*Re: (J. Moss)*









Now, I wan't to check the index of my TFSI's fuel pump too. How do I remove the engine cover?!


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (pechspilz)*


_Quote, originally posted by *pechspilz* »_








Now, I wan't to check the index of my TFSI's fuel pump too. How do I remove the engine cover?! 

I wouldnt get too worried just yet. We have yet to see any evidence that there is even a difference between the F pump and B pump besides a bleed valve...this is something Jeff has acknowledged that he is unaware of what if any change in the specs are. If there are other differences, we still have yet to see any evidence that it is a necessary change with the right tune. 
The facts that have been presented show that a car running incorrect hardware for it's software (brand X) showed a safe a/f but more inconsistent rail pressure. The car then had different software loaded (GIAC) that was appropriate for it's hardware. This doesnt really say anything about the pump at all. In order to test this, the pump should have been swapped to the new unit and again tested with the same hardware and sofware (Brand X) that it was previously tested on. This was not done so there is no way to see if this was a pump problem that can be rectified by a new one. Hopefully we will continue to learn more about this though.
cheers! Mike


_Modified by bhvrdr at 9:30 AM 12-28-2005_


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

Dammit, man, must you be so rational??!!!


----------



## Matt-K (Jan 21, 2005)

Im going to go ahead and make the presumption that these motors will need tune specific chips instead of a blanket standard chip and bt chip.


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: (Matt-K)*

OK i have decided to chime in my part in this. I have read bascially all of the posts in this thread and understand what is going on. I do not see the issue as being bad by any means and this seems to be an issue that has popped up after exhausts were starting to be installed.
I was the first A3 (that i know of) to have the full 3" turboback system on it and then a few days later had the APR StageII beta. I had the exhaust installed September 15th and then chipped the 18th. my car ran fine from mid September until late October when i was getting the car ready for SEMA when the shop doing my installs asked me about the fluttering around 5000rpms. I didnt think much of it.
but since halloween time until now the problem has gotten much worse. It used to only happen in 4-6th gears around 5k under hard acceleration. Now the problem is growing to lower gears under mild/hard acceleration. just going home today from work on the on-ramp, it was doing it in 3rd gear causing me to back off the gas or upshift. I have a DSG car.
I have been in contact with Keith and Chris at APR since i found out about the issue and they have been excellent to communicate with and keep me up to date.
my issue is that we dont have an APR distributor here in Arizona and i am stuck until they come visit next month to get me the update.
I do not know which pump i have and will check on that tomorrow.
I just find it funny how the problem is growing worse as time goes by.
Jeff or Keith any reason for that?
the car drives fine under normal driving situations but just sucks under hard acceleration.
so i figured i would chime in because as much as i know, i was the first to start having the issue because i was the first to have a stageII car.
when the car was running correct it was strong as hell and i hope this pump upgrade will get it back to that.
hmm warranty item?


_Modified by ProjectA3 at 9:32 PM 12/28/2005_


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (ProjectA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ProjectA3* »_It used to only happen in 4-6th gears around 5k under hard acceleration. Now the problem is growing to lower gears under mild/hard acceleration.

Do you have a vagcom? Are you logging any of this?
Technically, it shouldn't happen any time you're making less torque than the stock program can make at the same RPM. When you say "mild/hard acceleration," do you mean brief full throttle acceleration, acceleration that's greater than stock but not full throttle, or acceleration that's less than stock?

_Quote, originally posted by *ProjectA3* »_my issue is that we dont have an APR distributor here in Arizona and i am stuck until they come visit next month to get me the update.

Do you have switching? If so, do the symptoms go away in the stock program?

_Quote, originally posted by *ProjectA3* »_I do not know which pump i have and will check on that tomorrow.

Do you know the build month of your car -- they appear to have switched pumps around June.

_Quote, originally posted by *ProjectA3* »_I just find it funny how the problem is growing worse as time goes by.
Jeff or Keith any reason for that?

It's possible your pump's just breaking in. How many miles are on your car?

_Quote, originally posted by *ProjectA3* »_hmm warranty item?

I would say that depends on how it performs in the stock program, but even then the exhaust may be complicit.


_Modified by cpurick at 7:37 AM 12-29-2005_


----------



## Joe1s2 (Dec 27, 2005)

*Re: (cpurick)*

checked pump on car B pump with bleeder valve on Audi A3 hmm, until a car is checked out that has the problem with B pump and nothing else is changed, other than the F pump and then the problem goes away, then I think you can start pointing fingers at pumps.










_Modified by Joe1s2 at 8:14 AM 12-29-2005_


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (Joe1s2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Joe1s2* »_checked pump on car B pump with bleeder valve on Audi A3 hmm, until a car is checked out that has the problem with B pump and nothing else is changed, other than the F pump and then the problem goes away, then I think you can start pointing fingers at pumps.









_Modified by Joe1s2 at 8:14 AM 12-29-2005_

Well, the issue is definitely fuel pressure. The question is whether or not the B is higher flow than the F. I am sure we are going to see an oem solution with the planned power upgrades for the 2.0T.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*

OEM as in VAG or OEM as in Hitachi?


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: (cpurick)*

to answer some of the questions above
My delivery date was May, i bought the first one in Arizona so the build date was probably Feb/March.
I do not have the switching. Again, i was the first to have the software in the country and the switching wasn't out yet.
Going to try and log it on VAG-com today at a local shop. I do not have one.
current mileage on the car is 11600


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (ProjectA3)*

Based on the vintage, I wouldn't be surprised if that's the B pump. That's months before the GLIs were available, and some of those had B pumps.
Audi has introduced a special edition A4 with a 220hp version of the engine in Europe. I'm wondering what pump comes on that car, or if the F pump coincides with that car's release. If so, then that would point toward a pump with more capacity. Does the DTM use an F pump?


----------



## sa_vagfan (Mar 7, 2005)

*Re: Sheesh......... I try and do something nice.... (J. Moss)*

This is something I have a problem with...
Two of the best known tuners in the world, have to use scare tactics of other tuners work to promote their product?
So, do you base your on an objective independant assessment, or purely on a basis to increase market share?
Obviously being forum sponsors indemnifies you from criticism, but I think that you folks should know better


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Sheesh......... I try and do something nice.... (sa_vagfan)*

I hope that's not directed at APR, dude. If it is, you need to re-read the thread.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Bottom line, in all likelihood whatever you are running in your car is probably safe. If it is APR I can assure you it is.


----------



## sa_vagfan (Mar 7, 2005)

*Re: Sheesh......... I try and do something nice.... (cpurick)*

Actually, dude, though to a lesser degree in this instance, it is...
...."ME9 FSI system as the competition has been somewhat behind and we cannot give away trade secrets. "
The fact that someone chooses to release it when they are confident enough to release it, or doesnt hang their stuff out for the opposition to see, doesnt necessarily put them behind.
Go figure. Maybe this is considered OK practice then?
They are both good and reputable products, my point is that a value proposition doesnt need to be at the cost of a competitor, rather not on an enthusiasts forum. Even APR (rightly so), took exception to this implied statement.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Sheesh......... I try and do something nice.... (sa_vagfan)*

Your term was "scare tactics." Do you think your APR quote (they are rightfully proud of their product) represents a scare tactic?
When Brett assures everyone that even his competitors' products are likely quite safe, is that a scare tactic?
The APR statements have been pretty inclusive, if you ask me.
I can think of better ways to publish GIAC's findings, however. Jeff's posts do strike me as unnecessarily "scary" in nature.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 16, 1999)

*Re: Sheesh......... I try and do something nice.... (sa_vagfan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *sa_vagfan* »_This is something I have a problem with...
Two of the best known tuners in the world, have to use scare tactics of other tuners work to promote their product?
So, do you base your on an objective independant assessment, or purely on a basis to increase market share?
Obviously being forum sponsors indemnifies you from criticism, but I think that you folks should know better

Being a forum sponsor doesn't indemnify anyone as you'll very quickly find out reading these forums over time - no one is immune to criticism that's for certain.
Welcome to Vortex and do your best to help add some technical worth to the discussion at hand.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_Hi Everyone,
The new TFSi system for the VAG product line brings quite a few new challenges to the table and the learning curve is / and will be steep! 
One of the problem areas that seems to be cropping up is the ability of the original “Rail” pump to sustain the spec’d pressure (about 110 BAR) under high torque conditions. This is a problem that has been known to GIAC for some time and has been checked during the development of the programs that are now being released.
The data group that shows pump rail pressure is 205; I suggest that you log this in conjunction with another group that shows RPM. Also please note that this should be checked under high load conditions. I.e. The problem is more pronounced in a 5th gear pull than a 2nd gear pull (this also relates to dynos that do not have enough load). Some examples bel
The normal range appears to be about 110 BAR at wide open throttle. And from my understanding there is a fault code that pops up when pressure drops below about 90ish bar. The car shown above with the dropping pressure did not have a code, and it is suspected that some are turning off this feature. GIAC does not.
Before everyone panics!
There is a replacement pump that will be available to GIAC dealers shortly that will help with this problem. If you see this problem, please call regardless of the brand of chip that you have. We do not want to create an environment of fear in tuning these excellent motors, surely when all of the tuner take a look and correct this it will no longer be an issue.
Please note that the fuel delivery system operates in a range of 725 to about 1750 psi. This can SEVERLY injure you if the system is not bled down properly before removal of the original pump. So if in doubt, DO NOT DO IT!


OK everyone,
Can some non-shop employees point out where I am trying to scare anyone? Maybe some feedback on how to change the wording, as that is/was not the intention.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (J. Moss)*

PSA: Fuel Pressure
We have determined that the stock fuel delivery system on the 2.0T FSI engine is somewhat limited. Constant pressure in this system is critical to normal operation. It has to deliver a precise supply of fuel for any level of airflow, and at any engine speed.
Tuners working on stock cars may not encounter this limitation. The stock exhaust limits the available boost, and the fuel pump can probably keep up with the resulting airflow.
However, if a car's exhaust has been upgraded, it's possible for the turbo to produce so much boost that the fuel pump can no longer maintain normal pressure across the entire RPM range. The capacity of the pump is that marginal, and it may not be able to keep up with the additional airflow.
GIAC/Torque Factory are investigating alternate pumps. We are writing our programs to deal with this possibility, and will offer a version specific to vehicles with exhaust upgrades.
In light of this finding, we recommend that 2.0T FSI owners contact their chip manufacturer before making exhaust upgrades, and that you notify your manufacturer of any exhaust upgrades before flashing your ECU. Based on testing, we suspect that at least one of our competitors may not be programming with this in mind. We have notified them of the potential problem.
We encourage owners of cars with 2.0T FSI engines to check with their respective tuners, and to test their own cars where a problem is suspected. The fuel system pressure, typically at 110 bars when the engine is under loads, can be observed by logging block 205 with a Vagcom.


_Modified by cpurick at 9:31 PM 12-30-2005_


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (cpurick)*

Nice. 
Mind if I borrow that?


----------



## Liquid1.8T (Dec 20, 1999)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (J. Moss)*

No its a trade secret.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (J. Moss)*

Of course. It's a matter of public service.
I cleaned it up a little, in case you're serious.


----------



## slickfisher (Oct 16, 2004)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (cpurick)*

I don't have anything in common with this level of tuning. However, as noted the average Joe who starts messing with something that can inject fuel at that pressure- will function as a needle to the vein. When testing diesel injectors on the bench *we techs were very aware of the danger of immediate blood poisoning and death with the injection of diesel fuel through the skin*.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (cpurick)*

YGPM


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important** (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_OK everyone,
Can some non-shop employees point out where I am trying to scare anyone? Maybe some feedback on how to change the wording, as that is/was not the intention.

You aren't. But some people got chips on their shoulders, and really mis-interpret the info. I know who the Mystery Brand is now as well as the other supporting info before this finding....
















http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif to GIAC, I even got a free lookup of the fuel pump to see if it was updated, and a free logging right afterwards from my chipper to make sure that fuel levels were good http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## sa_vagfan (Mar 7, 2005)

I made my point, so thanks to all for responding








The MED9 tuning for the new FSI-T has been a challenge for all software houses, and I will not dispute that they are entitled to some pride in their product. And after all, competition is important, so one would expect there should be some haggling for market share.
I was an early adopter of MED9 tuning (on two different brands), and have used my own car as a project car for getting the max out. I would be happy to share this story, from beginning to end if there are any takers? We are stuck with low octanes, altitude and high ambient temps like some of our Californian members here, so will be interesting to compare?


----------



## dave13s4 (Dec 16, 2004)

*Re: (sa_vagfan)*

srry in advance if this is has been talked about b4... just wanna clear this up...

ok... so if the f pump is the better pump, and puts out enough pressure to support the mods... then my mkv gti should have the f pump; seeing as vw switched to the f pump, and i should be fine... right?? that is if the f pump puts out the needed amount of fuel.
thnx in advance for the info... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by dave13s4 at 11:56 PM 1-2-2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (dave13s4)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dave13s4* »_srry in advance if this is has been talked about b4... just wanna clear this up...

ok... so if the f pump is the better pump, and puts out enough pressure to support the mods... then my mkv gti should have the f pump; seeing as vw switched to the f pump, and i should be fine... right?? that is if the f pump puts out the needed amount of fuel.
thnx in advance for the info... http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Modified by dave13s4 at 11:56 PM 1-2-2006_

Pull the engine cover. Read rail pump part #. That's the only way to tell for sure! Chances are it'll have an updated one, but is that a chance you really want to take?


----------



## dave13s4 (Dec 16, 2004)

*Re: (syntrix)*

thnx... ill check it out when the car comes in... if its not the f pump then it'll be replaced... are there any aftermarket solutions?


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (dave13s4)*

Here's some more testing on my APR software now with the full 2.75" (including downpipe and tail pipes) Neuspeed exhaust. No fuel probs. 
Cut and past...
I'm not done with testing, but I can tell you I am impressed. This is exhaust only with the Neuspeed full 2.75" exhaust and stock cat. How about any fuel pressure issues? None. I do my logging in third gear in the same test area that has a relatively steep incline. No problems with fuel yet, but I am told that running a testpipe may require a retune and perhaps a fuel upgade that is being worked on...
















I'll be over to Auto Motion to do dyno testing and fitting of more parts within the month. 
cheers! Mike


_Modified by bhvrdr at 2:30 PM 1-3-2006_


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

Mike,
What pump is on your car? And how much boost does your car run from 3000-5000?


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (J. Moss)*

Hi Jeff,
It's the F pump on the car. APR seems to be conservative with boost. I see 14psi on the stock OEM chip as max boost and tapers to about 8psi. With APR, I see max boost of 18.5psi in the cold weather here and it holds it til 4600rpm, then about 16psi until 5000rpm, then about 15psi until 5400rpm, then about 14psi until 5800rpm, then drops linearly from 14psi to 10psi by the ~6800rpm soft limiter. Timing retard shows max spikes of about 5 and mostly 0s in the lower rpm and 2-4 elseware. I believe I saw peak hp and tq gains at the wheels with just programming of 34whp and 51wtq. Max hp and tq gain in the rev band was over 40whp and over 60wtq. I think tq will have some huge room for improvement when fuel upgrades come out. 
cheers! Mike


_Modified by bhvrdr at 3:49 PM 1-3-2006_


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_Hi Jeff,
It's the F pump on the car. APR seems to be conservative with boost. I see 14psi on the stock OEM chip as max boost and tapers to about 8psi. With APR, I see max boost of 18.5psi in the cold weather here and it holds it til 4600rpm, then about 16psi until 5000rpm, then about 15psi until 5400rpm, then about 14psi until 5800rpm, then drops linearly from 14psi to 10psi by the ~6800rpm soft limiter. Timing retard shows max spikes of about 5 and mostly 0s in the lower rpm and 2-4 elseware. I believe I saw peak hp and tq gains at the wheels with just programming of 34whp and 51wtq. Max hp and tq gain in the rev band was over 40whp and over 60wtq. I think tq will have some huge room for improvement when fuel upgrades come out. 
cheers! Mike

_Modified by bhvrdr at 3:49 PM 1-3-2006_

The car shown in the original graph:








Had the "B" pump and was running 1.35-1.4 bar through most of the area that was low in pressure. This is a good amount more than your car.
My "F" pump just came in and I will be testing files and pump shortly.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_The car shown in the original graph: 
Had the "B" pump and was running 1.35-1.4 bar through most of the area that was low in pressure. This is a good amount more than your car.
My "F" pump just came in and I will be testing files and pump shortly. 

If the "X" car was running 1.35-1.4bar that would be 19.5 to 20psi which would be 1 to 1.5psi more than me in that range.
Looks like it shouldt be more than a 5% difference on that F pump, but heck it may be enough for just exhaust stuff. Will be interesting to see what folks do for BT stuff. Let us know how the tesing goes. How are you going to flow test them both against each other? Couldnt you get the flow data from Hitachi rather than have to rig up a testing bench on your own or send it out to have it done? 

cheers! Mike


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

Thanks Jeff for openly posting this information. My 4/06 build A3 indeed has the "B" pump. Any possibility that you might be able to post up some dyno graphs of a "B" filed 2.0t? Any idea when flashloader switching capability will be available? Thanks.
Dave


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Thanks Jeff for openly posting this information. My 4/06 build A3 indeed has the "B" pump. Any possibility that you might be able to post up some dyno graphs of a "B" filed 2.0t? Any idea when flashloader switching capability will be available? Thanks.
Dave

The original non FX files should not be a problem with stock hardware (exhaust and intake). It was tested on "B" pump cars.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_If the "X" car was running 1.35-1.4bar that would be 19.5 to 20psi which would be 1 to 1.5psi more than me in that range.
Looks like it shouldt be more than a 5% difference on that F pump, but heck it may be enough for just exhaust stuff. Will be interesting to see what folks do for BT stuff. Let us know how the tesing goes. How are you going to flow test them both against each other? Couldnt you get the flow data from Hitachi rather than have to rig up a testing bench on your own or send it out to have it done? 

cheers! Mike

If your car had the "B" pump this would be a better comparison. If you know who to call at Hitachi I will do so. 
The most realistic test as I see it is to push the "B" pump car hard until fuel pressure is dropping and change the pump and retest.
To make a test rig would be very difficult for this setup, and whatever the results would be they still would need to be verified in the car.

Jeff


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

*Actual Hitachi Flow Figures*

We have been somewhat intrigued by this thread as we have been investigating higher capacity pumps and were not aware of a pump ending in 'F' that was of higher capacity (we have had the flow data for the factory pumps for quite some time.) Since full part numbers for the two pumps have been posted, we are able to provide the complete flow numbers for each pump from Hitachi's factory specifications. Unfortunately, the F pump is not any larger than the B. In fact they are identical







:


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures ([email protected])*

Does the European DTM use the same one? The car's rated for slightly higher power and torque.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_We have been somewhat intrigued by this thread as we have been investigating higher capacity pumps and were not aware of a pump ending in 'F' that was of higher capacity (we have had the flow data for the factory pumps for quite some time.) Since full part numbers for the two pumps have been posted, we are able to provide the complete flow numbers for each pump from Hitachi's factory specifications. Unfortunately, the F pump is not any larger than the B. In fact they are identical







:


Thanks for posting that . . . so am I correct in assuming the performance differences between the two is merely age of the units? 
Looks like speed13/misano/neuspeed was right about the bleed valve all along.
Dave


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_We have been somewhat intrigued by this thread as we have been investigating higher capacity pumps and were not aware of a pump ending in 'F' that was of higher capacity (we have had the flow data for the factory pumps for quite some time.) Since full part numbers for the two pumps have been posted, we are able to provide the complete flow numbers for each pump from Hitachi's factory specifications. Unfortunately, the F pump is not any larger than the B. In fact they are identical







: 

I have the "B" pump and plan on doing some logs. So maybe I will see something maybe I wont. bhvrdr has the "F" and we are going to keep each other posted on our logs and such.
Someone posted that their pump was changed after reporting long cold start. He stated the pump was changed to a "F" but dont know what he had before.
I just had my keyfobs replaced so I asked the service guy about the problem. He would not give many details but did mention something about it losing pressure???


_Modified by parks853 at 1:51 PM 1-4-2006_


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (parks853)*

Question for APR or Neuspeed or GIAC?
While the specs on the pumps are the same, do you know why they changed them? Is it possible the B pump, while specced the same, was not performing as it should have or perhaps had a design element in it that made it test out the same but perform slightly differently after long term testing on cars on the road? Just curious what may have been the need for revision. Whas it just the bleed valve as was postulated although I thought the B pump also had a bleed valve? Thanks!


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (bhvrdr)*

i compared my B pump with bhvrdr's F pump and they both seem to have bleed valves to me. They looked idenical.


----------



## Bre[email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (parks853)*

The print for the B pump shows the cap having only a single fitting while the print for the F pump cap has two fittings. One fitting is used for the pressure sender and the second fitting is a manual bleed valve. (There is also an over-pressure relief on all pumps.) It is likely that that the F pump is the exact same as the B pump except for the different cap for the bleed valve. It is also possible that B pumps were modified at some point with a different cap to accomodate two fittings yet still retain the B part number. 
In the end, though, this is all not very interesting because neither pump flows more than the other. This is not to say that there are not pumps of interest but the F pump is not it.
Regarding the DTM A4 I don't know exactly which pump is being used but I doubt it is larger.


----------



## transient_analysis (Jan 28, 2003)

on a slightly related note, what are you guys going to do for fuel management for aftermarket turbos??
It sounds like the pump on the fuel rail will have to change, but what about the funky injectors?? would those have to change as well??


----------



## aussie audi guy (Jan 28, 2003)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (cpurick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_Does the European DTM use the same one? The car's rated for slightly higher power and torque.

The BUL engine code (162kw / 220hp) uses the exact same pumps as the 200hp versions.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_We have been somewhat intrigued by this thread as we have been investigating higher capacity pumps and were not aware of a pump ending in 'F' that was of higher capacity (we have had the flow data for the factory pumps for quite some time.) Since full part numbers for the two pumps have been posted, we are able to provide the complete flow numbers for each pump from Hitachi's factory specifications. Unfortunately, the F pump is not any larger than the B. In fact they are identical







:

















Nice to see. The data still needs to be verified on the car. I should be able to get to it next week.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_
Nice to see. The data still needs to be verified on the car. I should be able to get to it next week. 

I have both the B and F pump in my possession. I also am able to adjust so that I see a slight drop in fuel pressure although not as low as those posted earlier in this thread. Later today I am going to go out and do some testing. I've got the F pump currently in pieces on my bench but I need to swap the cover from the B over anyway as the F did not come with anything to plug the extra port.
What I have found odd and I need to retest later today is that even with variations in fuel pressure AF is DEAD ON and injector duty cycles are neither high nor are they that different when the rail pressure changes.


----------



## new 337 (May 22, 2002)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
What I have found odd and I need to retest later today is that even with variations in fuel pressure AF is DEAD ON and injector duty cycles are neither high nor are they that different when the rail pressure changes. 


That is definitely odd...


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (new 337)*


_Quote, originally posted by *new 337* »_
That is definitely odd...

Yeah,
The AF is defintly perfect in both situations I've got logs of that. I did not get a chance to log injector on time (sorry think I said duty cycle last time) with it at the lower boost settings only the higher boost settings so I was just going from quick glances. Further testing with actual logs will show whats definitly going on.


----------



## new 337 (May 22, 2002)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (PD Performance)*

Are you using strictly VAGCOM for this? Or do you have any extra goodies to help monitor and gather more sample points?


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (new 337)*


_Quote, originally posted by *new 337* »_Are you using strictly VAGCOM for this? Or do you have any extra goodies to help monitor and gather more sample points?









I personally just have vag-com at my disposal.
However I would not totally discount it. The data collected in the charts above is just with vag com and clearly shows the changes.
With one measuring block and "turbo" on you can get 12+ samples a second. For AF and trends in injector on time and pressure its fine.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (PD Performance)*

Logging injector on time during the pressure drop would be nice. The FSI compensates for fuel pressure variation in the rail at a very high rate. The FSI has the advantage of a very long potential injection time Intake, and compression if needed, so it may be able to provide proper AFR with half the spec pressure. 
Chris, can you post pictures of the insides of the pump? Are there any seals on the pumping piston, or is it just a metal piston with a slip fit in the bore? 
Im guessing it's just like a diesel common rail pump. A tight fit of piston within a bore .000075" Clearance fit between the piston and the bore with straightness and roundness requirements around 0.000025". The more clearance you have the more leakage you have. The pressure curve from Brand x looks just like a diesel pump with excessive clearance. You cant really measure this with a micrometer. You need air gauging, adn soem high end equipment to check roundness. 
It is not unusual to see flow variation ~5% acceptable by the OEM, and an end of life loss of flow an additional 5%. Mid range rpm leakage is the worst because the pumping event occurs for a long period of time and there is more time to leak. At high rpm there is less time to leak so the pump efficiency is higher. measured in mm/rev. 
For the tuners out there plan on some good variation in output. Hell the cam grind is going to give you significant variation as well. 
The specifications for the pump may have the same flow listed, however this is called the geometric displacement of the pump. The actual flow has many variables, #1 being the piston to bore leakage. I won't speculate on the efficiency of the pump but it will never be 100%. Its always worse with higher pressure, almost always worse with higher temperature (lower viscosity fuel). Even having a low fuel level in the tank can cause poor pump efficiency due to higher fuel temperatures. 
BT guys better look elsewhere for power, your not going to find it in a magical single piston pump. Think radial 3 piston GDI pump from V8 GDI engines. 



_Modified by enginerd at 1:48 PM 1-5-2006_


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (enginerd)*

That was a really nice read. Thanks!


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_Even having a low fuel level in the tank can cause poor pump efficiency due to higher fuel temperatures. 


Actually this just reminded me.. between higher and lower boost settings I did notice a change in the in-tank pump duty cycle of greater then 20%.
I have found mixed information on the flow of the stock fuel pump that feeds the high pressure pump.
One thing said that it flows between 6 and 55lph depending on demand. But then the charts for testing its flow were showing greater then 150lph if I recall correctly. So It may be an inability of the intake pump to properly supply the high pressure pump. Since clearly demand from the intake pump from my testing was shown to be increased at higher boost levels vs the lower boost levels.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (PD Performance)*

Usually when there is a charging problem with the low pressure, it occurs at high RPM, not at the midrange. you would see this as a drop off in fuel pressure at high rpm. I know that there is much more torque in the midrange, but there is more HP up top. it's worth looking into, however I don't think that is the case. 
You can typically boost up the mechanical pumps efficiency by raising the inlet pressure, however this is usually after the midrange. You might only pick up a few % increase.


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (enginerd)*

What do you make of my pressures, in the top post of the second page of this thread? It only fluctuates like that on APR's program; on stock programming it's stable.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (cpurick)*

Looks like some issues with the pressure control. Probably the closed loop feedback PID settings.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_
Usually when there is a charging problem with the low pressure, it occurs at high RPM, not at the midrange. you would see this as a drop off in fuel pressure at high rpm. I know that there is much more torque in the midrange, but there is more HP up top. it's worth looking into, however I don't think that is the case. 
You can typically boost up the mechanical pumps efficiency by raising the inlet pressure, however this is usually after the midrange. You might only pick up a few % increase. 

But there really isn't that much more hp up top. I do see what you are saying but this turbo is way to small... It comes back to how you read dyno charts. companies are seeing 40hp gains at some points of the power band so everyone assumes its making 60 more hp up to at the crank.. When in reality they may be seeing 40hp down low and 10 up top so its really making similar or less hp higher in the powerband then it was down low.
These things need a bigger turbo badly.


----------



## BTLew81 (May 17, 2005)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (PD Performance)*

Can I ask....what pump do the Passats have? I have a Passat I bought in 12/05 and want to see what the deal is before I chip!
Thanks!


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (PD Performance)*

Chris, your absolutely right in terms of the midrange fuel requirements being way higher, and only slightly higher up top (i bet there is more fuel dump up top to control EGT on a chipped car requested AFR probably a point lower) however you have to think in terms of cc's/rev not cc's/min. 
The cc's/rev limitation comes from the positive displacement of the mechanical pump. CC's/min limitation is from the in tank pump. If the in tank pump can support 200 HP up top on a stock car it can support the 170 hp - 200 made in the midrange. 
And yeah they need a bigger turbo, but they will need a big bad high flow pump with a similar control scheme to the OEM pump, and likely a remap of ECU for said pump. 
is the OEM pump an inlet metered design, or is it a spill based design? Want to sell your crappy "B" pump to me?


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_Looks like some issues with the pressure control. Probably the closed loop feedback PID settings. 

Is this a problem in my pump? Can anything be done about it?


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (BTLew81)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BTLew81* »_Can I ask....what pump do the Passats have? I have a Passat I bought in 12/05 and want to see what the deal is before I chip!

The only way to tell for sure is to look at it. If the car was built in the first half of '05 you probably have the old one. Based on some of the latest info, it may not matter.


----------



## HPR (Oct 31, 2004)

have a look in google under ``bosch hdp1
or bosch hdp2 vw ``


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_Usually when there is a charging problem with the low pressure, it occurs at high RPM, not at the midrange. you would see this as a drop off in fuel pressure at high rpm. I know that there is much more torque in the midrange, but there is more HP up top.

But peak torque probably indicates the most fuel injected per stroke of the pump. Peak power benefits from more revs of the pump per hp, as well as lower leak losses per each faster stroke.
Never mind; I just re-read. At peak power you're using max gph -- _per unit of time_. The rail pump pressure problem is a function of gallons _per engine rev_. So the low pressure side, driven by the electric pump, limits max power -- not max torque.


_Modified by cpurick at 4:22 PM 1-5-2006_


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (cpurick)*

I was just doing some reading in some books about the A3 tonight. Found some interesting stuff on the fuel pump. According to all this the N290 actually controls how much presssure is created. I've got my f pump in pieces in front of me and I can figure out sort of how it would control the pressure but till I actually have an N290 in myhand either new or off my car I'm not sure 100%. I'll order one tomorrow or take mine off the car this weekend to figure it out exactly.
"* Single-Piston High-Pressure Pump*
This is manufactured by hitachi.
It is driven at the end of the inlet camshaft on Bank II through a cam lobe.
It produces fuel pressure of between 435 and 1740psi (30 and 120 bar). The pressure is set by Fuel Metering Valve N290, depending on the nominal value. Fuel Pressure Sensor G247 monitors the pressure here.
This system is a requirement-regulated, high-pressure pump.
This means that only the quantity of fuel determined by the Engine control module (ECM) J263 is fed into the high-pressure ral.
The advantage of this system compared with a continuous-feed, high-pressure pump is the reduced drive power. Only the fuel that is actually needed is fed into the system."


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (PD Performance)*

I was just looking at it again and I think the pictures in the documents are labeled backwards in regards to the pressure sensor.
I will double check tomorrow.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (PD Performance)*

I took a look at some info i have on bosch systems, the flow control is interesting, and likely difficult to transition to another style of pump. Now this is on a bosch pump, im not sure what the hitachi style has there are 2 options i am aware of. Chris if you can show me some pics/diagrams perhaps we can work out the hitachi

bosch
During the inlet stroke of the pump, the camshaft retracts the piston, fuel flows through the open inlet valve and into the pumping chamber. The valve is normally open and supplys a full charge to the pumping chamber. 
During the pumping stroke the valve is electronically closed. Pressure builds in the pumping chamber and opens a check valve and then is delivered to the rail. To prevent the fuel from going into the rail, the valve can open up early during the stroke and spill the fuel back into the inlet line. This likely causes a big pressure pulse with it. 
So the closing/opening of the valve is all timed to the rotation of the camshaft events. Likely the normal cam position sensor has all the input resolution needed. im not sure what the control tables look like. 
This makes things real ugly for the big turbo guys. To use a spill type control, any pumps that you want to use will have to be timed by the crank. No accessory driven pump can be used. Now if you used a timing belt driven pump it might not be accurate enough, and if you used a 3 piston type pump, you would need to power the solenoid 3 times per pump revolution. It might not be possible to reconfigure the software to handle this control method. 
There is also a large pulsation dampener shown on the pump. 

There is one other other method i have seen to control pump delivery. 
One of them restricts how much fuel is fed into the pumping chambers during charging. The control signal is likely a 200 - 400 hz pulse width modulated signal to control the valve. So you starve it for fuel and it pulls a vacuum when at part load. Then when it pumps the inlet check valve closes and the outlet check valve opens to deliver the fuel. I have seen normally open and normally closed solenoid valves for this. Kind of odd because if it fails open then it delivers 100% all the time, but if it fails closed, you can't limp home at all. Often a high pressure solenoid on the rail is used in addition to this valve to trim the pressure. (mostly just diesel applications with variable rail pressure) The bosch diagrams I have show a mechanical pressure limiter valve to prevent overpressure. 
now these systems should be much easier to go big turbo on. You can probably tune the PID closed loop pressure control for a higher flow mechanical pump of any variety, and can drive off of the accessory belt if you want.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (enginerd)*

I don't have access to my hosting from home (new laptop no FTP software and don't have my login stuff)
I'll take the pics now and try and scan the page tomorrow that shows the steps of the hitachi pump, little confusing since they tried to flatten out something that is not flat so it seems off, and again I think its mislabeled.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (enginerd)*

I have been doing some more thinking. This hitachi spec is kind of interesting. 









Question? What does the camshaft look like on these cars? i was picturing a single lobe that was basically an offset circle. The hitachi spec makes me picture a 2 lobe, and a 3 lobe version. 
Working out the flow numbers for 7000 Engine RPM = 3500 Cam RPM
The first line shows number of CAM 2, LIFT 6 mm, and there is a number I believe to be mm^3/mm stroke = 40 @ 3000. 
so 2 lobes * 6 mm * 40mm^3/mm = 480 mm^3/rev
480mm^3/rev * 3500 REV/MIN = 1680000 mm^3/MIN = 1680 cc's/min
1000 mm^3 = 1 CC
1680 cc's/min is not bad assuming that the 40 number includes some of the inefficiency information. The test case they give is not a real operating condition so we can't use it as the real flow. 
well that's not too bad, so lets look at the other option below
so 3 lobes * 5 mm * 38.5m^3/mm = 577.5 mm^3/rev
577.5mm^3/rev * 3500 REV/MIN = 2021250mm^3/MIN = 2021 cc's/min
1000 mm^3 = 1 CC

now were talking 2021 cc's/min = 300 WHP territory. 
If im not way off here we want to get the 3 lobe 5 mm camshafts!


_Modified by enginerd at 9:27 PM 1-5-2006_


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_If im not way off here we want to get the 3 lobe 5 mm camshafts!

Unfortunately that is what we already have.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (enginerd)*

I think I figured it all out. I'm gonna work on some sort of write up with pictures.
Only have to check a few things.. One thing says when it engergizes and de energizes but it sort of doesn't agree with how it would appear to have to operate based on taking it apart, but I could possibly see how it works their way.
rough version:
Fuel enters a chamber with a pressure sensor verifying there is enough feed pressure.. nothing really to do with its overall operation just pointing it out
it then flows into a chamber that has the N290... according to the book when its energized and de energized seems to be the opposite, so that is where I get confused. So ignore energizing and de-energizing at this point . At the end of the n290 is a spring loaded piece that leads to the chamber with the cam driven piston. It pushes out with the feed pump pressure.. and pushes in to seal off with the prssure from the piston. At the same time the piston is forcing the little srping loaded valve closed its pushing a spring loaded one way valve open forcing the fuel into the rail.

enginerd, according to the pics in the book its a 3 lobe cam.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Unfortunately that is what we already have.









boooo, guess we need to bore it out, and or make custom cams with more agressive lobes. What is the stroke limit of the pump itself? 
probably not far from 6mm i bet. They usually try to get a low dead volume. 


_Modified by enginerd at 10:42 PM 1-5-2006_


----------



## 20th-Hole (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_In fact they are identical









So are you saying that the F pump offers no performance advantage over the B and that even though the specs appear to be the same it's not possible the B pump has a design flaw that causes it to fall on it's face under certain conditions?


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (20th-Hole)*

The flow at 3000 pump RPM is the same, however the flow at 1500 prpm (3000 engine rpm) could be significantly different. I wouldn't say that they are exactly the same till all the parts are measured and compared, or better yet a flow bench is put together to run both pumps through an RPM vs Flow curve. 

It could even be related to the response time of the high pressure solenoid, or the leakage of the high pressure solenoid valve. 


_Modified by enginerd at 11:05 PM 1-5-2006_


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_I have been doing some more thinking. This hitachi spec is kind of interesting. 









Question? What does the camshaft look like on these cars? i was picturing a single lobe that was basically an offset circle. The hitachi spec makes me picture a 2 lobe, and a 3 lobe version. 
Working out the flow numbers for 7000 Engine RPM = 3500 Cam RPM
The first line shows number of CAM 2, LIFT 6 mm, and there is a number I believe to be mm^3/mm stroke = 40 @ 3000. 
so 2 lobes * 6 mm * 40mm^3/mm = 480 mm^3/rev
480mm^3/rev * 3500 REV/MIN = 1680000 mm^3/MIN = 1680 cc's/min
1000 mm^3 = 1 CC
1680 cc's/min is not bad assuming that the 40 number includes some of the inefficiency information. The test case they give is not a real operating condition so we can't use it as the real flow. 
well that's not too bad, so lets look at the other option below
so 3 lobes * 5 mm * 38.5m^3/mm = 577.5 mm^3/rev
577.5mm^3/rev * 3500 REV/MIN = 2021250mm^3/MIN = 2021 cc's/min
1000 mm^3 = 1 CC

now were talking 2021 cc's/min = 300 WHP territory. 
If im not way off here we want to get the 3 lobe 5 mm camshafts!

_Modified by enginerd at 9:27 PM 1-5-2006_

300 whp @ 7000erpm. That may not be impossible with a big turbo. Though the pump will still limit mid-range torque, the turbo might still be desirable for what it does at the higher end, where the pump is most efficient.
I'm not seeing how pump pulse timing is so critical if the cam has three lobes. A three lobe cam on a four cylinder engine doesn't seem like it would be very dependent on synchronization.
If synch between the pump and the firing order was important, you'd expect to find a three lobe cam on a 6 cyl engine and a two lobe cam on a four.
And if synchronization isn't that important, maybe it's still possible to augment the rail somehow. For example, if you had another source that guaranteed 100+ bar on the rail with a check valve, then couldn't the mechanical pump -- which is volume-limited, rather than pressure-limited -- make up the difference to maintain 110?


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (PD Performance)*

I ran some numbers through the RPM range based on the mm/rev delivery. 
working out cc's/min for the pump at different points, assume 0.50 BSFC, and a 12% drivetrain loss i came up with this max potential WHP plot, and I overlayed some points from the GIAC dyno. You can see where the dyno gets near the MAX WHP line is about the same RPM where the pressure goes wacky on the Brand X plot. 










Basically no matter what you do to the car the best HP curve you could have is whats shown in blue on the graph. This may not be so bad for larger turbos with less low end, assuming that they can get good control of the boost and progressively raise the boost with RPM. Still 240 lb ft in the midrange is not so terrible. The car basically needs a flat torque curve all the way to redline and it can make good power with the stock pump. 

As a side note, making a custom 6 mm 3 lobe cam would potentially add 80 Hp all around. A set of cams with a different lift/duration for the valves, and a 3 lobe 6mm cam for the pump might be a worthwile product to pursue. You know the pump is up to 6 mm of stroke based on the 2 lobe 6mm option. The rate may be too agressive with 3 lobes at high RPM, and a new spring for the pump might be needed.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (cpurick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_
I'm not seeing how pump pulse timing is so critical if the cam has three lobes. A three lobe cam on a four cylinder engine doesn't seem like it would be very dependent on synchronization.
If synch between the pump and the firing order was important, you'd expect to find a three lobe cam on a 6 cyl engine and a two lobe cam on a four.
And if synchronization isn't that important, maybe it's still possible to augment the rail somehow. For example, if you had another source that guaranteed 100+ bar on the rail with a check valve, then couldn't the mechanical pump -- which is volume-limited, rather than pressure-limited -- make up the difference to maintain 110?


Pulse timing is based on timing the closing of the control solenoid to correspond with the delivery stroke of the pump. based on the 3 lobe design, the pump needs to close the valve 3 time per cam rev. If the valve closed at the wrong time the the delivery woudl be all over the place. 
In diesel applications there are 100+ bar variations in rail pressures (2000+bar nominal) Often they try to time the delivery pulses to match with an injection event. It's all very complicated with hydraulic wave effects and its hydraulically modeled using a simulation like AMEsim. Sometimes a 2, 3, or 4 piston pump design is selected based on how smooth the curve is. With the pulsation damper used in the FSI pump, It's not quite as critical to match delivery pulses from the pump with injection pulses from the injector. However you can imagine if one injector fires while there is a high pressure pulse it will deliver more fuel than an injector that fires during a low pressure dip at the back fo the hydraulic pressure wave. I am sure that this was an important design consideration for the FSI engineers. Mainly for low quantity injection at idle speeds. 

your idea of adding a supplemental pump could work, however using a mechanical pressure regulator is often very difficult. The pressure pulsation often eats seals and valve seats in regulators. Not to shoot it down entirely, but there may be a piggyback controller required for a piggyback pump. Also remapping the pressure control for the primary pump would likely be needed. Perhaps the OEM ECU has an output that could be used to control an additional pump. Software would obviously need to be reconfigured. Perhaps going to a MBC and using the PWM signal for the N75 valve to PWM control another pump would work. Need to look at so many variables though. It's not something I could work out. Perhaps the APR software guys could swing it. 

_Modified by enginerd at 10:48 AM 1-6-2006_


_Modified by enginerd at 10:50 AM 1-6-2006_


----------



## corrado94 (Sep 22, 2003)

*Re: Actual Hitachi Flow Figures (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_

As a side note, making a custom 6 mm 3 lobe cam would potentially add 80 Hp all around. A set of cams with a different lift/duration for the valves, and a 3 lobe 6mm cam for the pump might be a worthwile product to pursue. You know the pump is up to 6 mm of stroke based on the 2 lobe 6mm option. The rate may be too agressive with 3 lobes at high RPM, and a new spring for the pump might be needed. 
 
Ive been following this post and Justin and Chris both have been doing a great job with a wealth of informationand testing here. Im just wondering what type of Pump / config fueling there using on the new 3.6 FSI ?? maybe this can give you some useful info and a direction for the modding of the 2.0FSI . 
just my 2 cents.







Bob.G


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

I woudl imagine it is a 3 plunger radial piston pump.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (enginerd)*

I'm curious about the latest dyno wich stated it runs 1.45 to 1.5 bar on the new "F" pump through the mid range with no problems. It looks like torque (and consequently boost) spikes at just below 3000rpm then drops off pretty drastically after 3100rpm to 4000rpm where it settles back down quite a bit lower in the area of mid band most people correctly postulate high boost has a neg. impact on the fp. HP seems to take a dive at 6000rpm also. Is there a boost and timing and FP log to go with this dyno? 









Thanks. cheers! Mike


----------



## Joe1s2 (Dec 27, 2005)

*Re: (enginerd)*

Ok, now I have some questions everyone is pointing to the pump?? There is a feed pump and a pressure pump and the fuel line and the injectore, I know the injectore has its limits they had to work on it and bosch had to work very hard to make the injectore that is used now, and unlike the regular injection system you would think this one must be timed. Guess what I'm trying to say is there are a lot of things that can limit fuel not just the pump. Bosch had alot of time in the injectore that is used in the 2.0T. not sure of the size injectore on 3.2 compared to 2.0T. Would like to know and the size of the feed pump and rail size. Well thats my 2cents I played around with boost and fuel pressure on my DFI mustang not a direct injection but principles are not that drasticaly different.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (Joe1s2)*

My injectors are only peaking at 9ms right now and I'm sure one of the techies here will help me out on this but i'm pretty sure upwards of 20ms can be handled on them. I too wonder about some of the other components however. Since the fuel pumps seem to be the same on the DTM car, what about the fuel pressure regulator that is part of the filter in the rear of the car? Could this be swapped for a larger unit to provide more headroom or am I on a wild goose chase? Thanks. cheers! Mike


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_My injectors are only peaking at 9ms right now and I'm sure one of the techies here will help me out on this but i'm pretty sure upwards of 20ms can be handled on them. I too wonder about some of the other components however. Since the fuel pumps seem to be the same on the DTM car, what about the fuel pressure regulator that is part of the filter in the rear of the car? Could this be swapped for a larger unit to provide more headroom or am I on a wild goose chase? Thanks. cheers! Mike

I'm seeing similar or lower depending on how my car is setup in regards to injector on time. I am not 100% sure but duty cycle may be forced to be shorter on an FSI car because it can't just dump fuel on the back of the valve when its closed.. Not the best thing always with manifold injection but it gets the fuel in.. But at the same time you can spray fuel longer now after the valves close so its a tough call.
The FPR in the fuel filter is set at a certain pressure. Only reason for that to drop low would be if it broke, which would probably set codes for the feed pressure being low, or demand went higher then the pump could flow, checking my pump duty cycles it does not seem to be maxed out just yet. but not far off.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (PD Performance)*

Injectors can't cause low fuel pressure unless they deliver more fuel that the pump provides. Which is what is now happeneing, however with good AFR's the injectors are doing their job just fine. It's the mechanical pump that's not up to the task. 
The injectors, and the in tank pump will be the weak link for high RPM flow.


----------



## cabracco85 (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: (enginerd)*

Any progress in finding a higher flowing fuel pump?


----------



## observer (Mar 24, 2004)

*Re: (cabracco85)*

Could this fault I'm getting be related to the pump? Car is std and sometimes idle rough








VAG-COM Version: Release 504.1-UD
Control Module Part Number: 8P0 907 115 D
Component and/or Version: 2.0l R4/4V TFSI G00 0050
Software Coding: 0103001018070160
Work Shop Code: WSC 06314
1 Fault Found:
008583 - Bank 1; System too Lean at Idle
P2187 - 004 - No Signal/Communication - Intermittent


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: (observer)*

why not just remap the fuel curve? may lose HP but at least things will run right!?!


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (ProjectA3)*

Here's the latest one log of the fuel pressure for the APR. This time not only does it have the full 2.75" exhaust, but also a 200cpsi HJS/Milltek hiflow cat on the car. This is not something APR sells as a package so they dont test for it, but apparently there is plenty of headroom in the program because it performs flawlesslly as seen...








cheers! Mike


----------



## cabracco85 (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_Here's the latest one log of the fuel pressure for the APR. This time not only does it have the full 2.75" exhaust, but also a 200cpsi HJS/Milltek hiflow cat on the car. This is not something APR sells as a package so they dont test for it, but apparently there is plenty of headroom in the program because it performs flawlesslly as seen...








cheers! Mike

Did you get it on the dyno yet?


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (cabracco85)*

The car has been dynod Stock, APR only, and APR+ Neuspeed Exhaust so far. I'm keeping as many variables constant as possible for each session so I am putting on 200 miles between each session. I'll get you the results just as soon as I get them. I am also going to present full data logs for each step along the way all taken under controlled conditions on the same "test course". Here are some results so far...
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2338055
cheers! Mike


_Modified by bhvrdr at 7:49 PM 1-19-2006_


----------



## stuttgart23 (Dec 2, 2002)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

I think I know who brand x is but can someone just reassure me if it's Revo, because that's what I have and I still have time to get my money back, and get another chip.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (stuttgart23)*


_Quote, originally posted by *stuttgart23* »_I think I know who brand x is but can someone just reassure me if it's Revo, because that's what I have and I still have time to get my money back, and get another chip.

I dont know if it makes you feel any better, but my buddy who is also doing the testing on programs has Revo right now for testing and has the B pump and his fuel pressure logs are solid. No problems at 1.4bar boost on his car. cheers! Mike


----------



## 08CandyWhite (Jan 31, 2003)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

I take it from the image that this 2.0T isn't chipped yet? Or is it?

_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (06DeepBlack)*

It's chipped with full exhaust. cheers! Mike


----------



## 08CandyWhite (Jan 31, 2003)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

Is it the base GIAC program or a Stage II type program for exhuast systems?


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (06DeepBlack)*

Here is my buddies Revo boosting 1.4bar with the older "B Pump". With the specs for both pumps being rated the same from Hitachi, I wonder if it isnt just individual tolerances or dealership sofware updates causing any differences noted between the F and B pump. 








cheers! Mike


----------



## 20th-Hole (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

Here is the a/f from the Revo chip which was posted in another thread.









A few questions:
Do you think part of the reason they run it leaner is to keep the fuel pressure from dropping? 
Do you have any logs of a high boost chip that has a factory like a/f from a car with a B pump?
Any idea why the stock programing runs close to 11:1? 12.5 a/f has been traditionally deemed "safe" but I wonder if the same rules apply to these engines.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (20th-Hole)*


_Quote, originally posted by *20th-Hole* »_
A few questions:
Do you think part of the reason they run it leaner is to keep the fuel pressure from dropping? 
Do you have any logs of a high boost chip that has a factory like a/f from a car with a B pump?
Any idea why the stock programing runs close to 11:1? 12.5 a/f has been traditionally deemed "safe" but I wonder if the same rules apply to these engines. 



the stock tuning is just terrible.. I've got logs somewhere of the car bone stock doing mid 10:1 WOT.....
12.5:1 isn't leaner its right.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (20th-Hole)*


_Quote, originally posted by *20th-Hole* »_
A few questions:
1. Do you think part of the reason they run it leaner is to keep the fuel pressure from dropping? 
2. Do you have any logs of a high boost chip that has a factory like a/f from a car with a B pump?
3. Any idea why the stock programing runs close to 11:1? 12.5 a/f has been traditionally deemed "safe" but I wonder if the same rules apply to these engines. 



Hello there,
1. I dont want to speculate on why Revo does what they do. There are a lot of plausible reasons that would explain it. Similar to the way people turn up boost and timing, some tuners have also turned down fuel a tad. This may be to make a bit more power, it may be because this is what has worked for them in the past, and it may have a secondary gain of allowing them a bit more boost than the others i've seen. Could be other reasons too. Either way it seems fine with regards to eminent danger. 
2. The APR on my car is now peaking about 1.35bar (has exhaust and hiflow cat). Not too far off the Revo without the exhaust and hiflow). I posted that log above. Looks great. I talked to my buddy who is evaluating yet another program and it doesnt appear we're going to really being seeing people push the boost yet until the fuel issue gets worked out. Of all the programs tested, i dont see much more than 3psi of deviation which probably has about 1psi worth of error variance in it so we're not talking huge differences here.
3. Bosch simply states for the homogenous mode..."At WOT, it may be necessary to enrich the A/F mixture. As can be seen from Fig. 1, this permits the generation of maximum-possible torque and power." Exacty how much enrichment may be a bit debatable and likely will be debatable by each tuner until the end of time. All we can do is monitor long-term reliability and other engine parameters such as EGT to tell us if there is a problem or not. 
cheers! Mike


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_the stock tuning is just terrible.. I've got logs somewhere of the car bone stock doing mid 10:1 WOT.....
12.5:1 isn't leaner its right.

I'm not trying to pick a debate, but what makes you consider the stock tuning terrible?
cheers! Mike


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
I'm not trying to pick a debate, but what makes you consider the stock tuning terrible?
cheers! Mike

Because there is no need for 10.5:1 and richer on 7psi with minimal timing advance... 
Its not helping make power and running it leaner would not lose any power so its just wasting fuel... thats poor tuning.
I know 1.8ts running leaner then that pushing 25+psi and 400+hp.... so its pretty sad that they tuned it that rich.. Before the chip I was getting worse gas mileage then my 1.8t jetta which was doing about 270 to the wheels... slightest bit of throttle and the stock 2.0t just starts dumping fuel.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_Because there is no need for 10.5:1 and richer on 7psi with minimal timing advance... 
Its not helping make power and running it leaner would not lose any power so its just wasting fuel... thats poor tuning.
I know 1.8ts running leaner then that pushing 25+psi and 400+hp.... so its pretty sad that they tuned it that rich.. Before the chip I was getting worse gas mileage then my 1.8t jetta which was doing about 270 to the wheels... slightest bit of throttle and the stock 2.0t just starts dumping fuel.

I was just curious if you knew why they were running it that rich. I'm not sure yet either. I havent spent a lot of time researching it. The stock program made 14psi when I logged it. Also base timing is pretty incredible on the stocker showing double digits and close to 20 and higher in many places. Not minimal at all IMO. I know the FSI atomizes less dense so i'm wondering if WOT with the added stock boost and timing they choose to go richer than we are used to in order to wet the cylinder walls. I've noticed very good EGT on the stock car so I was just wondering. Not even hinting that 12.5 isnt safe but just wondering the reasoning behind these things. Any ideas on this. Thanks. cheers! Mike


_Modified by bhvrdr at 7:30 PM 1-25-2006_


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (PD Performance)*

I am not sure about anyone else, but I trust audi to make a great car or I would have not bought it. I trust them to tune a car that performs well and is also going to have long term reliability (probaly why we get a good warranty). Just guessing but I would say audi knows the car better than anyone. Does that mean I am scared to run aftermarket software.. nope cause I have some loaded on my ECU. I thought the stock tuning was very smooth and it had good power. My stock dyno showed very smooth and consistant numbers with tq and hp.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

brand spanking new motor with brand spanking new technology invented by the manufacturer but they don't know how to tune it? 
Chris, I find that statement absolutely appalling!








There is a very real and important reason as to why that motor runs those afr's!


_Modified by [email protected] at 6:43 AM 1-27-2006_


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*

I'd like to know more about this too. I certainly trust Bosch knows how to tune their own motronic engine management, but i'd just like to learn more about the "whys" of it all. The new FSI is a neat system to learn. From what I can tell it seems to be working damn well for them. An almost perfectly flat hp and torque plataeu while running plenty of timing and boost with low EGT. Thanks. BTW, here is the stock WOT air/fuel curve...








cheers! Mike


_Modified by bhvrdr at 9:46 PM 1-27-2006_


----------



## allcool (Oct 24, 2002)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Keith could you go into more detail as to what is the
"important reason as to why that motor runs those afr's"
Here is a A/F of my car from today’s dyno runs, it seems to go off the chart and at max hp it looks to be 10/1

After my car came off the dyno another car went on and ran with a 12.5/1 a/f ratio staying right there @12.5/1 the whole run all the way to redline. You could smell the fumes/richness after his run...my car had NO fumes at all but ran 10/1 a/f ratio?
To me something doesn't smell right with these A/F ratio numbers.








Is 10/1 fsi different than 10/1 non fsi?










_Modified by allcool at 10:23 AM 1-28-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
There is a very real and important reason as to why that motor runs those afr's!


Please enlighten us why . . . . or have Brett do it because he'll just say "Keith is not an engineer, just a salesman"
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Please enlighten us why . . . . or have Brett do it because he'll just say "Keith is not an engineer, just a salesman"
Dave

Good, I'm not the only one that sees that, as well as the 1.8T style "ADD" in this thread.
C'mon people, let's keep it on track and civil. We all know who the mystery brand is, and I think that most of us have thanked Jeff for pointing this out to keep an eye on... that is NO MATTER which chip you have!


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_brand spanking new motor with brand spanking new technology invented by the manufacturer but they don't know how to tune it? 
Chris, I find that statement absolutely appalling!








There is a very real and important reason as to why that motor runs those afr's!



What I find appaling are your IMs to me.. last I checked and as others have pointed out you are a salesman not an engineer so you really should be the last person coming in here speaking about what is right and wrong when tuning or IMing me with the same crap.

As for Audi/bosch whomever knowing the best for these cars well then what are you doing here selling parts for them especially software. Clearly Audi engineers knew best as to how these cars should run and your company should in no way be modifying what they are doing.
Do you have any AF logs that support what you are sayiing showing APR software runing the same AF curve as the stock program? To be perfectly honest I don't recall ever seeing APR publish any AF numbers... so please enlighten us.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_What I find appaling are your IMs to me.. last I checked and as others have pointed out you are a salesman not an engineer so you really should be the last person coming in here speaking about what is right and wrong when tuning or IMing me with the same crap.

As for Audi/bosch whomever knowing the best for these cars well then what are you doing here selling parts for them especially software. Clearly Audi engineers knew best as to how these cars should run and your company should in no way be modifying what they are doing.
Do you have any AF logs that support what you are sayiing showing APR software runing the same AF curve as the stock program? To be perfectly honest I don't recall ever seeing APR publish any AF numbers... so please enlighten us.

I dont know of any tuners who have advertised their A/F numbers. Would be cool to see all of them advertise full data logs.
Stock...








APR...








You mentioned the stock programming was running 7psi of boost and minimal timing, but in actuality it runs 14psi of boost with a heck of a lot of timing. Do you have any information on the differences Bosch has used in the 2.0T FSI versus 1.8T since you stated it was bad tuning Bosch was doing. Serious question, not meant to put you on the spot but it was a bold statement stating bosch tuning was crap so it would be cool to see some of your data. Thanks. cheers! Mike



_Modified by bhvrdr at 3:24 PM 1-28-2006_


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_

You mentioned the stock programming was running 7psi of boost and minimal timing, but in actuality it runs 14psi of boost with a heck of a lot of timing. Do you have any information on the differences Bosch has used in the 2.0T FSI versus 1.8T since you stated it was bad tuning Bosch was doing. Serious question, not meant to put you on the spot but it was a bold statement stating bosch tuning was crap so it would be cool to see some of your data. Thanks. cheers! Mike



It spikes to 14psi but not for very long and not where its making 10:1 AF.. Its making 7psi once the AF has dropped off to pig rich. Timing is also still fairly low for the amount of boost the car is running.
I don't have any info on the differences between the 2.0T and the 1.8T in regards to how bosch does the tuning. (nothing that pertains to this at least)

I don't really think its that bold to say its crap, I"ve yet to see one car that runs better at those AF then something slightly leaner. Especially if I can safely run leaner with more boost.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_It spikes to 14psi but not for very long and not where its making 10:1 AF.. Its making 7psi once the AF has dropped off to pig rich. Timing is also still fairly low for the amount of boost the car is running.
I don't have any info on the differences between the 2.0T and the 1.8T in regards to how bosch does the tuning. (nothing that pertains to this at least)

I don't really think its that bold to say its crap, I"ve yet to see one car that runs better at those AF then something slightly leaner. Especially if I can safely run leaner with more boost.

The 2.0FSI is still making 14psi at 4700rpm. Im not sure why you consider holding 14psi for well over 2000rpm a spike? It drops off higher in the rev band like every K03, sure. 
I've seen more base timing utilized on the stocker than on some aftermarket programs, so i'm not sure why you call it conservative. What makes you say this?
The third point you make about seeing differences with cars running leaner, I assume you are talking 2.0T FSI cars. Do you have some data on that showing the cars running leaner are running better? I can send you some privately showing differences in EGT and power output on dynos if you'll send me your email: [email protected] Not suggesting the leaner ones are bad at all, just trying to figure out still why you say the bosch and other ones are "crap". 

cheers! Mike



_Modified by bhvrdr at 5:07 PM 1-28-2006_


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
What I find appaling are your IMs to me.. last I checked and as others have pointed out you are a salesman not an engineer so you really should be the last person coming in here speaking about what is right and wrong when tuning or IMing me with the same crap.

As for Audi/bosch whomever knowing the best for these cars well then what are you doing here selling parts for them especially software. Clearly Audi engineers knew best as to how these cars should run and your company should in no way be modifying what they are doing.
Do you have any AF logs that support what you are sayiing showing APR software runing the same AF curve as the stock program? To be perfectly honest I don't recall ever seeing APR publish any AF numbers... so please enlighten us.





_Modified by [email protected] at 10:53 AM 1-30-2006_


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

Ok everyone just needs to








and have a laugh.
No one is in trouble but, lets tone things down a bit. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_


PD Performance said:


> What I find appaling are your IMs to me.. last I checked and as others have pointed out you are a salesman not an engineer so you really should be the last person coming in here speaking about what is right and wrong when tuning or IMing me with the same crap.
> 
> As for Audi/bosch whomever knowing the best for these cars well then what are you doing here selling parts for them especially software. Clearly Audi engineers knew best as to how these cars should run and your company should in no way be modifying what they are doing.
> Do you have any AF logs that support what you are sayiing showing APR software runing the same AF curve as the stock program? To be perfectly honest I don't recall ever seeing APR publish any AF numbers... so please enlighten us.






PD Performance said:


> _Modified by [email protected] at 10:53 AM 1-30-2006_


Hmmm a post and an erase . . . . . interesting.








Dave


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
What I find appaling are your IMs to me.. last I checked and as others have pointed out you are a salesman not an engineer so you really should be the last person coming in here speaking about what is right and wrong when tuning or IMing me with the same crap.

As for Audi/bosch whomever knowing the best for these cars well then what are you doing here selling parts for them especially software. Clearly Audi engineers knew best as to how these cars should run and your company should in no way be modifying what they are doing.
Do you have any AF logs that support what you are sayiing showing APR software runing the same AF curve as the stock program? To be perfectly honest I don't recall ever seeing APR publish any AF numbers... so please enlighten us.

Hey Chris, chill out. You wanna debate about the stock software, go right ahead. There's no reason whatsoever this needs to become a personal issue.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*

An interesting update on power potential with the stock fuel system in place:
I have been in contact with two European tuning companies who mentioned that they have a turbo kit ready to go for our cars. It is complete and ready.
MTM uses a different manifold, a slightly larger k04 style turbo, a special air inlet, injectors and it comes with the full exhaust with hiflow cat. It is conservatively rated at 306hp.
http://www.mtm-online.de/en/in...306FX
Sportec similarly does use the K04 turbo with upgraded manny, and full upgraded exhaust including hiflow cat. Their kit is similarly rated at about 300hp. 
Both manufacturers have tested the kits to run with the stock fuel system. As for pricing, they are expensive due to the dollar versus Euro situation, but you can disregard the Euro pricing you see in the ads because these tuners do take a slight hit selling over here in the US so the prices won't compare if you were to simply run a conversion on the Euro prices. They will be slightly lower. 
Many of us are not interested in paying 10 grand for a full turbo kit with exhaust and all other options, but I just thought i'd pass along the information for those that are and just because it's neat to see the options coming down the pipeline that i'm sure US tuners will eventually be producing.
cheers! mike


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

There is some good HP potential with the current system, it just comes at high rpm. The midrange is the issue. They would have to hold back on the boost till higher in the rpm. 








be wary of HP claims that are not WHP. Europeans like to quote bloated numbers. I wouldn't' doubt if someone dynod a 4wd car and threw on some insane correction factor to get 300 hp as a number. Aside from a massive useless torque spike at 2500 rpm Ko4's are not impressive.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_be wary of HP claims that are not WHP. Europeans like to quote bloated numbers. I wouldn't' doubt if someone dynod a 4wd car and threw on some insane correction factor to get 300 hp as a number. Aside from a massive useless torque spike at 2500 rpm Ko4's are not impressive. 

The torque spike is usually from people trying to put 29psi through it (hehe, like I did) but since we really arent seeing that bad of spikes on the K03 running moderate boost, we wont see it with the K04 also. Look at the boost profile of a stock TT225 with the K04. It's flat as a board similar to how my programming is for the B7 running the moderate 18psi of boost. It will all depend on the tuning. If we start throwing 26psi like the B5 days than sure it'll be peaky. 
I agree the K04 is not that impressive for ultimate power, but this will be a great low cost upgrade if we can convince US tuners to follow suit as all that really needs to be replaced is exhaust, turbo and manifold and some even have considered that the cartridge will fit fine in the stock manifold. 
I've always dynod at least 10% more than MTM claimed in the past. For example, my B6 file was advetised at 255tq crank, but the car did 260tq to the wheels quattro. They do all dyno testing on the MAHA (they have over $600,000 worth of dyno room) which gives them crank hp output and then I am told they chop off about 8-10% to advertise. cheers! Mike


_Modified by bhvrdr at 7:02 AM 1-31-2006_


----------



## jim wilson (Jan 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_sheesh, just tell them who it is. its not like it matters anyways. its not one of the big 3 as some peeps like to call us.

I don't think the big 3 are the same big 3 as they were 4 years ago. That said, It's not us-


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (jim wilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jim wilson* »_
I don't think the big 3 are the same big 3 as they were 4 years ago. That said, It's not us-

I'm sorry. Who are you? And who are the big 3 iyo?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_I'm sorry. Who are you? And who are the big 3 iyo?

Keith must be new.








Jim is Upsolute.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Keith must be new.








Jim is Upsolute. 

Ah, I thought so. I just didn't see any reference in his sig or anything about who he works for, lol. Is he trying to stay on the dl or what?
I've been around for awhile, fwiw.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

But, back to the afr issue.
The reason we operate at the approx. afr of 10:1 is because there is a hardware protection feature in the ecu that keeps the egt's in a specfic range. If the egt's climb out of this specfic range, the ecu then fattens the mix to lower the egts and PREVENT premature failure of certain hardware peices, primarily the catylists and turbochargers.
Now the debate is, how much damage is actually occuring to these hardware peices. Well, borgwarner, bosch, the catylist manufacturer and Audi/VW all worked together to add this feature into the ecu. So, at some point, these engineers decided that it was absolutely necessary for this safety feature to be in the programming to ensure that no premature failure of the catylists or turbochargers occur.
Having said this, at this point in our own R&D, we are not comfortable removing this safegaurd put in place by the oem's. We are knee deep in some testing of our own. Preliminarily, we may see opportunity for removing this feature in the future but only when some hardware changes have been made. On a completely stock car with only software, we feel that removing this protection may cause premature failure of some parts because the oem's say so and went to great lengths to include this protection in their original programming.


----------



## jim wilson (Jan 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I'm sorry. Who are you? And who are the big 3 iyo?

IMO, at this moment- APR GIAC and REVO, but I've been off of the Vortex for awhile. I don't want to put up any hp/tq numbers on the 2.0T Passat(3290lbs) until the power to weight ratio is better than my truck(5980lbs)- Wouldn't want a customer getting stuck behind a slow pickup-LOL. IMHO think 272hp(232whp) would be a nice place to start for just a chip. Maybe next week. I know what I'm about to say has to do with diesel and a different style pump, but-
The TDIs had some issues with needing more fuel so some were changing out their pumps on the 5sp for the slightly larger pumps found on the autos- I know that is not possible here, but people started using larger injectors- .205 vs .189 and that gave the extra fuel needed for the larger turbos. What I'm getting at is the pump is only able to give so much fuel, yet when all was said and done, the larger injectors made it possible to get more fuel out of the same pump- I'm just a sales guy so don't any of you beat me over the head with your rolled up engineering degrees- I'm just asking if anyone has tried it or thought about trying it?


----------



## allcool (Oct 24, 2002)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Thanks for the info Keith http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I am kind of new to turbo engines (love em), mostly been a normally aspirated guy. 
Anybody know
What the max egt a turbo or cat can take...safely. 
It does look like that cat is mighty close to the turbo on the a4. Egt’s are normally taken 6-8" from center of the piston which also puts the turbo close to the flame front. Never really thought about it much till you just brought it up Keith.
Turbos have to put up with some very unfriendly conditions for bearings and spinning impellers. It seems like a juggling job of keeping operating temps down for long turbo/cat life and keeping egt/afr in the optimum range.
12/1 seems to be the sought after afr for normally aspirated. My question is, does the 1.8t use a 12/1 afr or did it also use the 10/1 afr ?

Sorry for the questions, not trying to second guess anybody, just curious about this awesome new turbo motor.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (allcool)*

these engines are a little different in comparison to the 1.8T. specifically, the "hardware protection maps" as our engineers refer to them, were not present in the old ems. Also, this motor uses 2 cats.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Hey Chris, chill out. You wanna debate about the stock software, go right ahead. There's no reason whatsoever this needs to become a personal issue. 

I'm sorry but keith made it personal earlier and then Iming me with false claims that safety features were disabled... Also two people before me commented on the fact that keith is just a salesman... So where are my personal issues here..
I'm 2 seconds away from posting keiths IMs...


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
The 2.0FSI is still making 14psi at 4700rpm. Im not sure why you consider holding 14psi for well over 2000rpm a spike? It drops off higher in the rev band like every K03, sure. 


I haven't seen 14psi on any stock 2.0Ts I've driven and logged. They are generally down to below 12psi by 4K


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_But, back to the afr issue.
The reason we operate at the approx. afr of 10:1 is because there is a hardware protection feature in the ecu that keeps the egt's in a specfic range. If the egt's climb out of this specfic range, the ecu then fattens the mix to lower the egts and PREVENT premature failure of certain hardware peices, primarily the catylists and turbochargers.
Now the debate is, how much damage is actually occuring to these hardware peices. Well, borgwarner, bosch, the catylist manufacturer and Audi/VW all worked together to add this feature into the ecu. So, at some point, these engineers decided that it was absolutely necessary for this safety feature to be in the programming to ensure that no premature failure of the catylists or turbochargers occur.


Keith I've done some logging recently with both stock and modified files and the EGTs are actually pretty similar. At cruise speed on the highway at zero boost the EGTs are as high as what some would argue as being way to high. At WOT both stock and modified the EGTs are argueably within the range of reading errors.
We are even talking about 10psi stock at 10:1 and 15psi modified 12.5:1.
So again what is the problem exactly?
I'm in the process of hooking up some of my better data logging equipment I should have some better data to post in the next few days. All of this will be done with independent equipment so any theories of data being altered in the ecu to make it appear normal will be irrelevant.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_these engines are a little different in comparison to the 1.8T. specifically, the "hardware protection maps" as our engineers refer to them, were not present in the old ems. Also, this motor uses 2 cats.


transverse 1.8ts also had two cats...


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_

transverse 1.8ts also had two cats... 

didn't realize that. I've always only noticed the one. Futhermore, post away that im, maybe that will be the final straw to get you banned. You don't concern me with your threats. Please keep them coming as I would love to see you go away. Its not like you don't have a history of not being able to play nice on these forums.








Also, if you think I am in over my head, how do you justify any validity to your own statements when your resources are much smaller than what I have at my disposal?
The hardware protection maps are real and if you want to provide some technical data to dispute their existance, then by all means do so. Otherwise, please don't attempt personal attacks against my credibility by disputing technical information that you have no way to prove.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_

The hardware protection maps are real and if you want to provide some technical data to dispute their existance, then by all means do so. Otherwise, please don't attempt personal attacks against my credibility by disputing technical information that you have no way to prove.

Please show me keith where I stated that there were no protection maps. 
You are the only one making attacks on creditbility with nothing to prove by accusing certain companies of defeating these protection maps.
Whatever your resources may be you have no proof either that yours are greater then mine especially ones pertaining to this matter.
Please since you have all of these resources show some information to back up your claims that protection maps are being rescaled. You are the only one making claims against others that cannot be proven.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
I haven't seen 14psi on any stock 2.0Ts I've driven and logged. They are generally down to below 12psi by 4K

The max boost will depend on weather, altitude, etc. I have logged cars in conditions ranging from 13.5psi max to 14.5psi max boost. Only point I was trying to make is that it is not very peaky as suggested. It remains stable from 2400rpm to 4700rpm at least. cheers! Mike


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
The max boost will depend on weather, altitude, etc. I have logged cars in conditions ranging from 13.5psi max to 14.5psi max boost. Only point I was trying to make is that it is not very peaky as suggested. It remains stable from 2400rpm to 4700rpm at least. cheers! Mike

yes to some extent, it kind of acts more like an early dbc 1.8t then the dbw 1.8ts in that regards.
however your log I saw recently was only 14psi at 4700 with your apr chip, in the same thread I saw this log the car was only showing about 10psi with stock psi.
this is the thread about boost not holding somewhere in this forum I think.


----------



## Semtex (Dec 11, 2001)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_Please show me keith where I stated that there were no protection maps. 
You are the only one making attacks on creditbility with nothing to prove by accusing certain companies of defeating these protection maps.
Whatever your resources may be you have no proof either that yours are greater then mine especially ones pertaining to this matter.
Please since you have all of these resources show some information to back up your claims that protection maps are being rescaled. You are the only one making claims against others that cannot be proven.


Chris,
I have invited you on a couple of ocassions last year to visit APR and see how we do things here...the invitation still stands!...The annual APR BBQ might be a great time to visit us.
This will give us also a chance to show you in our copy of the 6000 page BOSCH/Audi manual as well with some of our tools what we are talking about (You might want to bring a German dictionary!).

Ben


----------



## jim wilson (Jan 20, 2000)

*Re: (Semtex)*

Hey I think the BBQ will be great- haven't been since 2000


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (Semtex)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Semtex* »_

Chris,
I have invited you on a couple of ocassions last year to visit APR and see how we do things here...the invitation still stands!...The annual APR BBQ might be a great time to visit us.
This will give us also a chance to show you in our copy of the 6000 page BOSCH/Audi manual as well with some of our tools what we are talking about (You might want to bring a German dictionary!).

Ben


Ben, yes have to some extent had an open invitation and I have tried to make the bbq a few times but seem to never be able to pull it off. But that being said you have been the only one to actually offer any form of open communications most interactions are similar to Keiths who hasn't even been around for a year. At which time I have not posted one negative comment about APR so I find it very surprising he has so much against me unless others there are feeding him things to say. Even you didn't know this name and chris86vw were even one in the same till I told you. 
One of your employees is making comments about other tuning companies while offering no proof to back up the claims. It really doesn't matter that the safety measures are there... that they are new or have been around for 5 years. The point is that Keith made claims that people are writing around them in their code while offering no proof that they actually are or that the parameters are even what he is claimin they are set at from the factory. He hasn't even offered any data that proves APR does not retune the safety parameters just as he is accusing others of.
This is all I questioned, I don't need to see your supposed text (although I thought it was actual programmers from bosch on staff not a book), that doesn't alter what keith is claiming here. Or change the fact that he nor anyone else at APR for that matter has any proof to back up what Keith is claiming.


----------



## Semtex (Dec 11, 2001)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_Ben, yes have to some extent had an open invitation and I have tried to make the bbq a few times but seem to never be able to pull it off. But that being said you have been the only one to actually offer any form of open communications most interactions are similar to Keiths who hasn't even been around for a year. At which time I have not posted one negative comment about APR so I find it very surprising he has so much against me unless others there are feeding him things to say. Even you didn't know this name and chris86vw were even one in the same till I told you. 
One of your employees is making comments about other tuning companies while offering no proof to back up the claims. It really doesn't matter that the safety measures are there... that they are new or have been around for 5 years. The point is that Keith made claims that people are writing around them in their code while offering no proof that they actually are or that the parameters are even what he is claimin they are set at from the factory. He hasn't even offered any data that proves APR does not retune the safety parameters just as he is accusing others of.
This is all I questioned, I don't need to see your supposed text (although I thought it was actual programmers from bosch on staff not a book), that doesn't alter what keith is claiming here. Or change the fact that he nor anyone else at APR for that matter has any proof to back up what Keith is claiming.

Chris,
Keith is a great guy, if you get to know him you will see his comments in another light.
As to our other staff members, yes we do have a programmer from Bosch working here....the information however we get from the (internal) manuals is extremly valuable since it shows flowcharts and gives reasoning behind certain code structures...
Like Keith said the A/F is preditermined (sp) by certain maps that grab into one another to keep the mixture rich...the German wording for this is Bauteilenschutz.
Enough of this..... get your 8SS in your car and meet us at our annual BBQ










_Modified by Semtex at 1:39 PM 2-1-2006_


----------



## Semtex (Dec 11, 2001)

*Re: (jim wilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jim wilson* »_Hey I think the BBQ will be great- haven't been since 2000

Jim,
Your welcome too....the more the merrier!!! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
I'm sorry but keith made it personal earlier and then Iming me with false claims that safety features were disabled... Also two people before me commented on the fact that keith is just a salesman... So where are my personal issues here..
I'm 2 seconds away from posting keiths IMs...

Chris, it sounds like you both have some personal issues going on here. I don't think there's a need to bring in personal issues into this otherwise interesting techbical thread. If you feel there's been harassment, then let me know. Otherwise, it sounds as if the two of you guys just need to ease up on each other and get back to the topic at hand. Why can't we all just get along.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 9, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Futhermore, post away that im, maybe that will be the final straw to get you banned. You don't concern me with your threats. Please keep them coming as I would love to see you go away. Its not like you don't have a history of not being able to play nice on these forums.










Keith, as I said to Chris. This is a good thread. It doesn't have to go personal, so likewise, let's dial it back. If you and Chris have something to take care of between the two of you, then keep it on IM or email. Argue the points, not the person.
Funny on situations like this. Our staff has hung out with both of you guys. It's amazing how many folks on these forums who bust heads would probably get along swimmingly over a beer in a pool hall.
Resume game.








-G


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_yes to some extent, it kind of acts more like an early dbc 1.8t then the dbw 1.8ts in that regards.
however your log I saw recently was only 14psi at 4700 with your apr chip, in the same thread I saw this log the car was only showing about 10psi with stock psi.
this is the thread about boost not holding somewhere in this forum I think.

Is it possible you read it wrong? My program makes about 18.5psi consistently when it's not 2 C outside, but here is the log from the other thread in the 2 C conditions...








Still no spikes even with this boost. The stock log taking into account my buddies altitude in Arizona shows him still making 13psi even at 4900rpm. The boost definitely comes on early but it is very consistent before finally running out of steam.
cheers! Mike


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
Is it possible you read it wrong? My program makes about 18.5psi consistently when it's not 2 C outside, but here is the log from the other thread in the 2 C conditions...


How can you read it wrong... go between 4500 and 5000 and draw a line up you are between 14 and 16psi.. now from that same thread you posted that in there is a post showing 
here is a stock one:








and another








Please show me a log with a car making 14psi at 4700.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_How can you read it wrong... go between 4500 and 5000 and draw a line up you are between 14 and 16psi.. now from that same thread you posted that in there is a post showing 
here is a stock one:

and another

Please show me a log with a car making 14psi at 4700.

The second stock log is from a car where in the post the person is having significant boost problems. That is not at all representative of the stock boost profile as you know from reading that post titled "Stock 2.0T, having trouble controlling boost it seems"
The first stock log is taken from my buddies car in arizona where his car subtract about 900mbar for altitude. That leaves him making a hair over 900mbar at 4800rpm or .9*14.5 = 13.05psi. Keep in mind audi rates the stock boost for the 2.0TFSI at 12psi which is usually a bit of an average of the peak boost and upper RPM boost. Similar to how the Europeans rate their chips on the boost hold rather than the initial spike that we saw in the B6.
Not trying to turn this into an argument at all, but just showing that it is a lot more than the original 7psi you quoted and there is no evidence of quick spikes to peak and drops in the stock or APR program. I recgonize we saw this on heavily boosted K03 and K04 programs in the B6 but right now people are running things very conservative.
cheers! Mike


_Modified by bhvrdr at 4:26 PM 2-1-2006_


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
The second stock log is from a car where in the post the person is having significant boost problems. That is not at all representative of the stock boost profile as you know from reading that post titled "Stock 2.0T, having trouble controlling boost it seems"
The first stock log is taken from my buddies car in arizona where his car subtract about 900mbar for altitude. That leaves him making a hair over 900mbar at 4800rpm or .9*14.5 = 13.05psi.
Not trying to turn this into an argument at all, but just showing that it is a lot more than the original 7psi you quoted and there is no evidence of quick spikes to peak and drops in the stock or APR program. I recgonize we saw this on heavily boosted K03 and K04 programs in the B6 but right now people are running things very conservative.
cheers! Mike

I'm sorry but the numbers are right there.. the car is making a hair over .8 bar at that rpm not .9
The car with the boost problems still has requested log present which matches what I am saying not you.
you can say you are not trying to argue all you want but you haven't been able to point out any stock cars making what you claim yet I have been able to prove that stock cars ar enot making what you claim.
your apr chipped car is barely making what you claim a stock car is making.
Yes there is some change for altitude.. but not .9 like you claimed, and there is some for temperature but again not that much. If that were the case when cold they wouldbe making 0 boost.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_I'm sorry but the numbers are right there.. the car is making a hair over .8 bar at that rpm not .9
The car with the boost problems still has requested log present which matches what I am saying not you.
you can say you are not trying to argue all you want but you haven't been able to point out any stock cars making what you claim yet I have been able to prove that stock cars ar enot making what you claim.
your apr chipped car is barely making what you claim a stock car is making.
Yes there is some change for altitude.. but not .9 like you claimed, and there is some for temperature but again not that much. If that were the case when cold they wouldbe making 0 boost.

.8bar would be subtracting 1000mbar for atmospheric pressure. This is even off for my car in Kentucky right now as I see 980mbar at idle. My buddy sees somewhere closer to 900mbar at idle. I dont make this stuff up. Send him a PM. Here is another of his logs...









Again, the issue is that the car is making quite a bit more than 7psi correct? And does that look spikey?
I'm not sure what you mean by the APR car is barely making what the stock car is making. You do see it making 17psi all the way to 4500rpm dont you? 


_Modified by bhvrdr at 4:51 PM 2-1-2006_


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
.8bar would be subtracting 1000mbar for atmospheric pressure. This is even off for my car in Kentucky right now as I see 980mbar at idle. My buddy sees somewhere closer to 900mbar at idle. I dont make this stuff up. Send him a PM. Here is another of his logs...



yeah so thats .08bar or 80mbar not 900 like you said.


_Quote »_
Again, the issue is that the car is making quite a bit more than 7psi correct? And does that look spikey?


no you turned the issue into that. I made a comment that the cars are runnign 10.5:1 and 7psi... at one given rpm point that you have chosen they are possibly running a little higher but you also hapened to pick roughly the rpm point when the cars fall flat on their face but START to make the rich of AF.. til ten they are roughly doing 12:1.

_Quote »_
I'm not sure what you mean by the APR car is barely making what the stock car is making. You do see it making 17psi all the way to 4500rpm dont you? 




I'm actually trying to refrain from blowing some wine out my nose since you made me actually think about some of the numbers you are trying to argue...
the numbers 17-14=3 which also equals 599......


----------



## Misano (May 29, 2003)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

Hey mike,
Make me one of those fancy graphs

14.66	1360	55.6	1750	1050
15	1480	88	1800	1100
15.4	1640	94.7	1920	1210
15.81	1800	102.3	2100	1340
16.21	2000	115	2140	1490
16.58	2200	135.3	2220	1700
16.98	2480	167.7	2330	2090
17.38	2840	185.7	2390	2400
17.78	3200	189.5	2400	2460
18.12	3440	191.7	2390	2450
18.52	3720	191.7	2380	2430
18.92	4040	191.7	2370	2370
19.31	4320	191	2370	2270
19.67	4560	188.7	2330	2190
20.07	4840	182.7	2200	2120
20.49	5120	174.4	2080	2040
20.92	5360	169.2	1980	1970
21.27	5560	166.2	1910	1920
21.68	5800	160.9	1860	1860
22.09	6000	156.4	1810	1770
22.5	6200	149.6	1780	1710
22.84	6360	145.9	1760	1660
23.26	6560	142.9	1740	1640
23.68	6600	139.8	1730	1630


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_yeah so thats .08bar or 80mbar not 900 like you said.

no you turned the issue into that. I made a comment that the cars are runnign 10.5:1 and 7psi... at one given rpm point that you have chosen they are possibly running a little higher but you also hapened to pick roughly the rpm point when the cars fall flat on their face but START to make the rich of AF.. til ten they are roughly doing 12:1.

I'm actually trying to refrain from blowing some wine out my nose since you made me actually think about some of the numbers you are trying to argue...
the numbers 17-14=3 which also equals 599......

Ok, from the graph,
1820mbar at 4800rpm - 900mbar (atmpspheric)= 920mbar. 920mbar = .92 bar or 13.34psi. 
80mbar and .08bar would be only 1.16psi???
I understand what your saying about boost dropping off though. A K03 is of course going to do that and you point is well taken.
However, take into consideration that timing DRASTICALLY increases towards redline. In fact it just about triples itself in the upper rpms and expecially at redline. I'm sure you know the improtance of fuel with timing.
Your last line seems to take a cheap shot at APR implying that it is a rip off, so I won't bother responding to those types of personal interjections in an otherwise fruitful and data providing discusssion.
cheers! Mike


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (Misano)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Misano* »_Hey mike,
Make me one of those fancy graphs

14.66	1360	55.6	1750	1050
15	1480	88	1800	1100
15.4	1640	94.7	1920	1210
15.81	1800	102.3	2100	1340
16.21	2000	115	2140	1490
16.58	2200	135.3	2220	1700
16.98	2480	167.7	2330	2090
17.38	2840	185.7	2390	2400
17.78	3200	189.5	2400	2460
18.12	3440	191.7	2390	2450
18.52	3720	191.7	2380	2430
18.92	4040	191.7	2370	2370
19.31	4320	191	2370	2270
19.67	4560	188.7	2330	2190
20.07	4840	182.7	2200	2120
20.49	5120	174.4	2080	2040
20.92	5360	169.2	1980	1970
21.27	5560	166.2	1910	1920
21.68	5800	160.9	1860	1860
22.09	6000	156.4	1810	1770
22.5	6200	149.6	1780	1710
22.84	6360	145.9	1760	1660
23.26	6560	142.9	1740	1640
23.68	6600	139.8	1730	1630

Hiya there Anthony,
The Neuspeed exhaust is absolutely awesome. I'm dynoing in a couple weeks with the hiflow cat. 
If you shoot that to me in excel form and give me your idle reading, i'll shoot it to you back with a graph from which you can use the formula to do them forever and ever







I actually just learned the graphing functions from a buddy. I'm not very computer savvy. Looks pretty cool on the log though. I'm guessing about 20.5psi peaks while holding a bit over 17.5psi til 4500rpm. Then very linearly trailing off til it finally hits a bit over 9.5psi near redline. Sound right from what you've seen? That's using a conservative 980correction. Not sure what you use though. Heck, shoot me over the works on it if you have it. 
cheers! Mike


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
Ok, from the graph,
1820mbar at 4800rpm - 900mbar (atmpspheric)= 920mbar. 920mbar = .92 bar or 13.34psi. 


I understand what you are saying with the correction now, I was not accounting for that 100% earlier. Actually block 006 actually has a percent correct for altitude.


_Quote »_
However, take into consideration that timing DRASTICALLY increases towards redline. In fact it just about triples itself in the upper rpms and expecially at redline. I'm sure you know the improtance of fuel with timing.

they actually have less to do with each other then you would think. And timing can have alot more to do with egts then you would think.. even in the opposite direction to the tune of retarding your timing can increase egts because the mixture is still burning in the exhaust manifold... Just as much as going richer can mean the now retarded timing is burning off all that excess fuel in the exhaust.

on a bell curve lambda will theoretically be the hottest so essentially 12:1 would be similar to 19:1 as far as temps however 12:1 with retarded timing could actually be hotter then 19:1 with advanced timing.. not that you would want that for actual combustion chamber temps.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*

what are we arguing about? stock cars not being able to hit 14 psi?


----------



## bulldog2.G (Jul 25, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*

I want my 42 minutes back. This thread is a waste. Moss is a twit, and very little of the actual "info" here is backable. Yawn.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (bulldog2.G)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bulldog2.G* »_I want my 42 minutes back. This thread is a waste. Moss is a twit, and very little of the actual "info" here is backable. Yawn.

Well, I think one thing has been informational which is that in the over 6000 views of this thread not a single person has replicated this **Important** condition. Guess that's good for the consumers out there.
cheers! mike


----------



## Rice-Eater (Mar 9, 2002)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
not a single person has replicated this **Important** condition. 
cheers! mike


WINNAR!!!


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_Well, I think one thing has been informational which is that in the over 6000 views of this thread not a single person has replicated this **Important** condition. Guess that's good for the consumers out there.
cheers! mike

Has anyone tried to replicate with the early version of the rail pump? I thought all of ya'lls had the updated one, and I don't have 42 minutes to read every post again.
Glad this is getting on topic again http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

It's not happening on my 91 APR program. I don't have the log with me but, I did a 3rd gear pull and the fuel pressure was right where it should be. No fall offs.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (thread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thread* »_It's not happening on my 91 APR program. I don't have the log with me but, I did a 3rd gear pull and the fuel pressure was right where it should be. No fall offs.

The other IMPORTANT part of the first post that is missing:
*What rail pump do you have?*


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
The other IMPORTANT part of the first post that is missing:
*What rail pump do you have?*

Oh, oops, good call. F pump.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (thread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thread* »_Oh, oops, good call. F pump.

And that my friend, is the golden ticket of rail pumps http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_And that my friend, is the golden ticket of rail pumps http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

The ones posted for my buddies car is the B pump. He's now tried Revo and GIAC. He goes in for APR this week. So far so good for his car. No problems with rail pressure. cheers! Mike


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (bulldog2.G)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bulldog2.G* »_I want my 42 minutes back. This thread is a waste. Moss is a twit, and very little of the actual "info" here is backable. Yawn.

Um no . . . . I know of one person with Brand XYZ chip that has gone in for a fuel pump replacement from B to F prompted by his dealer after he has having stumbling issues & etc. I will see if he is willing to post here, but in his email he wanted to keep it off the forums until he has had the work done & etc.
Dave


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (crew217)*

I have the B pump. I have done numerous logs with GIAC, REVO, and stock and never seen an issue with the B pump. I have never had it stumble, or act funny.
I did hear of one guy that got his pump replaced after cold start issues. 
So far I have not seen or heard of any one with fuel issues.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (parks853)*

I"ve got the B in mine also, no problems.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
here is a stock one:










Here is a stock B7 A4








Looks pretty similar.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_I"ve got the B in mine also, no problems. 

Hey Chris, 
Yourself and enginerd will dig this.







I am reposting the entire original post with an addition of the information/verification that many have wanted to see. Take a look at the bottom:
Hi Everyone,
The new TFSi system for the VAG product line brings quite a few new challenges to the table and the learning curve is / and will be steep! 
One of the problem areas that seems to be cropping up is the ability of the original “Rail” pump to sustain the spec’d pressure (about 110 BAR) under high torque conditions. This is a problem that has been known to GIAC for some time and has been checked during the development of the programs that are now being released.
The data group that shows pump rail pressure is 205; I suggest that you log this in conjunction with another group that shows RPM. Also please note that this should be checked under high load conditions. I.e. The problem is more pronounced in a 5th gear pull than a 2nd gear pull (this also relates to dynos that do not have enough load). Some examples below:

SF’s B7 A4 stock








SF’s B7 A4 GIAC “03b”








JT’s B7 A4 “Brand X”








JT’s B7 A4 GIAC “03ba”









The normal range appears to be about 110 BAR at wide open throttle. And from my understanding there is a fault code that pops up when pressure drops below about 90ish bar. The car shown above with the dropping pressure did not have a code, and it is suspected that some are turning off this feature. GIAC does not.
Before everyone panics!
There is a replacement pump that will be available to GIAC dealers shortly that will help with this problem. If you see this problem, please call regardless of the brand of chip that you have. We do not want to create an environment of fear in tuning these excellent motors, surely when all of the tuner take a look and correct this it will no longer be an issue.
Please note that the fuel delivery system operates in a range of 725 to about 1750 psi. This can SEVERLY injure you if the system is not bled down properly before removal of the original pump. So if in doubt, DO NOT DO IT!
If any of you are in the Los Angeles area and are interested in the GIAC product I hope to hear from you. 
Take care, and have fun all!

Jeff Moss 
Torque Factory, Inc.
2304 Zeno place
Venice, CA 90291
310-466-4296
http://www.torque-factory.com
[email protected]
To find a local GIAC dealer:
http://www.giacusa.com

_*Below is modified Feb 6 2006 by J. Moss. No changes to original post*_
My friend Shaun G made some runs with the StaSis engineering shop A3. Here are the details:
Car has a turbo back exhaust
GIAC FX with 1.5 bar peak
* The only change was the pumps*








I will be doing the same test with an A4 in the next few days. 



_Modified by J. Moss at 9:46 AM 2-6-2006_


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_Here is a stock B7 A4








Looks pretty similar.

You're log shows about 1820mbar at 4700rpm Jeff.
1820mbar - ~950mbar (atmospheric) = 870mbar boost.
.87bar = 12.6psi.
You may be subtracting a full 1000mbar for atmospheric. I would doubt that is the reading you see at idle in California. My buddy sees 920mbar at idle in Arizona. A maximum of about 15.5psi out of his GIAC chip. 
Here is the same car for each run before and after chipping...
Stock...








GIAC...








cheers! Mike


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

Nice repost jeff. 
For the side argument regarding boost. Why are you guys subtracting less boost for atmospheric? The vaules are absolute pressure. It's how much air is going into the engine. If you were on everest running 2 psi and making 30 hp would you say you were really running 1 bar of boost







Subtract 1000 mbar and make it apples to apples.


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_
The car shown above with the dropping pressure did not have a code, and it is suspected that some are turning off this feature. GIAC does not.
surely when all of the tuner take a look and correct this it will no longer be an issue.


Not sure about every tuner, but REVO and APR seem to have it figured out. No fueling issues what so ever. and since you reposted I will also repost.. no one other than you has posted with any fueling problems. Also, I do have the B pump. I have done many logs.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_You're log shows about 1820mbar at 4700rpm Jeff.
1820mbar - ~950mbar (atmospheric) = 870mbar boost.
.87bar = 12.6psi.
You may be subtracting a full 1000mbar for atmospheric. I would doubt that is the reading you see at idle in California. My buddy sees 920mbar at idle in Arizona. A maximum of about 15.5psi out of his GIAC chip. 
Here is the same car for each run before and after chipping...
Stock...








GIAC...








cheers! Mike

_*"You may be subtracting a full 1000mbar for atmospheric. I would doubt that is the reading you see at idle in California. My buddy sees 920mbar at idle in Arizona. A maximum of about 15.5psi out of his GIAC chip."*_ 
Mike, My test area is less than 1 mile to the ocean....
1820 - 1010(atmo condition according to scan tool logs from that pass)=810 
.81 x 14.5= 11.75
Looks pretty straightforward to me... Do some research and let us know where we are mistaken.








PS Moss owns page 8


_Modified by J. Moss at 10:03 AM 2-6-2006_


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_Nice repost jeff. 

Thanks!
You have some gems in there also


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (parks853)*


_Quote, originally posted by *parks853* »_Not sure about every tuner, but REVO and APR seem to have it figured out. No fueling issues what so ever. and since you reposted I will also repost.. no one other than you has posted with any fueling problems. Also, I do have the B pump. I have done many logs.

Hi Parks,
This is not really a Revo and APR smarter than Competitor(GIAC) deal. 








This clearly shows that the "F Pump" flows more in the midrange than the "B Pump" with *NO SOFTWARE CHANGES* 
Please explain how this can be interpreted otherwise.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_
Hi Parks,
This is not really a Revo and APR smarter than Competitor(GIAC) deal. 








This clearly shows that the "F Pump" flows more in the midrange than the "B Pump" with *NO SOFTWARE CHANGES* 
Please explain how this can be interpreted otherwise. 

Bad B pump? It happens . . . have you tried replicating this with different B & F pumps? Have already read a few posts about people having their B pumps replaced by the dealer because they were causing issues even with the stock programming.
I suppose running two new B & F pumps would solve the debate since several people have "hinted" at a "break-in" period.
Dave


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Bad B pump? It happens . . . have you tried replicating this with different B & F pumps? Have already read a few posts about people having their B pumps replaced by the dealer because they were causing issues even with the stock programming.
I suppose running two new B & F pumps would solve the debate since several people have "hinted" at a "break-in" period.
Dave

Man you guys need a mountain of information


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_
Man you guys need a mountain of information










So far APR has been the last to post that the fuel pumps are the same








Dave


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_
Hi Parks,
This is not really a Revo and APR smarter than Competitor(GIAC) deal. 
This clearly shows that the "F Pump" flows more in the midrange than the "B Pump" with *NO SOFTWARE CHANGES* 
Please explain how this can be interpreted otherwise. 


Hi Jeff,
You stated in the beginning of this thread that you are concerned that as the pumps "get a little wear" the capacity becomes an issue. So if you did testing on a car with a worn-in B pump and then tested the car with a brand new F-pump wouldnt that invalidate the results? I mean wouldnt you want to either test a brand new B pump and brand new F pump or else a 5K mile B pump and a 5K mile F pump? Technically, even if you put on a brand new B pump wouldnt it possibly provide a bit more headroom than an older B pump that you took off the car? What are your thoughts on this?
cheers! Mike


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

APR posted that the specifications for the 2 pumps show the same displacement. There are manufacturing tolerances to consider. There is a piston that fits in a bore. A very tight fit without any seals. If the clearance is off, then the actual displacement will be lower, and the problems can occur. A change from B to F could simply be a change to the tolerance on one of the parts. 
We are operating outside of the cushion that the manufacturer added in for the pumps capacity. There will likely be more cases of this low pressure occuring. Dare i say GIAC will have this problem eventually just need to find a car with a pump built with excessive clearance that still just barely meets the OEM specs for delivery. They probably run all these on a cam box at the factory to test flow vs pressure at a few rpm. Bottom line if your running lots of torque in the midrange from hig boost and a turbo back exhaust, you better keep an eye on the fuel pressure.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
So far APR has been the last to post that the fuel pumps are the same








Dave

and so far giac is the only company that has problems with the fuel pumps


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_Hi Parks,
This is not really a Revo and APR smarter than Competitor(GIAC) deal. 








This clearly shows that the "F Pump" flows more in the midrange than the "B Pump" with *NO SOFTWARE CHANGES* 
Please explain how this can be interpreted otherwise. 

if this is not a REVO and APR smarter than competitor(GIAC) deal then it must be a GIAC smarter than REVO and APR post or you would not have posted this 

_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_
The car shown above with the dropping pressure did not have a code, and it is suspected that some are turning off this feature. GIAC does not.
surely when all of the tuner take a look and correct this it will no longer be an issue.


and then edited the post about it.
I thought it was clear that GIAC and stock were not having any fueling issues, so let me restate; I have tried APR, GIAC, REVO, and stock on my B pump with over 5000 miles on the car and have had no fueling isssues what so ever. I still have not seen anyone other than you post low fuel pressure issues. I have no preference toward any software company. I could care less. I am just posting because I seem to be the only one with a B pump that is doing any testing. And not only did I do some testing.. I have done a lot of testing. 
to explain the difference in the 2 pumps - if you keep testing that bad B pump you are going to see a difference between a bad B and a good F pump. Cause my B pump works great. It may break tomorrow.. but works good for now.
How is the testing going on the guys car you borrowed?


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

parks, do you have anythign else done to your car? Boost controller, turbo back exhaust, intake/air filter? maybe you just don't have the same flow/boost as some of the other peope with the problems. A few psi could put you over the edge with these mechanical pumps. we basically eat up all the margin with a chip. Even the F pump in the graph has signs that it can't hold 110 bar at the torque peak.


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (enginerd)*

My car is bone stock except for the programming, but that is what Moss is comparing with the B pump brand X fuel issues. I wanted to do some software testing before I modded anything else.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (parks853)*


_Quote, originally posted by *parks853* »_My car is bone stock except for the programming, but that is what Moss is comparing with the B pump brand X fuel issues. I wanted to do some software testing before I modded anything else.

well, actually, that is where the confusion is. he presents it like its on an otherwise stock car but when you look at the dyno's and later posts of his he tells you that the car has a full exhaust and intake, I think, as well.
the funniest part imo is that the issue is presented on a long car whereas it is more prevalent on the trans cars. Mike put the highflow and all on his car with our software with no issues but if you put on a highflow on a trans, you'll hit it evertime if you don't upgrade to stage 2+ programming.
This is the way we are doing it at this time and what we have observed through our own r&d and beta tester feedback as well as real world customer feedback.
APR
B or F pump longitudinal mount + highflow cat = no issues on stage 1 programming
B or F pump transverse mount + highflow cat = no issues on stage 2+ programming
_Modified by [email protected] at 5:15 PM 2-6-2006_


_Modified by [email protected] at 3:21 PM 2-7-2006_


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (enginerd)*

I've been doing alot of testing the past few days.. I'm headed home now and that happens to be were my extra pump is. I'm gonna finally take the pictures and make up a chart on how the pump all works.
Not that it will help anything at the moment but it will help some understand the pump itself.

I'd try it on my car and see if it changes anything but I took it apart, carried it around in my backpack for a few weeks, and dropped a few of the smaller parts a few hundred times so its never going on my car for safety sake. I will try and pick another one up and do some testing.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_

Revo
B or F pump longitudinal mount + highflow cat = ???
B or F pump transverse mount + highflow cat = issues on stage 1 programming ???, I assume cause they offer stage 2, no issues on stage 2 programming cause I haven't seen any reported ???


I"ve run both stage I and II with a full 3" turbo back exhaust with a high flow metal cat and not had problems.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
I"ve run both stage I and II with a full 3" turbo back exhaust with a high flow metal cat and not had problems.

I assume that's on your A3 so I updated the trans section of the Revo summary in my post. Thanks!


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I assume that's on your A3 so I updated the trans section of the Revo summary in my post. Thanks!

Yes on my A3, only car I've had lots of time to do logs under lots of conditions and settings.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Yes on my A3, only car I've had lots of time to do logs under lots of conditions and settings.

which pump do you have and have you seen any issues with either? And does Revo promote that its ok to use stage 1 programming with a full exhaust or do they reccommend the upgrade to stage 2 programming with a full exhaust?


_Modified by [email protected] at 6:35 PM 2-6-2006_


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*

I've got the b pump in the car 15315 miles as of today. I own an f pump but thats the one I took apart and have messed with never been on a car.
Using a full exhaust on the stage I file is perfectly fine and i have done it on my own for some testing. 
the stage II file is just meant to optimize the gains of the full exhaust.


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

I can't figure out for the life of me how to get this into a purdy graph so here is the raw data. As near as I can tell with my APR 91 program with no exhaust yet KEITH







I have no pressure drop off:
Monday	6	February	2006	20:19:45	
OBD --- --- -- 
Marker	TIME	PID A - 035	TIME	PID B - 012	TIME
STAMP	Fuel Rail Press rel ( kPa rel)	STAMP	Engine RPM ( /min)	STAMP
0.41	6910	0.67	2049	
1.18	6910	1.42	2043	
1.95	6910	2.17	2089	
2.65	7530	2.89	2125	
3.35	8400	3.56	2277	
4.07	9600	4.31	2457	
4.85	10610	5.09	2786	
5.58	10930	5.82	3236	
6.25	10850	6.49	3596	
7.01	10830	7.25	4067	
7.75	10860	8	4406	
8.5	10890	8.74	4858	
9.44	10820	9.79	5287	
10.43	10760	10.74	5805	
11.55	10740	11.82	6286	
12.39	10610	12.65	6615	
13.18	10990	13.42	5625	
13.94	10110	14.18	4204	
14.65	9570	14.92	3878	
15.36	9590	15.61	3825	
16.05	9690	16.31	3773	
16.81	9220	17.05	4495	
17.54	9340	17.79	4703	
18.29	9440	18.51	4642	
19.01	9510	19.25	4584	
19.75	9600	19.99	4531	
20.45	9660	20.66	4484	
21.17	9730	21.4	4432	
21.88	9770	22.11	4397	
22.6	9830	22.88	4328	
23.39	9880	23.61	4272	
The actual file can be found here:
http://homepage.mac.com/cvervais/gli/log.CSV


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (thread)*

Not sure what units that pressure is, and you may want more data points. But here is what you have me.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
GIAC
B pump on longitudinal mount + highflow cat = issues on fx programming, requires pump upgrade to f
F pump on longitudinal mount + highflow cat = no issues on fx programming
B pump on transverse mount + highflow cat = ??? assuming issues on fx programming
F pump on transvers mount + highflow cat = ??? assuming no issues on fx programming
_Modified by [email protected] at 5:15 PM 2-6-2006_

At this time GIAC is offering three different levels of tune for most cars.
"GIAC Sport Chip" = Fairly mild for the conservative people who don't want to squeeze every inch out or their car. Or a setup with full exhaust and maybe intake with a "B" pump. As the boost/torque is less in the low end it is less likely to dry up the pump.
"GIAC X Software" = Aggressive setup. Can use either pump, but if car has other bolts on (TB exhaust / maybe intake) may have pressure drop with B pump.
"GIAC FX Software" = At this time the most aggressive tune. Requires an "F" pump and car should have most bolts (including good cat.) to make power advertised.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 26, 2001)

Jeff,
So you are still sticking with the theory that the F pump is higher flowing than the B pump? Have you taken into consideration all the other posts pointing to the contrary?


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_
At this time GIAC is offering three different levels of tune for most cars.
"GIAC Sport Chip" = Fairly mild for the conservative people who don't want to squeeze every inch out or their car. Or a setup with full exhaust and maybe intake with a "B" pump. As the boost/torque is less in the low end it is less likely to dry up the pump.
"GIAC X Software" = Aggressive setup. Can use either pump, but if car has other bolts on (TB exhaust / maybe intake) may have pressure drop with B pump.
"GIAC FX Software" = At this time the most aggressive tune. Requires an "F" pump and car should have most bolts (including good cat.) to make power advertised.



Hi Jeff,
You mentioned three different levels of tune "for most cars." Does this Sport, X, and FX tuning standard apply equally to the longitudinal and the transverse cars or are you seeing differences? 
Also what are the gains in power on 91 a customer should be expected to see on each tune?
Thanks. cheers! Mike


----------



## 20th-Hole (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Brett,
I asked this before but I don't think you answered. 
Do you think it might be possible that the B pump has a design flaw that causes it to under perform and / or fail prematurely under certain conditions? Maybe it's part of the reason it's been superseded? Looking at VW’s history, I wouldn't say it's unlikely.
Take coil packs for instance, I'm sure if you compare the lab tested specs of the problematic part numbers to the good ones, they would be the same. Yet obviously they can perform differently in the real world.
Also, maybe I missed it, but I don't think I've seen any logs or other info posted that shows a B pump can maintain pressure and factory a/f ratio under high boost conditions on a car w/ exhaust. Which I believe is the situation that was presented in the original post.
bhvrdr and others have shown this is possible with the F pump, but I have not seen similar info for the B.
Not trying to beat a dead horse, just presenting a possibility that I don't think has been addressed.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_
At this time GIAC is offering three different levels of tune for most cars.
"GIAC Sport Chip" = Fairly mild for the conservative people who don't want to squeeze every inch out or their car. Or a setup with full exhaust and maybe intake with a "B" pump. As the boost/torque is less in the low end it is less likely to dry up the pump.
"GIAC X Software" = Aggressive setup. Can use either pump, but if car has other bolts on (TB exhaust / maybe intake) may have pressure drop with B pump.
"GIAC FX Software" = At this time the most aggressive tune. Requires an "F" pump and car should have most bolts (including good cat.) to make power advertised.



Jeff,
Thanks for the update! It's gotten to be too much work on that post so I edited for our content only and both you and Chris have your info posted with quotes from my original post. I would like to leave it at that for now. Thanks for helping summarize this for everyone and now we've finally gotten to the meat of it!
Keith
GO APR!


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_Hi Jeff,
You stated in the beginning of this thread that you are concerned that as the pumps "get a little wear" the capacity becomes an issue. So if you did testing on a car with a worn-in B pump and then tested the car with a brand new F-pump wouldnt that invalidate the results? I mean wouldnt you want to either test a brand new B pump and brand new F pump or else a 5K mile B pump and a 5K mile F pump? Technically, even if you put on a brand new B pump wouldnt it possibly provide a bit more headroom than an older B pump that you took off the car? What are your thoughts on this?
cheers! Mike

The A3 shown in the pump comparison chart had about 3000 miles... Not sure how warn anything could be...


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: PSA 2.0TFSi Fuel Pressure and how to check! **Important**updated 2/6/2006 (J. Moss)*

Below was added 2/14/2006
A4 testing was done a few days ago.
GIAC made a file that was specifically made to max out the pumps for testing. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS FOR SALE!








Only change was the pumps…. Exact same test conditions. 
B pump cannot hold the same pressure as the F pump.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

Those pumps are only marginally better. A couple % different. Not worth buying a new pump for that. Need to find another solution......


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_Those pumps are only marginally better. A couple % different. Not worth buying a new pump for that. Need to find another solution......

What is the difference between 68 and 100? That's more than a couple (2) %.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (syntrix)*

When your working with a positive displacement piston pump you really should not look at the pressure to determine how much the pump flows. A very slight decrease in output can cause pressure to plummett. The pump is slightly more efficient at 60 bar than 100 bar, that is why it can meet the delivery requirements when it can't meet the pressure requirements. Efficiency difference between 100 bar and 60 or 80 bar is not very significant. 
When a pump cant maintain the ~100 bar it doesn't meet the capacity. Dropping to 80 bar or 60 bar it doesn't matter. Both are inadequate, just that 1 is slightly less inadeqaute than the other. No reason to upgrade IMO. 
This testing doesn't consider all the variables involved. A low fuel tank on a hot day with a pump at 50,000 miles is going to flow WAY less than during this testing. If your even close to the limits you will have problems. Need a solution with significant margin.......


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (enginerd)*

so you are saying that 2% pump tolerance = 40% rail pressure difference.
I'd be concerned!


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_When your working with a positive displacement piston pump you really should not look at the pressure to determine how much the pump flows. A very slight decrease in output can cause pressure to plummett. The pump is slightly more efficient at 60 bar than 100 bar, that is why it can meet the delivery requirements when it can't meet the pressure requirements. Efficiency difference between 100 bar and 60 or 80 bar is not very significant. 
When a pump cant maintain the ~100 bar it doesn't meet the capacity. Dropping to 80 bar or 60 bar it doesn't matter. Both are inadequate, just that 1 is slightly less inadeqaute than the other. No reason to upgrade IMO. 
This testing doesn't consider all the variables involved. A low fuel tank on a hot day with a pump at 50,000 miles is going to flow WAY less than during this testing. If your even close to the limits you will have problems. Need a solution with significant margin.......

Solutions are being worked on. 
The F pumps seems to buy a bit more room in tuning than 2%. When the pressure drops as illustrated it is felt as a momentary drop in power.
The area from 3000-4000 seems to have a good amount more headroom.
Good input enginerd.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*

I think people are missing the point that BOTH of these pumps would be running bad. Both take the dive. It doesnt matter that in one area one dives more because they both take the dive. 
I have been talking to some folks with Sportec and MTM and have also been advised that Abt and Oettinger are already ready with some interestng results. MTM and Sportec have tested and sold the K04 kits for the B7 that are making well over 300hp. They have had much longer than us in the US with the MED9 and have become very comfortable with it. Hopefully we'll be seeing some of that right around the corner here with the K04 kits as a buddy of mine has ordered one already for his car. These kits are available to work on either pump car and do not require fuel upgrades. 
cheers! Mike


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

You guys saw in the pict and post that the file used is not a production file. It was specifically made to tax the pumps. A production files torque curve would follow the delivery curve of the pump better.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_ These kits are available to work on either pump car and do not require fuel upgrades. 
cheers! Mike

It's not possible to make more mid range power without more fuel flow. It defies physics. You could have the same midrange as a chipped car, and then try to run more up top where the torque starts to fall off. Not going to see a big midrange increase.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_
It's not possible to make more mid range power without more fuel flow. It defies physics. You could have the same midrange as a chipped car, and then try to run more up top where the torque starts to fall off. Not going to see a big midrange increase. 

if it was that simple, you would be correct!


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_
It's not possible to make more mid range power without more fuel flow. It defies physics. You could have the same midrange as a chipped car, and then try to run more up top where the torque starts to fall off. Not going to see a big midrange increase. 

I know it doesnt seem possible, but the kits are out and available. There are indeed some new things we don't know about optimizing things. If i'm being vague it's because the tuners are also vague to keep things proprietary. The new kits are K04 kits that we all know the K04 peaks about 3000rpm. The kits use relatively well boosted K04 turbos with hiflow cats and exhausts. They indeed make much more power and torque. Mark my words that we will see cars making huge torque in the mid band without problems. This will be seen on multiple cars in the upcoming weeks and months. I'll be sure and post when I have the logs. cheers! Mike


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

I'm guessing that once the exhaust and intake are on my car I'm going to be at the limits of how much power a FWD car can handle. 
Going to a K04 setup making the power that it can would sound overwhelming to a FWD car to my possibly uninformed mind. Which would limit things a bit in the NA market since the only 2.0T AWD or even RWD application I know of is the A4 Quattro.
If that is the case I'll continue saving money to get a haladex AWD system grafted to my GLI.
Believe it or not I am planning on having that done next year







. Yeah, I'm nuts.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

There are several ways to increase the fuel flow. However there is no way to make more mid range without increasing fuel flow. If they are increasing mid range power they are modifying something in the fuel system. larger pump, different Camshaft profile etc etc. ...


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_There are several ways to increase the fuel flow. However there is no way to make more mid range without increasing fuel flow. If they are increasing mid range power they are modifying something in the fuel system. larger pump, different Camshaft profile etc etc. ...

No fuel system hardware is added on any of these four companies kits. Another brother company of one of them is working on something for the K03 as well. Just give it a bit of time and we'll see all of this reported with full dynos and logs out of people. cheers! Mike


----------



## 20th-Hole (Feb 3, 2005)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

Sportec rates the peak torque of their Stage 3 kit at 410 NM @ 3200 RPM. This equates to 302 ft*lbf, which is right around what APR and REVO claim for their chips. 
Going by this number it appears the midrange power is close to that of a chipped car.
IMO, It looks like unless the tuners can safely run the cars leaner, a fuel upgrade will be needed to go any higher in the midrange.
http://www.sportec.ch/pages/in...d=794


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (20th-Hole)*


_Quote, originally posted by *20th-Hole* »_Sportec rates the peak torque of their Stage 3 kit at 410 NM @ 3200 RPM. This equates to 302 ft*lbf, which is right around what APR and REVO claim for their chips. 
Going by this number it appears the midrange power is close to that of a chipped car.
IMO, It looks like unless the tuners can safely run the cars leaner, a fuel upgrade will be needed to go any higher in the midrange.
http://www.sportec.ch/pages/in...d=794

That's a good point, but bear in mind those numbers are going to be pretty underrated. For example the MTM B6 K04 kit on my car was rated at 255tq at the crank and dynod at over 260tq at the wheels...and on a quattro car. It was postulated that we cant run 1.5bar of boost and that even less is not possible on B pump cars or cars with exhausts and hiflow cats. We'll see from the differences in the boost logs and dyno logs of some of these higher powered programs that they will start making more power than we originally thought. I remember when everyone came up with mathematical equations limiting the B6 to 200chp without an injector upgrade. Then people started getting over 230chp out of the stock injectors no problem. From what i'm hearing there's still a bit left in the stock fuel system. Maybe not a ton, but we all know Germans tuners love replacing high dollar parts and the fact they left the fuel system hardware alone is significant. I'll post some up as soon as I get them. That'll likely clarify a lot about the limits. 
cheers! Mike


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_
When your working with a positive displacement piston pump you really should not look at the pressure to determine how much the pump flows. A very slight decrease in output can cause pressure to plummett. The pump is slightly more efficient at 60 bar than 100 bar, that is why it can meet the delivery requirements when it can't meet the pressure requirements. Efficiency difference between 100 bar and 60 or 80 bar is not very significant. 
When a pump cant maintain the ~100 bar it doesn't meet the capacity. Dropping to 80 bar or 60 bar it doesn't matter. Both are inadequate, just that 1 is slightly less inadeqaute than the other. No reason to upgrade IMO. 
This testing doesn't consider all the variables involved. A low fuel tank on a hot day with a pump at 50,000 miles is going to flow WAY less than during this testing. If your even close to the limits you will have problems. Need a solution with significant margin.......


The difference between pressure and flow is the key here.
I can adjust the fuel boost and timing settings with REVO all over the place and get the pressure to go up and down a little. All the while I can maintain whatever AF it wants dead on... So even with pressure dropping off these cars are more then capable of maintaining the proper AF.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (PD Performance)*

I took some measurements yesterday on a hitachi pump. 
Pumping piston diameter is 8 mm. 
With 3 lobes, and 5mm of lift this pump should deliver 753 mm^3/rev. 
Hitachi rating for the pump (from APR posted chart) is only 38.5 mm^3/mm *3lobes *5 mm = 577.5mm^3/rev
Theoretical pump efficiency is (577.5/753) = 76.6%. 
This is not due to leakage alone, there must be another limitation, likely the response time of the solenoid valve (actuator valve). Could be the timing of valve actuation, and valve reopening pressure. There may be a way to bump ouput with the existing bore and stroke in the pump. 

Is there a vag com block that has the timign of the solenoid valve, or a "duty cycle" for the pump? Seems like a better way to observe the pump headroom than logging the pressure. snoop aorund and see what duty cycle blocks, or timing/ degree blocks are present. 



_Modified by enginerd at 9:52 AM 2-17-2006_


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_I took some measurements yesterday on a hitachi pump. 
Pumping piston diameter is 8 mm. 
With 3 lobes, and 5mm of lift this pump should deliver 753 mm^3/rev. 
Hitachi rating for the pump (from APR posted chart) is only 38.5 mm^3/mm *3lobes *5 mm = 577.5mm^3/rev
Theoretical pump efficiency is (577.5/753) = 76.6%. 
This is not due to leakage alone, there must be another limitation, likely the response time of the solenoid valve (actuator valve). Could be the timing of valve actuation, and valve reopening pressure. There may be a way to bump ouput with the existing bore and stroke in the pump. 

Is there a vag com block that has the timign of the solenoid valve, or a "duty cycle" for the pump? Seems like a better way to observe the pump headroom than logging the pressure. snoop aorund and see what duty cycle blocks, or timing/ degree blocks are present. 

_Modified by enginerd at 9:52 AM 2-17-2006_

Ah hah. I think you're onto something. Great post. From my previous post...
"There are indeed some new things we don't know about optimizing things. If i'm being vague it's because the tuners are also vague to keep things proprietary."
The europeans and one US company has basically told me what you are stating. That there is indeed a way to get more pressure and NO hardware is added. Thats why we're able to see a K04 that makes max boost down at 3K rpm working on these cars with the stock pumps. Understandably the companies are keeping tight lipped for now on how this is done. I'll be testing something new on this within a week so maybe we'll see somthing then. Great information there. When Moss posted about logging chanel 205, I immediatly started fishing around other blocks and since have used block 106 instead. It gives...
'106 
1. fuel rail pressure (bar)
2. Electrical fuel pump (%)
2. Fuel pump 2 (not used)
3. Time (s) ... not time stamp
Can you explain each of these?
Number 2 never exceeds 80% even with my hiflow exhaust and cat.
Number 4 gives me numbers in the mid 600s. Acually about 655 all the way though a WOT run.
cheers! Mike



_Modified by bhvrdr at 8:17 AM 2-17-2006_


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

The in tank pump must be modulated, thats the #2. #3 is prob leftover bosch stuff from the V type engines that use 1 pump in each head. Time? could be millisecond duration from the pump, but i don't think they measure it like that. Increasing the pump pressure is probably not a problem, but pump flow could require mechanical parts. May just be a spring or poppet in the control valve
see what else you can find with any % or duty cycle in it


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (enginerd)*

I have saved the data file for all the labels in vag-com. I will look through that file and see if I can find anything. i am also going to be logging my car more this weekend. I will see what I can find.
Good information. seems like what bhvrdr found out is backed up by what you said. Hopefully we can get somewhere with these damn pumps. Me want more power.


----------



## allcool (Oct 24, 2002)

*Re: (enginerd)*

enginerd,
If you are saying your calculations show the pump is not already maxed out, then why not remap the fuel by changing the requirements in the ems of the fuel regulating N276 valve?








Are we so sure that 90bar or lower would not meet the AFR requirements needed of a higher HP... maybe just sacrificing the emissions that a FSI motor should get from better atomization of the fuel at a higher pressure in the injectors









Might even be more than one way to get more fuel out of this new FSI system








JMHO


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

The pumps volumetric pumping potential is higher than we are getting based on hitachi specs. Hitachi could be limiting the flow by several means. Increasing the inlet pressure (low pressure side) may improve charging if this is a cause for the efficiency loss. Charging problems are often seen at high rpm. Inlet valve closure timing and valve response time may also be factors that can be modified from oem specs to increase fuel flow. Nice diagrams. what document is that?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_Nice diagrams. what document is that?

I just emailed you that document to the address you have listed on vortex.
Dave


----------



## cabracco85 (Apr 24, 2002)

*Re: (crew217)*

Bump, anyone have any new findings?


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (cabracco85)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cabracco85* »_Bump, anyone have any new findings?

My last contacts with some new offerings for K04 turbo upgrades to our cars from four different manfuctures list they are having NO problems on either pump even with the larger turbo making very respectable boost and power. This is available for both the B pump and F pump cars. We'll be seeing how their doing this soon, but it's not very magical and doesnt rely on hardware changes to the fuel system. cheers! Mike


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_My last contacts with some new offerings for K04 turbo upgrades to our cars from four different manfuctures list they are having NO problems on either pump even with the larger turbo making very respectable boost and power. This is available for both the B pump and F pump cars. We'll be seeing how their doing this soon, but it's not very magical and doesnt rely on hardware changes to the fuel system. cheers! Mike

I'll bet NONE of those companies are *BRAND X*, which would be in line with the first post of this topic. I would encourage everyone to go back to the first post and re-read what the initial topic is about. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## cpurick (Nov 14, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
The europeans and one US company has basically told me what you are stating. That there is indeed a way to get more pressure and NO hardware is added. Thats why we're able to see a K04 that makes max boost down at 3K rpm working on these cars with the stock pumps.

Mike, if the super-rich AFRs are unique to the factory turbo as APR has said, then a replacement turbo might run at more "normal" mixtures. It wouldn't necessarily have the same temperature concerns.
Seems to me the peak torque/rich AFRs/rail fluctuations all happen in the same range. Get a configuration that can run leaner, and you'll be able to make more torque there.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (cpurick)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cpurick* »_Mike, if the super-rich AFRs are unique to the factory turbo as APR has said, then a replacement turbo might run at more "normal" mixtures. It wouldn't necessarily have the same temperature concerns.
Seems to me the peak torque/rich AFRs/rail fluctuations all happen in the same range. Get a configuration that can run leaner, and you'll be able to make more torque there.

Hi rick. The upgraded turbos will not be leaned out in two of the kits listed and I asssume for the other two as well. The stock turbo can run fine EGTs with a little lean in them per Bosch and BW specs but timing not appearing to like it as much up top from all the logs i've seen. The upgraded turbos are a similar BW unit to OEM, but with a bit larger internals. The cylinders keep nice and cool with the richer OEM specs and the europeans aren't known for running leaner, usually the opposite. There already is an answer here, but the companies that have the key to this seem to be keeping it locked down to give themselves the competitive edge based on their research findings. I'm pretty psyched to see the results on these things. cheers! Mike


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

built myself a hybrid at the end of last week, hopefully have some results by the end of the week.
That being said of the few hints of KO4 type kits I've seen peak torque has not really been any greater then what people are doing with the Ko3s and that seems to be where any of the problems with fueling are not up top where the gains of a larger turbo would be seen.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_built myself a hybrid at the end of last week, hopefully have some results by the end of the week.
That being said of the few hints of KO4 type kits I've seen peak torque has not really been any greater then what people are doing with the Ko3s and that seems to be where any of the problems with fueling are not up top where the gains of a larger turbo would be seen.

Hi Chris,
Yeah, I dont think it's going to be astounding of a difference, but there will be a significant one. Definitely enough to need the tweaks that are being done. The crank torque ratings are looking to be a bit conservative and each of the kits will come with a full turbo back exhaust with hiflow cat. The K04 is still a low end turbo so the spool and torque band won't be changing much. It'll still kick ya in the ass down low. The big turbo kits that are projected at well over 400hp will see the rev band change a bit more no doubt. Shoot man, let me know how the hybrid testing goes. Can't wait to see some of these results in person. cheers! Mike


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

Hopefully I can get the machining done I need early this week and get the turbo assembled.
No point in keeping a secret. I had a spare damaged 2.0T turbo and manifold. Along with a spare 225TT turbo. So I swapped the wheels over to the 2.0T center cartridge. I'm gonna use the 225TT comp housing with the inlet tube cut off the 2.0t comp housing welded to it so that the pcv fittings are there but don't have to worry about machining a the comp housing.. I'll just run a dv off a 1.8t. I need to get the manifold/turbine housing machined to fit the new turbine wheel. I was tempted to just put the 225TT compressor wheel on the turbine wheel/shaft off the stock 2.0T but I figured keep it with the matched wheels.
I forget what the exactly spec differences were but I took pics and have the measurements written down somewhere.
I had heard rumors that people were thinking that this turbo was smaller then previous Ko3s but it wasn't... it was about the same size as the early 1.8t Ko3.. if not the same as the later which was also like the smaller of the Ko4s that you could bolt right up.... I've actually got just about every turbo laying around except for those off an S4.. I'll try and take each apart and get a good comparison of the different wheels along with whatever other turbos I've got layig around. (a few gt series.. t3, t3/t4s...)


----------



## allcool (Oct 24, 2002)

*Re: (PD Performance)*

Hey, Chris 
Very cool project http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
any pics


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (PD Performance)*

Chris, are you getting the CHRA balanced? The weels are usually balanced but the assembly should be as well. 
Also, what are the tip clearances like with the 225 turbine in the 2.0T turbine housing? Dont want it too loose or you will have big lag issues.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_Chris, are you getting the CHRA balanced? The weels are usually balanced but the assembly should be as well. 

I marked the comp wheel, nut and shaft and realigned those all at the same point. I had considered having it all balanced but I"m really not looking to have this thing last forever. I've seen turbos slapped together not even regarding the wheels and have had no problems. So for testing for a short time I didn't want to waste the money getting it balanced.. If it blows it blows.

_Quote »_
Also, what are the tip clearances like with the 225 turbine in the 2.0T turbine housing? Dont want it too loose or you will have big lag issues. 

Are you referring to just the wheel to housing clearence? If so then I have not had them machined yet. The person I use for alot of my stuff recently is very good with keeping tolerances, he does some one off stuff for the government on occassion so he is pretty anal in a good way though.
GF had surgery last week and I"m running her around today since she is still on the meds, hopefully I can get it to him by wednesday and have it back by the weekend.


----------



## enginerd (Dec 15, 2001)

*Re: (PD Performance)*

Yeah I meant wheel to housign clearance. If it's too much then spool sucks big time. Lowers the backpressure for better top end though.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (enginerd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *enginerd* »_Yeah I meant wheel to housign clearance. If it's too much then spool sucks big time. Lowers the backpressure for better top end though. 

hopefully we can get it as close to the clearence on the stock 225TT turbo..
I'd only say to error on the larger side since I put it together and it was not balanced. Although once there is oil pressure it should have no shaft play.


----------



## PhReE (Sep 16, 2004)

*Re: (PD Performance)*

any updates?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (PhReE)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PhReE* »_any updates?

AFAIK, the procedure to check rail pressure is exactly the same. Or do you mean any updates to "Brand X"? I don't think I've heard of any.


----------



## PhReE (Sep 16, 2004)

*Re: (syntrix)*

Looks like they are taking the k04 cartridge and putting it into the 2.0t exhaust mani/turbine housing. Wondering how that was coming.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (PhReE)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PhReE* »_any updates?

getting it to the machine shop tomorrow.. He had been away and tomorrow is the first chance I will have to stop by.


----------



## PhReE (Sep 16, 2004)

*Re: (PD Performance)*

Hey I was reading the 2.0T training manual and it says that the fuel pump is only using a double cam -- not tripe cam ... 
I mention this because I know earlier in the thread you suggested upgrading to the tripe but someone said we already are running the tripe -- has anyone taken it apart to check ?

I figured I might as well post this ...









EDIT: The post above forom 'allcool' also displays the same info.


_Modified by PhReE at 10:38 PM 3-26-2006_


----------



## ProjectA3 (Aug 12, 2005)

*Re: (PhReE)*

_Modified by ProjectA3 at 2:48 PM 3/27/2006_

_Modified by ProjectA3 at 2:48 PM 3/27/2006_


_Modified by ProjectA3 at 1:39 PM 3/28/2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (ProjectA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ProjectA3* »_I have the B pump, 91 octane APR stageII with 3" APR turbo back exhaust system
Catalyst system, Bank1 Efficiency below threshold


Looks like the cat APR uses isn't very good.
Dave


----------



## Todeshandler (Jul 12, 2004)

*Re: (ProjectA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ProjectA3* »_I have the B pump, 91 octane APR stageII with 3" APR turbo back exhaust system
i recently got their newest flash update which smoothed things out for a few weeks but now i am experiencing surging around 5k rpm and wide open throttle in any gear.
this is the 3rd software update that seems to run fine for a while and then the issue seems to appear a few weeks later. causes the MIL to flash and throw fault codes for:
Catalyst system, Bank1 Efficiency below threshold
Random/Multiple cylinder misfire detected: sporadic

but i just got not from Keith that there is another revision so i will get that this week.

_Modified by ProjectA3 at 2:48 PM 3/27/2006_

_Modified by ProjectA3 at 2:48 PM 3/27/2006_






















I would not be happy. I almost can't believe you especially with reading how much **** APR talks about GIAC releasing new versions.








I have had ZERO issues with my AWE exhaust and GIAC X+ programming. Only update I have gotten from GIAC is when I upgraded from X to X+. You may want to consider giving another tuner a try Bryan considering the problems you are having and the not so impressive numbers you put down with APR stg 2, 195whp IIRC.


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Looks like the cat APR uses isn't very good.
Dave
 
You mean its not as restrictive ( = more power) as others use , thats what causes the CEL. Im sure a "tweak" in the software so the cat warms up faster will keep that pesky CEL off.







Bob.G


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

This is about fuel pressure, not exhausts. 
The exhaust thread is thataway......
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2522945


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (rracerguy717)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rracerguy717* »_ 
You mean its not as restrictive ( = more power) as others use , thats what causes the CEL. Im sure a "tweak" in the software so the cat warms up faster will keep that pesky CEL off.







Bob.G

Doubt it. They don't use the 200 cell HJS cat that AWE, Neuspeed or Milltek use. IIRC they use a 300 cell cat of some sort. More cells = more restriction







The former three companies don't have issues.
Dave


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

Take this to the other thread please.


----------



## Electron Man (Sep 21, 1999)

*Re: (ProjectA3)*

Interesting thread.
I guess if the B and F pumps are in fact identical, then the supply (in-tank) pump pressure (duty cycle) must be variable with engine load (no surprise there). This would be one explanation for the observed results...all ten pages!
Feel free to expand/criticize/debunk/tell me "welcome to last Novembver", etc. at will


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (Electron Man)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Electron Man* »_
Feel free to expand/criticize/debunk/tell me "welcome to last Novembver", etc. at will

















It was last December.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*

Has anyone actually tested both pumps besides besides myself, Stasis and GIAC? 
I have nothing new to add or change as so far no one has shown any of the data to be incorrect.
Welcome to March 28


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (Electron Man)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Electron Man* »_Interesting thread.
I guess if the B and F pumps are in fact identical, then the supply (in-tank) pump pressure (duty cycle) must be variable with engine load (no surprise there). This would be one explanation for the observed results...all ten pages!
Feel free to expand/criticize/debunk/tell me "welcome to last Novembver", etc. at will

















and it was stated early on that the intank pump is variable.. both pressure and flow actually..


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: (J. Moss)*


_Quote, originally posted by *J. Moss* »_Has anyone actually tested both pumps besides besides myself, Stasis and GIAC? 
I have nothing new to add or change as so far no one has shown any of the data to be incorrect.
Welcome to March 28








 Lets bring this one back








Just checked my new 06 GLI ( build date 2/06 ) and i have the F pump . Has there been any R & D yet for a fuel pump that will support a BT setup , do tell Bob.G










_Modified by rracerguy717 at 5:42 PM 4-17-2006_


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (rracerguy717)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rracerguy717* »_ Lets bring this one back








Just checked my new 06 GLI ( build date 2/06 ) and i have the F pump . Has there been any R & D yet for a fuel pump that will support a BT setup , do tell Bob.G









_Modified by rracerguy717 at 5:42 PM 4-17-2006_

A true BT is going to need more than a fuel pump, but yeah there are four companies that have K04 reasearch and development either complete or near complete. There are a couple changes but the kits will utilize either the B or F pump that you have. Contact MTM, Sportec, Abt, Oettinger, or APR if your interested in information about these kits. cheers! Mike


----------



## TheZero (Jan 14, 2006)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

OK evry body here i triy to explain my problem i have since a few days with my jetta 2.0TFSI. 
First sorry for the (i thiink) bad english but my school english is more than 10 years ago








Ok the story is i own a 2006 Jetta 2.0TFSI and last week is chipped.
Tuner tell me has 245hp when he test it. OK fine i think. but on thursday last week i drive it first time with hard accelration on the AUTOBAHN an then in 4th, 5th an 6th Gear i have something like surging since 5000rpm and full throttle. it feels like the system have less power for a second then 1 second full power, less power, full power and so go´s on. 
this problem is NOT allways. SOMEtimes in 4th and 5th Gear is all great but then in 6th gear feels the power like ´stock.
Called my tuner and he test ist again yesterday. he tell me that the fuel pressure fall for seconds and he have installed stock software and i will drive to vw explain i have a problem with hard accelration and bocking car and they will installed a new (other dont know) pump und a new software for this.
have my tuner right?
i don´t know what i shoud do. drive to vw and tell a "story" and hope they did know what is to do or what. I chipped my last 2 cars by this tuner and i think hhis work is brilliant but im not shure in the moment.
can anyone help me?
First i will check out wich kind of fuel pump is installed b or f in the afternoon.


----------



## corrado94 (Sep 22, 2003)

*Re: (TheZero)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TheZero* »_
First i will check out wich kind of fuel pump is installed b or f in the afternoon.


Thats your first step , pull the plastic engine cover and look and see if its a B or F pump.







Bob.G


----------



## Todeshandler (Jul 12, 2004)

*Re: (TheZero)*


_Quote, originally posted by *TheZero* »_OK evry body here i triy to explain my problem i have since a few days with my jetta 2.0TFSI. 
First sorry for the (i thiink) bad english but my school english is more than 10 years ago








Ok the story is i own a 2006 Jetta 2.0TFSI and last week is chipped.
Tuner tell me has 245hp when he test it. OK fine i think. but on thursday last week i drive it first time with hard accelration on the AUTOBAHN an then in 4th, 5th an 6th Gear i have something like surging since 5000rpm and full throttle. it feels like the system have less power for a second then 1 second full power, less power, full power and so go´s on. 
this problem is NOT allways. SOMEtimes in 4th and 5th Gear is all great but then in 6th gear feels the power like ´stock.
Called my tuner and he test ist again yesterday. he tell me that the fuel pressure fall for seconds and he have installed stock software and i will drive to vw explain i have a problem with hard accelration and bocking car and they will installed a new (other dont know) pump und a new software for this.
have my tuner right?
i don´t know what i shoud do. drive to vw and tell a "story" and hope they did know what is to do or what. I chipped my last 2 cars by this tuner and i think hhis work is brilliant but im not shure in the moment.
can anyone help me?
First i will check out wich kind of fuel pump is installed b or f in the afternoon.

What tuner and software vendor are you running?


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

If the jetta you have is a 2006, you have the F pump. The problem you describe sounds like the fuel pump having difficulty catching back up after going from part to full throttle in upper rpm. I would contact the software company and see if they can tweak it just a tad to avoid that safety catch. cheers! Mike


----------



## TheZero (Jan 14, 2006)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_The problem you describe sounds like the fuel pump having difficulty catching back up after going from part to full throttle in upper rpm. I would contact the software company and see if they can tweak it just a tad to avoid that safety catch. cheers! Mike
 
Hi Mike,
ok first i read your post to try to understand but i am sorry i think not realy understand what you mean.
OK your opinion that my software is to "hard" with the fuelpump right? 
OK i am back.
Your are right in my jetta the f pump is installed.
called my tuner (is mspeed : http://www.mspeed.de/cgi-bin/seiten/index.pl ) and he try to explain me what the problem is. He tell me that there is a valve thats there to controlled the fuelpump and there are the problem. he says that problem knows vw too and this valve can make probs with stock cars too. 
i try to called my vw dealer tomorrow.
bye


_Modified by TheZero at 6:57 PM 4-19-2006_


----------



## prom king (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: (TheZero)*

SHould I be worried about what kind of fuel pump I have? I have a 2006.5 gti. I have revo as well... To my knownledge all cars after 2006.5 1/2 have the F pump? Can someone clear this up for me. Thanks


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (97jazzgti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *97jazzgti* »_SHould I be worried about what kind of fuel pump I have? I have a 2006.5 gti. I have revo as well... To my knownledge all cars after 2006.5 1/2 have the F pump? Can someone clear this up for me. Thanks

I think you only have fuel pump concerns if you use GIAC programming. Our's works great on either pump as I believe do the other options on the market.


----------



## petethegreat (Mar 28, 2006)

*You mean your program has problems with either pump!*

http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif I wouldnt talk crap about other companys programs , if i were you Keith


----------



## prom king (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: You mean your program has problems with either pump! (petethegreat)*


_Quote, originally posted by *petethegreat* »_ http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif I wouldnt talk crap about other companys programs , if i were you Keith

He didn't..... He just simply said the only programing you have to worry about the pump is with GIAC... Why are you starting a fight?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: You mean your program has problems with either pump! (petethegreat)*


_Quote, originally posted by *petethegreat* »_ http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif I wouldnt talk crap about other companys programs , if i were you Keith

I appreciate your concern and thank you for your commentary. However, noone was talking crap merely helping out by answering a question.
Perhaps if you reread, assuming you did read the thread at some point, you will be able to arrive at the same determination I did. I simply saved the poster the trouble of reading all 10 pages and perhaps am doing the same for you now, as well.
Its very easy to discern that GIAC requires the F pump for FX programming whereas no other tuners mentioned in this thread require any change to any other fuel pump other than what came with the car.


----------



## TheZero (Jan 14, 2006)

*Re: You mean your program has problems with either pump! ([email protected])*

Some news from Germnay








called my vw dealer yesterday.
Tell him (my tuner tell that i shoud tell that my dealer) that i have problems with hard accelration at higher rpm and vw knows there is a problem with a valve. He says OK give me a date for next tueaday and order a new valve. Looks like VW actually knows of a problem like this. 
tell you whats happend
bye


----------



## LateNightRacer (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: (97jazzgti)*

GIAC's software works great. I have it on my GTI. There is no reason to be concerned as the GIAC dealer you choose will check your fuel pump. Giac has different programs optimized for the B and F pump, as well as other mods. It seems to me it makes more sense to write maps tailored to a particular fuel pump or other mods than rely on the factory safety limits and algorhythms. 




_Modified by LateNightRacer at 10:41 AM 4-22-2006_


----------



## gtiiiiiiii (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: (LateNightRacer)*

eh, you can't say there's nothing to be concerned about or that the dealer will check your fuel pump








Maybe yours did, but not every dealer was created equal








And why should you have to worry about it when other programs don't require it? It may work on your car, but not someone else's also.
As for cel lights, I'm getting them as well at high rpm. I have apr, cel light flashes and car pulls back on power pretty hard. Only happened twice since I've had chip which was about 2 weeks ago. I'll vag it soon, then dealership after that I guess depending on what I find


----------



## LateNightRacer (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: (gtiiiiiiii)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gtiiiiiiii* »_eh, you can't say there's nothing to be concerned about or that the dealer will check your fuel pump








Maybe yours did, but not every dealer was created equal








And why should you have to worry about it when other programs don't require it? It may work on your car, but not someone else's also.
As for cel lights, I'm getting them as well at high rpm. I have apr, cel light flashes and car pulls back on power pretty hard. Only happened twice since I've had chip which was about 2 weeks ago. I'll vag it soon, then dealership after that I guess depending on what I find









I couldnt follow what you meant. Are you saying there is something to be concerned about? Or are you saying why should you have to worry about it. What I am trying to say is 
There is a fueling issue however if you go with GIAC you need not be concerned. The dealer should check your pump and give you the matching file for your pump and mods. 
The point of getting chipped is to go faster, so I dont see why a dealer would flash a program not meant for your car. If you are getting cel lights and you have APR Software then give APR a call, I am sure they can help you.



_Modified by LateNightRacer at 2:31 PM 4-22-2006_


----------



## gtiiiiiiii (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: (LateNightRacer)*

oh what I meant was the dealer SHOULD check but some dealers are incompetent, so definitely check to make sure the dealer does that. As for the cel lights, time will tell if it's from the chip or just the car as it came.


----------



## LateNightRacer (Feb 3, 2004)

*Re: (gtiiiiiiii)*

Hope everything goes well http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## Rhein (Mar 27, 2006)

Tried search a million times but does anyone know how to tell which pump you have?


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: (Rhein)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Rhein* »_Tried search a million times but does anyone know how to tell which pump you have?
 
Pull the plastic engine cover off and from the front of the car look too the right side of the valve cover , this is the fuel pump. On the top of the pump you will see a tag with part # look at the letter its either B or F . So far the consensus so far is the the F has seen less problems with fuel pressure dropping .Hope this helps







Bob.G


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: (Rhein)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Rhein* »_Tried search a million times but does anyone know how to tell which pump you have?

It's under the cover on the drivers side of the engine and looks like this:


----------



## PeteA3 (Dec 3, 2005)

*Re: (thread)*

That would be a nice F pump, I have a B pump







ooooooh, but I haven't had any problems at all


----------



## Rhein (Mar 27, 2006)

*Re: (rracerguy717)*

Thanks guys! I knew where the location was but pulling the engine cover off was hard, couldn't do it after hearing about people busting theirs! I looked at my pump. I pulled up a corner and I didn't see anything. I will try again!
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## cawslow (Jun 22, 2006)

*Re: (Semtex)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Semtex* »_
Chris,
Keith is a great guy, if you get to know him you will see his comments in another light.
As to our other staff members, yes we do have a programmer from Bosch working here....the information however we get from the (internal) manuals is extremly valuable since it shows flowcharts and gives reasoning behind certain code structures...
Like Keith said the A/F is preditermined (sp) by certain maps that grab into one another to keep the mixture rich...the German wording for this is Bauteilenschutz.
Enough of this..... get your 8SS in your car and meet us at our annual BBQ









_Modified by Semtex at 1:39 PM 2-1-2006_

Is this manual available to the public? If so, from where and at what price?


----------



## Semtex (Dec 11, 2001)

*Re: (cawslow)*


_Quote, originally posted by *cawslow* »_Is this manual available to the public? 

Nope.


----------



## cawslow (Jun 22, 2006)

Bugger.
Who has access to it then? Was it simply made by Bosch for use by VW dealers?


----------



## csih (Aug 27, 2006)

So that seems to be mine problem also. I'm on APR Stage II


----------



## kennyA3 (Jan 14, 2006)

*Re: (PeteA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PeteA3* »_That would be a nice F pump, I have a B pump







ooooooh, but I haven't had any problems at all









pete...what was your build date? I just pulled my engine cover and i have the F pump with a 7/05 build date.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (kennyA3)*

No fuel cut issues with APR SII








Dave


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (crew219)*

Please show air fuel at the same time in 3rd or 4rth gear.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 25, 2001)

*Re: (J. Moss)*

Wow, its been raised to 130bar of pressure!


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Wow, its been raised to 130bar of pressure!

Yes, exactly! . . . and on a B pump too








Dave


----------

