# Some REVO 93 logs . . .



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

Since everyone loves to tear apart logs









































There are a few things I'll comment on later . . . 
Dave


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

Dude, your graph says retard.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (thread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thread* »_Dude, your graph says retard.









+1
I like the pretty one with all the colors http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

/me crawls back in the corner and waits for the turbo trolls to come out.


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: (syntrix)*

The stock intake manifold is poorly designed. Look at every CF graph across the tuning board, CYL 1 always has the most timing pulled.
P.S. thats a Bleep load of timing retard. A safe tune for almost every other manufacturer in the world would be around 0 -2 degrees of timing retard. 6-7 is stupid. Sounds like the timing is too agressive, and I for one don't think its the best idea to let a couple of knock sensors TUNE my car on the fly so it doesn't frag a ring landing on my piston.


_Modified by T62 at 2:40 PM 10-5-2006_


----------



## placenta (Jun 3, 2003)

really sweet boost log though.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_The stock intake manifold is poorly designed. Look at every CF graph across the tuning board, CYL 1 always has the most timing pulled.
P.S. thats a Bleep load of timing retard. A safe tune for almost every other manufacturer in the world would be around 0 -2 degrees of timing retard. 6-7 is stupid. Sounds like the timing is too agressive, and I for one don't think its the best idea to let a couple of knock sensors TUNE my car on the fly so it doesn't frag a ring landing on my piston.

_Modified by T62 at 2:40 PM 10-5-2006_

agreed. Run better fuel, change plugs, or use the SPS to back off the timing a little.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_agreed. Run better fuel, change plugs, or use the SPS to back off the timing a little.

Nope, I think it's so painfully obvious, that Keith will kick himself if he doesn't jump in and say it! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
/me sits back down in the corner.


----------



## placenta (Jun 3, 2003)

so there are both positives and negatives to having the "strongest" program... 
I should do some timing logs on my APR 91..


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (thread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thread* »_









*passes thread a guinness*
Dave



_Modified by crew217 at 12:24 PM 10-5-2006_


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

I was actually gonna leave this one alone.


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 25, 2001)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_I was actually gonna leave this one alone.

*was?*


_Modified by [email protected] at 3:33 PM 10-5-2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_I was actually gonna leave this one alone.

Ok, come and get some popcorn and guiness over here in the corner







You too Anand!


----------



## NS01GTI (Jan 31, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_I was actually gonna leave this one alone.

Why? This is perfect...


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

good lord that's alot of egt's!


----------



## placenta (Jun 3, 2003)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
*passes thread a guinness*
Dave


You passed him a girly "appletini" instead..


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

I like Appletinis.


----------



## NS01GTI (Jan 31, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_good lord that's alot of egt's!









Quick reference to my data logs with APR 91 oct file, where I had less then 2.5 degrees of timing pulled, and nearly nothing until above 6,000 rpm. Oh... and that tune dynoed at 214whp and 247wtrq.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2833717


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

Oh and FYI 900C - 1652F
Toasty!


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


----------



## placenta (Jun 3, 2003)

*Re: (NS01GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *NS01GTI* »_








Quick reference to my data logs with APR 91 oct file, where I had less then 2.5 degrees of timing pulled, and nearly nothing until above 6,000 rpm. Oh... and that tune dynoed at 214whp and 247wtrq.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2833717

I dont feel as worried about my lower boost numbers anymore..


----------



## NS01GTI (Jan 31, 2005)

*Re: (placenta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *placenta* »_
I dont feel as worried about my lower boost numbers anymore..

That's with a quick spike to 19psi. Boost graphs can be seen in that link too. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (thread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thread* »_Oh and FYI 900C - 1652F
Toasty!

Speaking of Toasty:
http://www.rathergood.com/moon_song/


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

Good God those things are horrid.
Anyways, back on topic.....


----------



## munky18t (Aug 30, 2004)

*Re: (NS01GTI)*

Lol!!!
Don you didn't pull that much timing pull even when you ran 91 octane on the APR 93 octane file

















_Modified by munky18t at 5:32 PM 10-5-2006_

_Modified by munky18t at 5:33 PM 10-5-2006_


_Modified by munky18t at 5:34 PM 10-5-2006_


----------



## NS01GTI (Jan 31, 2005)

*Re: (munky18t)*

Good point Marcel. Kinda scary to see those kind of high timing pull numbers...


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_good lord that's alot of egt's!

I remember distinctly that you claim egt's calculated from the o2 sensor are bunk and now you try to use it to discount a competitor..
What exactly is your job again? Minister of Disinformation?
I do agree that the timing pulls are a bit much. However, I would appreciate the OP giving his 3 Revo settings. I get the feeling they may be a little aggressive for the fuel he's running.


----------



## NS01GTI (Jan 31, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
I remember distinctly that you claim egt's calculated from the o2 sensor are bunk and now you try to use it to discount a competitor..
What exactly is your job again? Minister of Disinformation?
I do agree that the timing pulls are a bit much. However, I would appreciate the OP giving his 3 Revo settings. I get the feeling they may be a little aggressive for the fuel he's running.

I'm sure that the EGTs through Vagcom aren't an accurate way to tune, but that doesn't mean it doesn't give us an idea of approx. where things are.
And I do believe he said he's running 93 octane. Other then race gas, it doesn't get much better then that in most places.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
I do agree that the timing pulls are a bit much. However, I would appreciate the OP giving his 3 Revo settings. I get the feeling they may be a little aggressive for the fuel he's running.

Running full REVO stock 93 settings. Verified by SPS & etc . . . 
Timing 5, Boost *6* Fueling 9
These are actually the settings that the SPS uses when you select 93, not the advertised 5/7/9 that REVO was mentioning.
Dave


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Running full REVO stock 93 settings. Verified by SPS & etc . . . 
Timing 5, Boost *6* Fueling 9
These are actually the settings that the SPS uses when you select 93, not the advertised 5/7/9 that REVO was mentioning.
Dave

good to know. So are you going to change any of these setting to address the timing pull? I am running 93 octane with timing 3, boost 6, and fueling 9 I do believe and when logged I didn't see that kind of timing pull...


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*

I dont think that looks terrible at all. A bit different than I might want it.
One thing that may be good information is that generic SPS settings like 5,7,9 do not mean this is the perfect setting for your car just because you run a certain octane. Logging like Dave did is key to getting it how you want it. Anyways, nice information Dave.
cheers! Mike


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (NS01GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *NS01GTI* »_I'm sure that the EGTs through Vagcom aren't an accurate way to tune, but that doesn't mean it doesn't give us an idea of approx. where things are.

Well If we are in fact going to start using the O2 sensor approximation then I say fine. As pointed out by [email protected] in another thread the max egt for the K03 is 920 C, so according the Kieth Revo is doing just fine.
Of course how we'll have to argue what kind of buffer to have from that max temp, but all in all it would just be a bunch of gum bumping.
Only issue I see here is the timing pull, and with a little tweaking i think it can be fixed.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_Well If we are in fact going to start using the O2 sensor approximation then I say fine. As pointed out by [email protected] in another thread the max egt for the K03 is 920 C, so according the Kieth Revo is doing just fine.
Of course how we'll have to argue what kind of buffer to have from that max temp, but all in all it would just be a bunch of gum bumping.
Only issue I see here is the timing pull, and with a little tweaking i think it can be fixed.

Exactly. Would be nice to see timing at 3 and boost at 7 for that car, but it sucks that fuel is already topped out at 9. Could help with egt to get even more power. Dave, would you consider doing logs on the same ambient conditions with the same fuel on different settings to see how your car adjusts with each setting?


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_Exactly. Would be nice to see timing at 3 and boost at 7 for that car, but it sucks that fuel is already topped out at 9. Could help with egt to get even more power. 

The shop that tuned my car claimed that the 2.0T FSI can't run at anything other than the 9 setting. He told me only the MkV R32 would have adjustability in that fuel setting with Revo. So in a MkV GTI the end user can niether increase nor decrease this setting.
Just what I heard.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_The shop that tuned my car claimed that the 2.0T FSI can't run at anything other than the 9 setting. He told me only the MkV R32 would have adjustability in that fuel setting with Revo. So in a MkV GTI the end user can niether increase nor decrease this setting.
Just what I heard.

Well, in the tuning world it only takes a few good posts to see changes made so maybe there will be more adjustability on this in the future. I DO NOT want people using the followig log to bash a company but here is a comparison EGT on my car with exhaust and chip.








It is possible to get EGT up even higher on the track due to mulitple on and off throttle transitions so this is just a referance doing a single 3rd gear pull.
cheers! Mike


----------



## Kev06A3 (Oct 26, 2005)

On the Revo flash, the available fuel settings are 1=stock and 9=performance. The performance setting 9 is a LEANED out mixture. Couldn't you simply run the stock fuel setting 1 and keep the boost and timing where it was? Wouldn't this richer AFR help to reduce EGTs? Or am I flipped around here?
If I'm not, I wonder what the impact would be on power/torque vs the standard Revo settings by running the Revo-reoommended boost and ignition settings but stock (richer) fuel trim? Wouldn't it also stand to reason that one could potentially make up some of the lost power from the richer fuel setting with more aggressive timing since the richer fuel mixture should allow for more timing also?


_Modified by Kev06A3 at 7:12 PM 10-5-2006_


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

Bhv, I respect your posting, and think your a cool guy. 
Regarding this particular issue of such timing pulled, I honestly think that by you posting you think its probably fine, MAY give people who don't know better false hopes.
THIS IS NOT OK...
Knock sensors were NOT made to perform like this. In this particular case, this person is romping on his car, as he should, but expecting his knock sensors to retard timing appropriatly.
2 things. 
#1 Knock sensors are REACTIVE means of knock deterrant, meaning the knock has already happened, at least once during a stroke.
#2 Chemical activation far exceeds sound to electomechanical activation. So in my perspective, the knock will happen faster than the ability to squelch it. <-- Edit, and what I mean by this is that it only takes one stroke to damage a piston, it may not happen right then, but it can crack it.
NOW, is the motor strong enough to handle it? Perhaps, so far it has been great.
Now, again I am pulling from my experience from tuning the L67, and have had my fair understanding, and some tuning time myself. ANY knock is considered very very bad in our community. This is coming from a community that has had a STOCK salvage yard L67 Bottom end power a 9.4 second FWD auto car that weighs.. Well a lot. So the motor is no weakling. Yet, knock retard ( or when the computer is pulling timing ) can chip a ring landing on a piston or damage other components of a vehicle, such as the rod pin, etc. We've seen people blow thier piston at 240 whp, which would be a car running without supporting mods with a 3.4 inch pulley, or maybe a cat back or something included. And that is with cylinder pressures spread across 6 pistons, not 4.
What tuners should be trying is, reducing boost from an already off the map motorcycle turbo, to, leaning out the fuel, and increasing the timing on the motor. And then allowing people to make up the additional power from bolt ons.
You know, the bolt ons we cant run because there isn't enough fuel.
This is my personal opinion, and is not meant to step on any tuners toes out there. These are just from my experiences, however, a motor is a motor, and knock is knock, short of forged pistons, and rods, I would say knock over 1-2 degrees ( I used Knock and timing retard or timing pull synonomously) is a no no.
Next, I'm going to start working on an intake manifold for this vehicle, because it is obvious germans haven't a clue when it comes to air balance on an intake manifold for this engine.
CYL 1 tisk tisk tisk tisk. Thankfully BOSCH is there to have independant control over each, otherwise the motor would be toast long ago.











_Modified by T62 at 8:23 PM 10-5-2006_


----------



## Kev06A3 (Oct 26, 2005)

*Re: (Kev06A3)*

Okay, I just found my answer after a search led me to a aircraft engine tuning page of all places:

_Quote »_
Many people think that the leaner you go, the higher the EGT gets. This is also incorrect. Peak EGT occurs at stoichiometry- about 15 to 1 for our purposes. If you go richer than 15 to 1, EGT will drop and if you go leaner than 15 to 1 EGT will ALSO drop. It is VERY important to know which side of peak EGT you are on before making adjustments.


This implies that what I was thinking was correct, that richening the mixture so we're farther away from stoichiometric will decrease EGTs. I still don't know if the Revo 1 fuel map will work with the higher boost and timing settings. I'll give it a try on the lonely road home tonight...I love having the Select Switch.


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: (Kev06A3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Kev06A3* »_On the Revo flash, the available fuel settings are 1=stock and 9=performance. The performance setting 9 is a LEANED out mixture. Couldn't you simply run the stock fuel setting 1 and keep the boost and timing where it was? Wouldn't this richer AFR help to reduce EGTs? Or am I flipped around here?
If I'm not, I wonder what the impact would be on power/torque vs the standard Revo settings by running the Revo-reoommended boost and ignition settings but stock (richer) fuel trim? Wouldn't it also stand to reason that one could potentially make up some of the lost power from the richer fuel setting with more aggressive timing since the richer fuel mixture should allow for more timing also?

_Modified by Kev06A3 at 7:12 PM 10-5-2006_

If you set it to sock you'll likely hit fuel cut as the rail pump can't keep up. It'll happen at 9 as well if you get on and off it in 5th or 6th.


----------



## QGMika (Jul 25, 2002)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Since everyone loves to tear apart logs








There are a few things I'll comment on later . . . 
Dave

Do you have a log of total timing? from Block 003 I think?


_Modified by DSG604 at 5:35 PM 10-5-2006_


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_
What tuners should be trying is, reducing boost from an already off the map motorcycle turbo, to, leaning out the fuel, and increasing the timing on the motor. And then allowing people to make up the additional power from bolt ons.
You know, the bolt ons we cant run because there isn't enough fuel.
This is my personal opinion, and is not meant to step on any tuners toes out there. These are just from my experiences, however, a motor is a motor, and knock is knock, short of forged pistons, and rods, I would say knock over 1-2 degrees ( I used Knock and timing retard or timing pull synonomously) is a no no.

_Modified by T62 at 8:23 PM 10-5-2006_

I respect your opinion as well. I think you brought up many good points. Acually, if anyting you are even more conservative than me with regards to knock control which one tuner on this forum would find hard to believe but 6 degrees of knock is (as you suggest) definitely aggressive BUT conisidered about the limits of safe longevity. Keep in mind there is a tuner that was running 12-15 degrees knock control on the 1.8t motors claiming it is safe and is running up to 10 degrees on their 91 octane file with some one using 92 octane and claiming it is safe. There havent been a rash of blown motors yet either as they are a top shelf tuner (although I suspect there will be if changes arent made as they were finally made on the 1.8t two years later). But I do agree that getting each of these cars on the edge of maximum useable timing versus knock retard is the way to go but it is hard to do since all of our cars will react slightly differently. Bosch also is the one that suggests as you do the appropriate balance between timing used and timing that causes knock. In the end there has to be a bit of compromise so folks who are putting out significant cash all get their power and 6 degrees of retard has generally (not exactly) been considered a limit since the ecu can have a bit more protection beyond that (although the more it has to protect the more we lose out). 
But leaning out the a/f further without using a lean burn stategy would not be the route I would go at all. It is a route towards disaster IMO and we will see much higher EGT with it which I guess is the reason Revo will not allow using a setting on their fuel to lean it out even more. Something I agree with them on.
Boost sure does require more fuel and when we have fuel upgrades I have no doubt we will see better things happen with these motors. This has happened on the B5 A4 and the B6 A4. When we had injector or FPR options the cars ran safer and faster. I would hypothesize the same will happen for the FSI or B7 models as we get closer. We will be able to wet the clyinders appropriately and run more boost to make more power. The timing on these motors actually has much less impact than boost and when we get the fuel it will be neat to see. I have personally run 29psi spikes out of tiny old modeled K04 turbos and gained 40tq at the wheels compared to 23psi and 10whp more. This was running two full race seasons in florida 100 degree summer track conditions and the same setup is still on that car with the new owner a couple years later giving no problems. The kicker is that they are also running that 1.8t car at an unheard of 10.5:1 up top (something that was very rare for those motors) to keep things going. When we have that ability I think we will see more than the 1.8t was ever capable of but going leaner is not the way I would go without bringing in lean burn which is actually not leaner at all at the flame front.


----------



## OOOO-A3 (Jul 20, 2004)

*Re: (Kev06A3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Kev06A3* »_Okay, I just found my answer after a search led me to a aircraft engine tuning page of all places:

You bet. Here's another article that you may like
Too many people run aircraft engines all alike, based on what somebody told them. The truth is that every engine is different. I've run Lean-Of-Peak on cruising flights any time the engine manual shows it as an acceptable condition, with great results on various Lycoming and Continental engines. But while I absolutely love the Continental IO-550 in a Beech Baron, it's so different from our 2.0T as to make any comparison completely useless. Your conclusions about the relationship to stoichiometric a/f ratio is correct, but that doesn't tell us if ROP or LOP is healthy for the whole system of the 2.0T FSI. The tuning programmers are welcome to take the risk of figuring that out, I'd be very reluctant to experiment with it on my own car. 
(For those unfamiliar, piston aircraft engines tend to have an EGT probe with a gauge in the cockpit, and a manual mixture control. You take off with it set to 'full rich', then lean it out in cruise or cruise-climb (as air density decreases) to some value rich or lean of peak EGT. Richer == cooler. During descent, you enrichen it again to keep pace with the density of air at lower altitudes. It's all manual. No 'chips' or 'reflashes' for your plane!







)


----------



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

*Re: (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_it only takes one stroke to damage a piston, it may not happen right then, but it can crack it.
Yet, knock retard ( or when the computer is pulling timing ) can chip a ring landing on a piston or damage other components of a vehicle, such as the rod pin, etc. 
.I would say knock over 1-2 degrees ( I used Knock and timing retard or timing pull synonomously) is a no no.











I think you'll be very hard pressed to find many, if not a single case of a recent turbo charged VAG motor (1.8T, 2.0T, 2.7T) burning a piston due to just a chip. We're not talking about the L67 and I have a feeling the VW ECU has a slightly higher IQ.








You'll routinely see stock programing pull 1-2 degrees and 6 deg by itself is nothing to worry about, though @ 54 deg ambient I'd certainly be careful with this program in 90+ deg heat. 
Do you have any other data to back up your claim about the manifold?


----------



## LeBlanc. (Jul 15, 2003)

*Re: (20th-Hole)*

6 degrees is nothing, lol.
My buddy's Syclone, when I ran with that crowd, had the ECU pulling
10-12 degrees near redline (a whopping 4500RPMs) in his ATR-chipped
truck with TBE. It was a daily driver, and never blew up, lol.
*I'm just being silly*, even though the above statement is true.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
Well, in the tuning world it only takes a few good posts to see changes made so maybe there will be more adjustability on this in the future. I DO NOT want people using the followig log to bash a company but here is a comparison EGT on my car with exhaust and chip.








It is possible to get EGT up even higher on the track due to mulitple on and off throttle transitions so this is just a referance doing a single 3rd gear pull.
cheers! Mike

Mike, this is my graph from my very first pull.








two data points later, the O2 sensor registered a peak temp of 894C. 
On subsequent runs, the O2 kept on hitting 900C, but I believe it might be the max resolution of that sensor.
Dave


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (DSG604)*


_Quote, originally posted by *DSG604* »_
Do you have a log of total timing? from Block 003 I think?


No . . . . Mike pmed me earlier about the alternative way to get A/F, but I think the pre-cat O2 sensor gave enough of an approximate estimate for my purposes.
Dave


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
agreed. Run better fuel, change plugs, or use the SPS to back off the timing a little.

That was on a fresh batch of Sunoco 93 from a new station with plenty of volume.
Plugs were changed 5500 miles ago
Timing and boost were what REVO sets as stock for their 93 program. T5 B6 F9
Dave


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_What tuners should be trying is, reducing boost from an already off the map motorcycle turbo, to, leaning out the fuel, and increasing the timing on the motor. And then allowing people to make up the additional power from bolt ons.

_Modified by T62 at 8:23 PM 10-5-2006_
 
That's the WRONG way to go about it on this FSI motor IMO. I can tell you this my new stage 2 APR 93 program runs 20% more fuel , more timing ( like a race gas program ) has very little timing pull ( 1/2 of what Dave is seeing ) but most importantly it SPIKES doesn't hold the numbers like Daves is showing .I have a stock F fuel pump and stock injectors and NEVER hit fuel cut off







so its safe to say that APR has figured away to tune around fueling issue, on top of this i can run as much boost as i want with my own "Tweaks " and still no fuel cut off at least at the ko3 level .







Bob.G


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (rracerguy717)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rracerguy717* »_That's the WRONG way to go about it on this FSI motor IMO. I can tell you this my new stage 2 APR 93 program runs 20% more fuel , more timing ( like a race gas program ) has very little timing pull ( 1/2 of what Dave is seeing ) but most importantly it SPIKES doesn't hold the numbers like Daves is showing .I have a stock F fuel pump and stock injectors and NEVER hit fuel cut off







so its safe to say that APR has figured away to tune around fueling issue, on top of this i can run as much boost as i want with my own "Tweaks " and still no fuel cut off at least at the ko3 level .







Bob.G

The only thing I wonder is (and if you wouldnt mind showing some logs on this or another thread) does stage II APR essentially bring APR up to what Revo or Giac are doing with stage I of their chips? With stage II I am assuming an intake and turbo back exhaust? Opening up the downpipe can help to lower EGT's from my understanding, is that a poor assumption?
Have you done fuel logs while completing the infamous 5th or 6th gear "on-off-on" throttle behavior? As I understand this is what causes the fuel starvation problems, despite tuner or tuning.
P.S. thanks for everyones input on this, this is my first turbo car so I'm only pulling from what I've read / experience from my friends who have owned them / too many hours taking physics classes... All help is appreciated, even if you tell me I'm destroying my car, just give good reasons, remember you are trying to convince an engineer...


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
I remember distinctly that you claim egt's calculated from the o2 sensor are bunk and now you try to use it to discount a competitor..
What exactly is your job again? Minister of Disinformation?
I do agree that the timing pulls are a bit much. However, I would appreciate the OP giving his 3 Revo settings. I get the feeling they may be a little aggressive for the fuel he's running.

They are bunk in that they don't give you an accurate reflection of what heat is being generated before that energy is dissipated over the turbine blades through the turbo, into the cat and out. Post cat egt's are going to be way lower than preturbine. I called them bunk when peeps were posting these logs in an attempt to prove that the egt's were in line.
Being as high as these are after the cat, one can only speculate how high they are preturbine but they are definitely going to be higher at preturbine than they are after the cat.
_Modified by [email protected] at 7:16 AM 10-6-2006_


_Modified by [email protected] at 7:16 AM 10-6-2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_They are bunk in that they don't give you an accurate reflection of what heat is being generated before that energy is dissipated over the turbine blades through the turbo, into the cat and out. Post cat egt's are going to be way lower than preturbine. I called them bunk when peeps were posting these logs in an attempt to prove that the egt's were in line.
Being as high as these are after the cat, one can only speculate how high they are preturbine but they are definitely going to be higher at preturbine than they are after the cat.
_Modified by [email protected] at 7:16 AM 10-6-2006_

_Modified by [email protected] at 7:16 AM 10-6-2006_

And the ecu see's this temp from the O2, which is where the arguments about factory protection limits revolved around.
Then APR was asked directly, what they used to determine EGT's in their tuning process. 
Keith has not replied to date.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
They are bunk in that they don't give you an accurate reflection of what heat is being generated before that energy is dissipated over the turbine blades through the turbo, into the cat and out. Post cat egt's are going to be way lower than preturbine. I called them bunk when peeps were posting these logs in an attempt to prove that the egt's were in line.
Being as high as these are after the cat, one can only speculate how high they are preturbine but they are definitely going to be higher at preturbine than they are after the cat.
_Modified by [email protected] at 7:16 AM 10-6-2006_

_Modified by [email protected] at 7:16 AM 10-6-2006_

I agree with all that, and I understand that the O2 sensors will read a temp lower than what the turbo is seeing simply because of thermodynamics. What I thought you were insinuating was that the O2 sensor itelf could not be trusted to read accurately.
If we can trust the O2's estimation, then one would just have to make an educated guess about the temp drop between the estimating O2 sensor and the turbo, but at least I can start from there.
I have access to a laser heat gun, has anyone used those to estimate EGT's? I was thinking (despite the chane in metal types and thusly heat dissipative characteristics) that you could take a temp near the turbine housing and then near the O2 sensor you are estimating from and go from there in estimating heat loss and then the actual EGT seen by the turbo.
Just throwin out some idears....


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
And the ecu see's this temp from the O2, which is where the arguments about factory protection limits revolved around.
Then APR was asked directly, what they used to determine EGT's in their tuning process. 
Keith has not replied to date.









Oh sorry. We use the factory programmed hardware protection map. As egt's climb, hardware protection kicks in. Removing that feature or raising its tolerance limits would be outside the egt specs designed into the ems by bosch.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Oh sorry. We use the factory programmed hardware protection map. As egt's climb, hardware protection kicks in. Removing that feature or raising its tolerance limits would be outside the egt specs designed into the ems by bosch.

So a simple, "we used the factory O2 sensor to look at EGT's when we developed our product" would have been easier to say


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
So a simple, "we used the factory O2 sensor to look at EGT's when we developed our product" would have been easier to say









but that's not correct.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_but that's not correct.

You are confusing.


----------



## NS01GTI (Jan 31, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
You are confusing.

Or is it just that you're confused?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (NS01GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *NS01GTI* »_Or is it just that you're confused?
















If he admits to an EGT probe, he knows what questions I'm going to ask and it'll back him into a corner.
So he's just darting around the question. Is there any Guiness left?


----------



## NS01GTI (Jan 31, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
If he admits to an EGT probe, he knows what questions I'm going to ask and it'll back him into a corner.
So he's just darting around the question. Is there any Guiness left?

Keep probing.
I've already switched to dark rum.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
If he admits to an EGT probe, he knows what questions I'm going to ask and it'll back him into a corner.
So he's just darting around the question. Is there any Guiness left?

actually I don't. I am really just trying to avoid tipping off some other companies.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

thread, please let this thread go, I am actually learning, so it is valuable...
So if APR is using the factory protection maps, that's fine. I can see the logic. However, that means that the factory map is tuned to read off of the O2 sensor, no? Does that mean the 920 degrees Celcius Max EGT temp is the spec that the O2 sensor will see? Also, once you mess with the exhaust, as in lets say buy an APR or any other manufacturer downpipe, does APR mess with that map to recalibrate the O2 sensor since there might be more or less heat loss due to the change to factory exhaust components? I don't think it would be a big deal since my understanding is that freeing up the exhaust would help to cool the turbo, or at least help dissipate egt's...
Thoughts? Answers?


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_actually I don't. I am really just trying to avoid tipping off some other companies.

I hope to all things holy that's a joke. You can't honestly believe APR knows something that other tuners don't. I'd put my money on other tuners being willing to take what APR might consider risks, but you must be joking.
I guess it's a little silly to ask those questions. APR has no reason to help the community, just their pocket books, like any other tuner. However, I know it would influence my future spending decisions.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_Does that mean the 920 degrees Celcius Max EGT temp is the spec that the O2 sensor will see? 

Yes, if that is indeed the limit








But APR is saying that value should not be used for tuning. That's where people are getting confused.


----------



## NS01GTI (Jan 31, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
I hope to all things holy that's a joke. You can't honestly believe APR knows something that other tuners don't. I'd put my money on other tuners being willing to take what APR might consider risks, but you must be joking.
I guess it's a little silly to ask those questions. APR has no reason to help the community, just their pocket books, like any other tuner. However, I know it would influence my future spending decisions.

That seems a bit harsh to me. Why should APR reveal information that could be useful to the other tuners. Makes sense to me...


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (NS01GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *NS01GTI* »_That seems a bit harsh to me. Why should APR reveal information that could be useful to the other tuners. Makes sense to me...









It's tuning 101, and it's really simple. Keith is obfuscating the thread. The simple question was, What did APR use to monitor EGT's during their development?
Notice that it was never directly answered. And it's nothing special. I just didn't have my 2.0T long enough to pop on my wideband and EGT. 
I think if Keith just opens up a little, we can show how this all relates to the revo logs, but I don't think he's been himself lately.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_thread, please let this thread go, I am actually learning, so it is valuable...
So if APR is using the factory protection maps, that's fine. I can see the logic. However, that means that the factory map is tuned to read off of the O2 sensor, no? Does that mean the 920 degrees Celcius Max EGT temp is the spec that the O2 sensor will see? Also, once you mess with the exhaust, as in lets say buy an APR or any other manufacturer downpipe, does APR mess with that map to recalibrate the O2 sensor since there might be more or less heat loss due to the change to factory exhaust components? I don't think it would be a big deal since my understanding is that freeing up the exhaust would help to cool the turbo, or at least help dissipate egt's...
Thoughts? Answers?

We are all being nice, so I think we are good on the locks.
The hardware protection feature relies on a series of inputs from quite a few different calculations, not just the secondary o2 if really at all. The me9 has some seriously advanced programming architecture. Alot of maps grab on to or tie into other ones. Hardware protection draws info and shares parameters with a ton of other mapping.
I think it would be good to see some logs of stage 1 vs. stage 2. A freeier exhaust would typically lower egt's, how much would be the queestion and I am not at liberty to answer.
No, we don't change the 02 scaling, I've mentioned that in the past in regards to other companies that deviate from hardware protection maps.


----------



## five0vw (May 21, 2004)

*Re: (syntrix)*

this is a very interesting topic to follow. It is giving me alot of insight on my 2.0T. I am a little nervous about the harmful effects of the tuning on my software (if there are any). Nothing bad has happend yet, but my experience with the motor has not really been a total joy. One night of logging with my revo2 set at boost of 8, timing of 3 or4 (cant remember) I hit 21 psi and that night my car was amazing. I put major car lengths on a heavily worked cobalt ss that runs mid to lower 13s. Car hasnt ran the same since that night. my C/F were above 2. I have not had c/f til recently


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (five0vw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *five0vw* »_this is a very interesting topic to follow. It is giving me alot of insight on my 2.0T. I am a little nervous about the harmful effects of the tuning on my software (if there are any). Nothing bad has happend yet, but my experience with the motor has not really been a total joy. One night of logging with my revo2 set at boost of 8, timing of 3 or4 (cant remember) I hit 21 psi and that night my car was amazing. I put major car lengths on a heavily worked cobalt ss that runs mid to lower 13s. Car hasnt ran the same since that night. my C/F were above 2. I have not had c/f til recently

Hate to ask the stupid questions but it wasn't one of two identified boost leaks with the car, was it? Have you checked your Diverter Valve or your PCV system?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*

I think we would like to see the OP change some settings on his revo and go out and log again.
Yes, it looks pretty toasty, but will it be less toasty with adjustments?
This brings up another point. You mod your car, you should get something like vag-com or a wideband/egt/other gauges to keep an eye on things. It's better than just assuming that things are working fine. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_I think we would like to see the OP change some settings on his revo and go out and log again.
Yes, it looks pretty toasty, but will it be less toasty with adjustments?
This brings up another point. You mod your car, you should get something like vag-com or a wideband/egt/other gauges to keep an eye on things. It's better than just assuming that things are working fine. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

No way man, i think he should sell me his SPS Plus...








I am about to order my VAG-COM since I no longer live next to the shop where I was able to use one for free. I feel naked without being able to log! I'd much rather spend $350 on a Vag-Com and be able to do a ton of stuff than spend $350 and have a couple of guages...


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
I hope to all things holy that's a joke. You can't honestly believe APR knows something that other tuners don't. I'd put my money on other tuners being willing to take what APR might consider risks, but you must be joking.
I guess it's a little silly to ask those questions. APR has no reason to help the community, just their pocket books, like any other tuner. However, I know it would influence my future spending decisions.

Wow! These types of comments are honestly my main concern about the current state of the community. Alot of peeps believe that if they are a company they are moral, just and knowledgeable. You basically just claimed the playing feild for all tuners is completely level and noone has any technical advantage over another. That's simply not the case. Take for example the 1.8T. Who even comes close to the APR Stage 3? Its commonly accepted by any companies' fan boi that the stage 3 can't be touched. Many other companies have tried but to date, noone has made it happen. Currenly a company called Del Rio from Mexico working with GIAC is attempting to catch up to APR in the 1.8T arena but its yet to come to total fruition as have many previous attempts by other tuners.
We have consistently set the bench mark year after year with new innovation and product firsts. We brought you the first ecu upgrade for me9, the first full exhaust system, the first turbo upgrade.
As far as giving back to the community:
We are title sponsors for several shows throughout the country, Waterfest, H20 Inters and many others. We have an annual free bbq and open house available to anyone who wishes to attend. We've always been known to pass out free water, t-shirts, decals, badges and more at every show we attend. We set up a courtesy tent at Road Atlanta just this last weekend that rivaled the Audi Corral. We offer full lifetime warranty on our exhaust and great warranties on our other products. We have a staff of 6 to answer the phones and are always happy to offer suggestions to even custom turbo kit guys.
I mean honestly, I wish you would have the opportunity to get to know us on a personal level.
As an example of other companies, I witnessed this past weekend a rep from one of our competitors in the Audi Corral talk to a guy for 3 or 4 mins about general Audi related stuff, got to his point by asking if he was chipped, the enthusiast answered that he was and the rep just turned around and walked away to go try to peddle his wares on the next guy without another single word. You won't have this happen from anyone at APR.



_Modified by [email protected] at 8:45 AM 10-6-2006_


----------



## five0vw (May 21, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
Hate to ask the stupid questions but it wasn't one of two identified boost leaks with the car, was it? Have you checked your Diverter Valve or your PCV system?

no leaks, I have a fix for the pcv similar to what the induction motorsports kit will look like. newer c dv with no tears, and a blocked off noise pipe. just for my own satifaction, im gonna take off the dv and inspect it again b4 i go to show n go to run the car.


----------



## digitalhippie (Apr 21, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_Hate to ask the stupid questions but it wasn't one of two identified boost leaks with the car, was it? Have you checked your Diverter Valve or your PCV system?

He has tested 3 different DV valves... and (since I was the second person to know about the PCV issue on this forum) his PCV has already been bypassed. Neither of these seemed to change anything as we ran before&after logs.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Wow! These types of comments are honestly my main concern about the current state of the community...
_Modified by [email protected] at 8:45 AM 10-6-2006_

Yeah, I suppose that was a little harsh. I appologize.
In any case when you are dealing with me, you are dealing with someone who will not, absolutely will not, take anyone at there word when it comes to technical things. I require understanding to "come on board".
At this point my refund date is up, I'm stuck with what I've got. I was well taken care of with my chip, the APR rep in my old area was run by (well I'll just call them big meanies) so APR lost out there. Am I afraid for my car with Revo? No, but because I take the time to make sure things are running okay. Other don't, whatever, it's not my car so I don't care.
My point is that APR is making lots of claim that are tech based and I (as per my training as an engineer) am not simply convinced at your word and so I spend time in these forums trying to learn. Revo and Giac do not spend time defending or releasing technical data, APR does (and to your credit). However I will not, nor will I ever, just say," huh, well APR must be right then so I'll get their chip." That's not how I operate. So I'm just trying to figure things out.
If I thought abandoning my $400 dollars spent on Revo and paying $500 to get APR was going to save me $900 in maintenance in the future, I would absolutely do it (and simultaneously send my wife on a rampage over my spending on my car







) but I would do it none the less. So I am looking for evidence, and no one will share it. So until then I will just continue to monitor my car and not worry about it.
Do I believe APR knows important things about the 2.0T? Sure. Do I believe they are the only ones to know it? No, and I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. In fact, on conclusion I might draw is that other tuners might know more about the 2.0T that APR, and thusly are confident they can tune the engine more aggressively and afford more gains for their customers.


----------



## five0vw (May 21, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Wow! These types of comments are honestly my main concern about the current state of the community. Alot of peeps believe that if they are a company they are moral, just and knowledgeable. You basically just claimed the playing feild for all tuners is completely level and noone has any technical advantage over another. That's simply not the case. Take for example the 1.8T. Who even comes close to the APR Stage 3? Its commonly accepted by any companies' fan boi that the stage 3 can't be touched. Many other companies have tried but to date, noone has made it happen. Currenly a company called Del Rio from Mexico working with GIAC is attempting to catch up to APR in the 1.8T arena but its yet to come to total fruition as have many previous attempts by other tuners.
We have consistently set the bench mark year after year with new innovation and product firsts. We brought you the first ecu upgrade for me9, the first full exhaust system, the first turbo upgrade.
As far as giving back to the community:
We are title sponsors for several shows throughout the country, Waterfest, H20 Inters and many others. We have an annual free bbq and open house available to anyone who wishes to attend. We've always been known to pass out free water, t-shirts, decals, badges and more at every show we attend. We set up a courtesy tent at Road Atlanta just this last weekend that rivaled the Audi Corral. We offer full lifetime warranty on our exhaust and great warranties on our other products. We have a staff of 6 to answer the phones and are always happy to offer suggestions to even custom turbo kit guys.
I mean honestly, I wish you would have the opportunity to get to know us on a personal level.
As an example of other companies, I witnessed this past weekend a rep from one of our competitors in the Audi Corral talk to a guy for 3 or 4 mins about general Audi related stuff, got to his point by asking if he was chipped, the enthusiast answered that he was and the rep just turned around and walked away to go try to peddle his wares on the next guy without another single word. You won't have this happen from anyone at APR.

_Modified by [email protected] at 8:45 AM 10-6-2006_

Keith,
I like my Revo, I just need to ask if you folks are really working on some newer ideas to combat fueling issues when pushing these cars. I am under the impression that Revo just cares about putting out a program that is aggressive and calling it a day. I am starting to understand why my g/fs 1.8T GLI is pushing way more boost (23psi steady) safely and I am stuck with a 2.0t with just shy of 19 psi at low rpms. If you are getting close, I will gladly talk about changing over to a safer program. I did initially want the most agressive program available.... but I need this car to last for at least 10 years!


----------



## digitalhippie (Apr 21, 2004)

*Re: (five0vw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *five0vw* »_I did initially want the most agressive program available...

Wait, so why did you get REVO??


----------



## five0vw (May 21, 2004)

*Re: (digitalhippie)*


_Quote, originally posted by *digitalhippie* »_
Wait, so why did you get REVO??
















(evil stare). we still have yet to do a high way pull now that are cars are seeing similar boost. I am very curious.


----------



## digitalhippie (Apr 21, 2004)

*Re: (five0vw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *five0vw* »_(evil stare). we still have yet to do a high way pull now that are cars are seeing similar boost. I am very curious. 


Pick a time


----------



## five0vw (May 21, 2004)

*Re: (digitalhippie)*

what are you doing tonight? I have no plans, no g/f around = no life.







(should be the other way around right?)
ne ways. sorry for hijacking the thread. Any new insight on fuelling issues?


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

No worries on the lock I'm actually pleased with a lot of the replies in here.
But, for the two talking about a highway pull do it on a closed course™ please


----------



## five0vw (May 21, 2004)

*Re: (thread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thread* »_No worries on the lock I'm actually pleased with a lot of the replies in here.
But, for the two talking about a highway pull do it on a closed course™ please









Of course. We do not go crazy. a simple 3 gear pull to about 80-85mph is all we need to see that Revo is way better than Giac x. j/k not gonna go much past our normal speed limitations on our "closed road"







thanks for the disclaimer, dont want to give idiots any motivation.


----------



## digitalhippie (Apr 21, 2004)

*Re: (thread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thread* »_But, for the two talking about a highway pull do it on a closed course™ please









But of course... wouldn't have it any other way http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## digitalhippie (Apr 21, 2004)

*Re: (five0vw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *five0vw* »_what are you doing tonight? I have no plans, no g/f around = no life.







(should be the other way around right?)

PM sent


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Wow! These types of comments are honestly my main concern about the current state of the community. Alot of peeps believe that if they are a company they are moral, just and knowledgeable. You basically just claimed the playing feild for all tuners is completely level and noone has any technical advantage over another. That's simply not the case. Take for example the 1.8T. Who even comes close to the APR Stage 3? Its commonly accepted by any companies' fan boi that the stage 3 can't be touched. Many other companies have tried but to date, noone has made it happen. Currenly a company called Del Rio from Mexico working with GIAC is attempting to catch up to APR in the 1.8T arena but its yet to come to total fruition as have many previous attempts by other tuners.
We have consistently set the bench mark year after year with new innovation and product firsts. We brought you the first ecu upgrade for me9, the first full exhaust system, the first turbo upgrade.
As far as giving back to the community:
We are title sponsors for several shows throughout the country, Waterfest, H20 Inters and many others. We have an annual free bbq and open house available to anyone who wishes to attend. We've always been known to pass out free water, t-shirts, decals, badges and more at every show we attend. We set up a courtesy tent at Road Atlanta just this last weekend that rivaled the Audi Corral. We offer full lifetime warranty on our exhaust and great warranties on our other products. We have a staff of 6 to answer the phones and are always happy to offer suggestions to even custom turbo kit guys.
I mean honestly, I wish you would have the opportunity to get to know us on a personal level.
As an example of other companies, I witnessed this past weekend a rep from one of our competitors in the Audi Corral talk to a guy for 3 or 4 mins about general Audi related stuff, got to his point by asking if he was chipped, the enthusiast answered that he was and the rep just turned around and walked away to go try to peddle his wares on the next guy without another single word. You won't have this happen from anyone at APR.]

Wow, Keith you made milk come out my nose.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (five0vw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *five0vw* »_
Keith,
I like my Revo, I just need to ask if you folks are really working on some newer ideas to combat fueling issues when pushing these cars. I am under the impression that Revo just cares about putting out a program that is aggressive and calling it a day. If you are getting close, I will gladly talk about changing over to a safer program. I did initially want the most agressive program available.... but I need this car to last for at least 10 years! 

Somewhat my line of thinking/reasoning. Although its tough with Keith always patting himself on the back.







Would be nice if we got a comment from Revo.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re:  ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
The hardware protection feature relies on a series of inputs from quite a few different calculations, not just the secondary o2 if really at all. The me9 has some seriously advanced programming architecture. Alot of maps grab on to or tie into other ones. Hardware protection draws info and shares parameters with a ton of other mapping.
I think it would be good to see some logs of stage 1 vs. stage 2. A freeier exhaust would typically lower egt's, how much would be the queestion and I am not at liberty to answer.
No, we don't change the 02 scaling, I've mentioned that in the past in regards to other companies that deviate from hardware protection maps.

I guess if I were to design an engine management system for this car and I wanted to estimate EGT's so I could enter a limp mode to protect my customer's car (and my warranty budget) I might use the following sensors and strategy.
I'd want to know outside temp. I would probably use the intake temp sensor for that. I would want to have a good estimate of the fuel my customer has in the tank. I can use that and the amount of knock or timing pull to estimate the behavior of the exhaust gases. I would use the engine load and boost pressure. hmmm, prolly some other stuff I'm not thinking of.
I think I would at least verify it with the estimate that the O2 would provide. Not only that but I would have to make some kind of estimate of the amount of heat loss with the car's factory setup.
I just can't see how a tuner could be confident (if safety of car itself was one of their top tuning priorities) in using the stock protection system after adding an aftermarket exhaust. The car would be making assumptions based on a non-existant setup. It could be that the more free-flowing downpipe would allow for lower EGT's, but if you really gave a hoot about safety you would have to be absolutely sure about that.
I dunno. It just seems like a cop out. Like, well that's gonna take too much to figure out or I am incapable of figuring it out so I'll just say it's good.
This is of course unless the O2 sensor plays absolutely no part in that protection map. If that is the case is it just there for diagnostic purposes at the dealer? Is it there just because it can be?


----------



## five0vw (May 21, 2004)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
Somewhat my line of thinking/reasoning. Although its tough with Keith always patting himself on the back.







Would be nice if we got a comment from Revo.

Yeah, I agree. I dont see George around these parts too often. I have no evidence that Revo is bad for my car, but I dont want to be one to be proof in the future.


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

I dunno if bad is really the right word as in this sense it's subjective. Chipping period some people consider bad because you're altering the car from the factory specs. Then there's the well chipping is ok but pulling x amount of timing is bad.
So, in the strictest sens I don't think any chip program is "bad" but maybe more of a risk.
Bad in my opinion would be a program directly causing a engine to self destruct in a short amount of time which to date we've not seen any evidence of.


----------



## digitalhippie (Apr 21, 2004)

*Re: (thread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thread* »_well chipping is ok but pulling x amount of timing is bad

water/meth injection time anyone??


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (digitalhippie)*


_Quote, originally posted by *digitalhippie* »_water/meth injection time anyone??


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (thread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thread* »_I dunno if bad is really the right word as in this sense it's subjective. Chipping period some people consider bad because you're altering the car from the factory specs. Then there's the well chipping is ok but pulling x amount of timing is bad.
So, in the strictest sens I don't think any chip program is "bad" but maybe more of a risk.
Bad in my opinion would be a program directly causing a engine to self destruct in a short amount of time which to date we've not seen any evidence of.

Well thats the truth, I'm sure a case could be made that every chip is in some way "bad" (or whatever you want to call it) for the car, and your taking some risk.
It still would be nice to here some reassuring words from Revo or a Revo rep.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
I guess if I were to design an engine management system for this car and I wanted to estimate EGT's so I could enter a limp mode to protect my customer's car (and my warranty budget) I might use the following sensors and strategy.
I'd want to know outside temp. I would probably use the intake temp sensor for that. I would want to have a good estimate of the fuel my customer has in the tank. I can use that and the amount of knock or timing pull to estimate the behavior of the exhaust gases. I would use the engine load and boost pressure. hmmm, prolly some other stuff I'm not thinking of.
I think I would at least verify it with the estimate that the O2 would provide. Not only that but I would have to make some kind of estimate of the amount of heat loss with the car's factory setup.
I just can't see how a tuner could be confident (if safety of car itself was one of their top tuning priorities) in using the stock protection system after adding an aftermarket exhaust. The car would be making assumptions based on a non-existant setup. It could be that the more free-flowing downpipe would allow for lower EGT's, but if you really gave a hoot about safety you would have to be absolutely sure about that.
I dunno. It just seems like a cop out. Like, well that's gonna take too much to figure out or I am incapable of figuring it out so I'll just say it's good.
This is of course unless the O2 sensor plays absolutely no part in that protection map. If that is the case is it just there for diagnostic purposes at the dealer? Is it there just because it can be?









The cop out would be:
I set the data I want the car to run at because it makes great power there but this stupid hardware protection map changes all of my settings. I'll just turn it off.


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
The cop out would be:
I set the data I want the car to run at because it makes great power there but this stupid hardware protection map changes all of my settings. I'll just turn it off.

That would depend on the research involved, and justification on doing that.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_The cop out would be:
I set the data I want the car to run at because it makes great power there but this stupid hardware protection map changes all of my settings. I'll just turn it off.

Most people don't think in 3D.
but otherwise, I'll still add


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
That would depend on the research involved, and justification on doing that.

Exactly, and the ones that deviate from it are the ones that the burden of proof falls on.
We have yet to have any other companies give us any details about what they do to it. Some have said we don't do anything to it but the afr they produce would dictate otherwise.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (five0vw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *five0vw* »_
Keith,
I like my Revo, I just need to ask if you folks are really working on some newer ideas to combat fueling issues when pushing these cars. I am under the impression that Revo just cares about putting out a program that is aggressive and calling it a day. I am starting to understand why my g/fs 1.8T GLI is pushing way more boost (23psi steady) safely and I am stuck with a 2.0t with just shy of 19 psi at low rpms. If you are getting close, I will gladly talk about changing over to a safer program. I did initially want the most agressive program available.... but I need this car to last for at least 10 years! 

Being that we engineer both software and hardware I can assure you we are the best company to handle this task. We have made some great advancements already and have working prototypes that I am sure everyone will be interested in but I can't speak of them just yet. Give it a month or so and you will be very excited when our R&D has been accomplished and we are ready for a release.


----------



## t3t41.8tgti (Oct 4, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Take for example the 1.8T. Who even comes close to the APR Stage 3? Its commonly accepted by any companies' fan boi that the stage 3 can't be touched. Many other companies have tried but to date, noone has made it happen.

 the same can be said about other companies, and the turbo upgrade kits for the 2.7T's.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

how about we chill out on the pissing fights & off topic stuff . . . . I have a few more graphs to post up . . . . will do it later. . . 
_stay tuned_ *pun intended*
Dave


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_I think we would like to see the OP change some settings on his revo and go out and log again.
Yes, it looks pretty toasty, but will it be less toasty with adjustments?
This brings up another point. You mod your car, you should get something like vag-com or a wideband/egt/other gauges to keep an eye on things. It's better than just assuming that things are working fine. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

the purpose of my logs were to show what _normal_ people would be seeing on revo's _normal_ tune. The settings I used were actually lower than what REVO has publically recommended on the forums (which makes me question the 5/7/9 recommendation they made). 
I will be doing further logs in the next week to see how "toasty" things are.








And yes . . . if you get REVO SPS-plus, you should def have some form of datalogger in order to determine if the settings that you're choosing are working well with your environmental factors, gas & other modifications.
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_the purpose of my logs were to show what _normal_ people would be seeing on revo's _normal_ tune. The settings I used were actually lower than what REVO has publically recommended on the forums (which makes me question the 5/7/9 recommendation they made). 
I will be doing further logs in the next week to see how "toasty" things are.








And yes . . . if you get REVO SPS-plus, you should def have some form of datalogger in order to determine if the settings that you're choosing are working well with your environmental factors, gas & other modifications.
Dave

Oh, I thought we knew that, but maybe it wasn't clear to other people. I'd still like to see some logs with different settings, BUT
Before we go further, I'd contact the big revo and ask what their input is on settings.
Don't forget your block 120 dyno's... but if you have the time!
Thanks for sharing this info, btw!!! Good stuff man!


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Before we go further, I'd contact the big revo and ask what their input is on settings.
Don't forget your block 120 dyno's... but if you have the time!
Thanks for sharing this info, btw!!! Good stuff man!

the 91 (3/6/9) and 93 (5/6/9) were pulled directly off of the SPS unit . . . . they're the two default settings on "2" and "3" that cannot be altered.
block 120s might not read accurately when chipped. IIRC some tuners modify variables that affect block 120.
NP . . . it was about time i did this . . . 
Dave


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_I will be doing further logs in the next week to see how "toasty" things are.
















, you going to use my car or something


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*

Thanks for your hard work Dave http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

Here's an update. 
I did a log of cat temps over a period of "daily driving". I never exceeded 5krpms IIRC and the engine wasn't under full load. This is with REVO 93 settings of T5, B6, F9.








Another REVO A3 member "Bassbiker" did this log of his REVO settings T4, B7, F9. He mentioned that his CFs on "timing 5" were as high as mine and he felt less lugging at lower RPMs with the lower timing setting. As you can see, the Cat temps are noticably lower when you reduce timing.
Jim's cat temps (1 3rd gear pull) T4,B7,F9








My cat temps after 1 pull (T5,B6,F9)








Dave


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (crew217)*

Great work Dave. We seem to be in the same boat. I was inspired by this thread and actually did some logs myself. I'm pulling a lot of timming, I did log everything I could think of. Heres a link to download the http://www.zackslife.com/LOG-0...D.xls These Revo Stg 1 setting for this log was 7-4-9 Mods are a EVOMS Intake, ATP 3" DP w/ 3"catback.
I am going to be doing some more logs today with lower timming and boost settings. I can log upto 12 blocks, what does everyone want to see?
I will be getting the stg2 flash soon, and will do more logs then.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_Great work Dave. We seem to be in the same boat. I was inspired by this thread and actually did some logs myself. I'm pulling a lot of timming, I did log everything I could think of. Heres a link to download the http://www.zackslife.com/LOG-0...D.xls These Revo Stg 1 setting for this log was 7-4-9 Mods are a EVOMS Intake, ATP 3" DP w/ 3"catback.
I am going to be doing some more logs today with lower timming and boost settings. I can log upto 12 blocks, what does everyone want to see?
I will be getting the stg2 flash soon, and will do more logs then.

very nice. 
Try block 034 for cat temp. Block 112 is an estimated EGT and can only go up to 999C, which you plateau'd at in your log. With the cat temp, you can do a rough estimation of what the EGTs are using some literature from Borg Warner that I'll be posting up in a bit. 
I just got some more logs from another REVO guy last night . . . he did 020, 115, 034, and 031. 
Dave


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (crew217)*

ok.. On my way to work this moring I log my cf's again with the Stock Setting on my SPS Select+, I have 93oct in the tank, and again, EVOMS CAI/ATP3"TB
http://www.zackslife.com/revo_...7.CSV
With the stock settings I am still haveing lots of correction. see for yourself.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_ok.. On my way to work this moring I log my cf's again with the Stock Setting on my SPS Select+, I have 93oct in the tank, and again, EVOMS CAI/ATP3"TB
http://www.zackslife.com/revo_...7.CSV
With the stock settings I am still haveing lots of correction. see for yourself.









93 "stock" settings are actually 6,5,9 which is probably why you're seeing a lot of correction.
Try 034 instead of 043 next time. Not sure what 043 is.
Dave


----------



## five0vw (May 21, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
93 "stock" settings are actually 6,5,9 which is probably why you're seeing a lot of correction.
Try 034 instead of 043 next time. Not sure what 043 is.
Dave

interesting.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_With the stock settings I am still haveing lots of correction. see for yourself.









Not that I don't believe it, but that's a little odd. Have you checked your plugs? Can you log what your timing actually is, not just what is being pulled, just to make sure that when you are setting it back to stock that Revo is actually making you stock again. (if you did I didn't see it in the logs)
That you are still pulling timing makes me wonder.
EDIT: i thought he meant stock as in stock from the factory is wolfsburg settings...


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (five0vw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *five0vw* »_
interesting.

Yeah let me break it down:
_What SPS says is the default setting:_
*91 octane:* T3, B*6*, F9
*93 octane:* T5, B*6*, F9
_What REVO north america has stated:_
*91 octane:* T3, B*5*. F9
*93 octane:* T5, B*7*, F9
I have bolded the discrepancies between what REVO NA and what SPS say. Personally, I put more faith in the SPS settings than I do REVO NA. 
Dave


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

Just an FYI for other Revo users, the best my car could run (on 92 non-oxy Twin Cities MN gas) was a B6 T3 F9 without mad timing pull.
I'm getting a Vag-Com soon and I now run good 'ole heartland of america 93 octane bad for the environment cuz it doesnt have corn in it gas. Logs to come. APR AND GIAC, PUT DEALERS CLOSER TO SPRINGFIELD MO!


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
93 "stock" settings are actually 6,5,9 which is probably why you're seeing a lot of correction.
Try 034 instead of 043 next time. Not sure what 043 is.
Dave

NO.
The setting were STOCK, not the 91 or 93 oct programs. 

FYI, 
My SPS Select+ is as so;
91 = 6-3-9
93 = 6-5-9
when the revo dealer flashed my ecu he set it for 6-4-9

Ok, lets get a standardized log.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
What do I need to log? Fill in the blanks.


_Modified by mk4driver22 at 8:47 AM 10-9-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_
NO.
The setting were STOCK, not the 91 or 93 oct programs. 


Oh ok . . . . well then that's the same thing as I've been seeing on other people's cars.
Bassbiker emailed me a few graphs this morning. 
REVO "stock" certainly doesn't feel like OEM stock.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_NO.
The setting were STOCK, not the 91 or 93 oct programs.
FYI, 
My SPS Select+ is as so;
91 = 6-3-9
93 = 6-5-9
when the revo dealer flashed my ecu he set it for 6-4-9
_Modified by mk4driver22 at 8:47 AM 10-9-2006_

It's looking like I may need to do a little road trip to get someone else's chip.
Questions I need answered.
1. Can we difinitavely say Revo "stock" does not actually return the car to "being tuned by German Engineers".
2. When were you chipped? I am aware of V1 and V2 of the software. Do you know which you have?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
2. When were you chipped? I am aware of V1 and V2 of the software. Do you know which you have?

Well there are two diff things. V1 & V2, and Stage 1 and Stage 2.
V2 had a bit more throttle response over V1, and IIRC the update was this Feb 2006. If you got chipped after that, then you have V2.
Stage 1 is just a chip. Stage II is programming for an exhaust (specifically downpipe). All stage II is over stage I is a boost and timing remap + secondary O2 sensor kill.
Dave


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
1. Can we difinitavely say Revo "stock" does not actually return the car to "being tuned by German Engineers".
2. When were you chipped? I am aware of V1 and V2 of the software. Do you know which you have?

The car on stock settings sure feels like stock power to me. I wasn't aware of V1 or V2 just Stage 1 and Stage 2.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
Questions I need answered.
1. Can we difinitavely say Revo "stock" does not actually return the car to "being tuned by German Engineers".


Yep.
Have heard it directly from two REVO dealers independently. However, REVO is still invisible to the dealer scantools.
Dave


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Yep.
Have heard it directly from two REVO dealers independently. However, REVO is still invisible to the dealer scantools.
Dave

So what might be causing the timing pull under "stock" operation? Something else? Any thoughts?
I need my Vag-Com. Should be able to do logs after it arrives tommorow sometime.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
So what might be causing the timing pull under "stock" operation? Something else? Any thoughts?
I need my Vag-Com. Should be able to do logs after it arrives tommorow sometime.

this:








For some reason, REVO "stock" has increased timing angle over chipped.








Dave


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_For some reason, REVO "stock" has increased timing angle over chipped.







Dave

THATS exactly what I'm saying. That's why I was wondering if REVO actually was returning the car to "stock from Germany" settings or not. You had said yes just a few responses up, but here it seems lead you otherwise.
So REVO stock is not actually stock then, right? Is that the conclusion we have drawn?
Edit: Re-read your post. So you did confirm that Revo stock is not "stock from Germany". Did they say why they would do this?


_Modified by magilson at 10:17 AM 10-9-2006_


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (magilson)*

The sps unit leads me to believe that the "stock" setting is the orginal flash, but its hard to believe.
Maybe George from Revo could chime in. I'd really like to know.


----------



## bassbiker (Oct 30, 2005)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*

I think there's some confusion here.
My take on the REVO SPS settings:
Stock = similar logs and feel to factory specs (~200HP)








93octane performance setting at B7 T4 F9 (~250HP)








Should note that the Revo 749 was run Sunday at 10am in 59F ambient, 1005 atmospheric. 
The switch back to stock setting was done later that day around 5pm in 65F ambient, 1005 atmospheric.


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (bassbiker)*

Ok, here is a log of my car with 93 oct in the tank, and 91 oct program (B6,T3,F9)
I am still hitting -7.5 of CF, I pulled the plugs an took a look (see pics of plugs on other post)
I think I am going to buy new plugs tomorrow.

Well, here is the log if anyone is intrested.
http://www.zackslife.com/revo_...C.CSV


----------



## [email protected] Technik (Mar 25, 2003)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*

Sorry I missed the discussion here yesterday. Is there any popcorn left? In any event I appreciate everyone’s concerns with regards to the perception that the EGT readings in our software are high. High in this case is relative. They are highER than what is seen in the logs from APR but then again, we are running a leaner A/F. Is it too lean? That too is relative. 
One undeniable fact that no-one seems to have mentioned is, if these A/F ratios and subsequent EGTs are too high and damaging, then after nearly 2-years of running this tuning globally, there would surely be evidence in the form of mechanical failures. To date, we have not seen a SINGLE example.
The idea that 900°C+ temps are outside the parameters at which the hardware was intended to withstand is supposition. These engines are very robust, as are the factory turbochargers. These temps are not too much different to what has been seen with older 1.8T engines and VAG did not take any steps backwards with the switch to this new FSI platform. I have yet to see any documentation from VAG, BOSCH or BorgWarner posted in this or any other thread to support the claim that there will be some sort of catastrophic meltdown. I’ll also add that anybody claiming we intentionally disable any temperature threshold is simply making a reckless accusation. The people to whom this particular statement appeals to know EXACTLY what I am referring to.
The truth of the matter is that these A/F tables are being used without issue in over a dozen different countries. Keep in mind that this particular parameter is FULLY adjustable with the Revo performance software. The default value of ‘9’ is considered a _performance_ A/F. At the end of the day, if you’re not comfortable running the ‘Fuel 9’ A/F you can simply adjust it closer to ‘Fuel 0’ to make it a richer mixture that is closer to the OEM ratio. The default is set for maximum performance but you can choose to run a more conservative A/F ratio if you desire. That’s the beauty of the Revo performance software. It can be adjusted to suit everybody’s preferences!
I’ve heard some people are considering switching their software. That is entirely their perogative. Remember however that there are less expensive and less time consuming alternatives to getting different software. You can simply go back to your Revo Technik dealer and in about 1 minute they can change your A/F setting. This will cost you nothing. You can even take it one step further and purchase the SPS Select Plus switch and adjust it yourself for varying conditions as you see fit. This option is still less expensive than purchasing software from another manufacturer and you end up with a powerful tuning device when coupled with VAG-COM which all obviously have and are proficient with.
All of this comes down to speculation. Whatever explanation I (we) impart to this thread will be argued over and refuted until the thread is locked or the next scandal arises. I don't mean to sound condescending but that seems to be the status quos as of late on the forums. Our primary goal is to give our customers the best and most innovative products. If we’re being accused of anything, let it be for assuming that the market would be satisfied with a default fuel setting intended for maximum performance. 
Thanks again for voicing your concerns. It's this type of feedback that helps us continually develop and improve our products.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected] Technik)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_ Sorry I missed the discussion here yesterday. Is there any popcorn left? In any event I appreciate everyone’s concerns with regards to the perception that the EGT readings in our software are high. High in this case is relative. They are highER than what is seen in the logs from APR but then again, we are running a leaner A/F. Is it too lean? That too is relative.......

I can totally understand what you are saying. I'm sure they evidence is there that these cars can run Revo with no issues.
I think there are two main concerns that were brought up in this thread that you did not address, however.
1. Revo has proven to operate with significantly more timing pull than other chip manufacturers.
2. When returning a Revo tuned car to "stock" mode, it seems that the car is in fact not returned to stock and maintains timing parameters that continue to cause significant timing pulls
Can you address these characteristics?


----------



## digitalhippie (Apr 21, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected] Technik)*

George, any thoughts on two REVO'd 2.0Ts blowing their #1 coil yesterday? There's some speculation the high timing pulls on cyl1 (combined with the lean looking plugs people have seen) might be related...
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2867793


----------



## nadrob7 (Aug 23, 2006)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (crew217)*

I just did a lot of my k04 b7 a4. The number look great. [email protected] let me know if you want to see the actual log files. I am interested in turning up the boost a bit...and the new fueling... 
Let me know how I can help.



_Modified by nadrob7 at 10:30 AM 10-11-2006_


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (nadrob7)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nadrob7* »_I just did a lot of my k04 b7 a4. The number look great. [email protected] let me know if you want to see the actual log files. I am interested in turning up the boost a bit...and the new fueling... 
Let me know how I can help.

Wait... What again does this have to do with Revo?


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (nadrob7)*


_Quote, originally posted by *nadrob7* »_I just did a lot of my k04 b7 a4. The number look great. [email protected] let me know if you want to see the actual log files. I am interested in turning up the boost a bit...and the new fueling... 
Let me know how I can help.


This is not a Revo log.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_This is not a Revo log. 

It's called turbo trolling. Scratch another one to the fanboi list


----------



## initiala4 (Oct 6, 2005)

Mmmm thats high egt for the 2.0T tuned. I guess every tuner has their own ways of tuning. I have taken logs from various cars in the 2.0T motor, and found most of the chipped ones have lower egts than 900. *shrug


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected] Technik)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_ Sorry I missed the discussion here yesterday. Is there any popcorn left? In any event I appreciate everyone’s concerns with regards to the perception that the EGT readings in our software are high. High in this case is relative. They are highER than what is seen in the logs from APR but then again, we are running a leaner A/F. Is it too lean? That too is relative. 
One undeniable fact that no-one seems to have mentioned is, if these A/F ratios and subsequent EGTs are too high and damaging, then after nearly 2-years of running this tuning globally, there would surely be evidence in the form of mechanical failures. To date, we have not seen a SINGLE example.

Long-term, not short term.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_ 
The idea that 900°C+ temps are outside the parameters at which the hardware was intended to withstand is supposition. These engines are very robust, as are the factory turbochargers. These temps are not too much different to what has been seen with older 1.8T engines and VAG did not take any steps backwards with the switch to this new FSI platform. I have yet to see any documentation from VAG, BOSCH or BorgWarner posted in this or any other thread to support the claim that there will be some sort of catastrophic meltdown. I’ll also add that anybody claiming we intentionally disable any temperature threshold is simply making a reckless accusation. The people to whom this particular statement appeals to know EXACTLY what I am referring to.

Surely a company such as REVO should be able to tell us exactly at what point the factory protection map kicks in and exactly what the maximum operating temp of a K03 is . . . 
Either way, this is what I managed to dig up on my own from BW's site.
























Keep in mind that the temp readings shown in my graphs are from the primary O2 sensor, so you'd have to add to that in order to estimate preturbine EGTs.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_ 
The truth of the matter is that these A/F tables are being used without issue in over a dozen different countries. Keep in mind that this particular parameter is FULLY adjustable with the Revo performance software. The default value of ‘9’ is considered a _performance_ A/F. At the end of the day, if you’re not comfortable running the ‘Fuel 9’ A/F you can simply adjust it closer to ‘Fuel 0’ to make it a richer mixture that is closer to the OEM ratio. The default is set for maximum performance but you can choose to run a more conservative A/F ratio if you desire. That’s the beauty of the Revo performance software. It can be adjusted to suit everybody’s preferences!
I’ve heard some people are considering switching their software. That is entirely their perogative. Remember however that there are less expensive and less time consuming alternatives to getting different software. You can simply go back to your Revo Technik dealer and in about 1 minute they can change your A/F setting. This will cost you nothing. You can even take it one step further and purchase the SPS Select Plus switch and adjust it yourself for varying conditions as you see fit. This option is still less expensive than purchasing software from another manufacturer and you end up with a powerful tuning device when coupled with VAG-COM which all obviously have and are proficient with.
All of this comes down to speculation. Whatever explanation I (we) impart to this thread will be argued over and refuted until the thread is locked or the next scandal arises. I don't mean to sound condescending but that seems to be the status quos as of late on the forums. Our primary goal is to give our customers the best and most innovative products. If we’re being accused of anything, let it be for assuming that the market would be satisfied with a default fuel setting intended for maximum performance. 
Thanks again for voicing your concerns. It's this type of feedback that helps us continually develop and improve our products.

George, how do you justify not giving lifetime reflashes to purchasers of REVO software? (unless they bring documentation of dealer ecu reflash or replacement)
Also, what is REVOtechnik's rhetoric for disabling a hardware protection map that all he other tuning companies feel is necessary to keep in place?
I would appreciate any TECHNICAL information you could provide.
Dave


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: (crew217)*

Well, the issue here is George, you can select a more RICH approach, but go ahead and tell everyone that they are ALL set at 9 because, you cannot go any richer unless you reduce your boost. Its not your fault, just bad pump, but its ok go ahead and tell them.
Additionally, all the detonation people are getting, because the stock intake manifold biases the flow to CYL #1, and I warned everyone about this, but everyone ASSURES me, that VWs can take -7+ timing retard








Well looks like the coils burning up might be our little window into how detonation effects the motors. I'd hate to see what would happen to a motor that loosened up that 6 hole injector window in the head...


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_Well, the issue here is George, you can select a more RICH approach, but go ahead and tell everyone that they are ALL set at 9 because, you cannot go any richer unless you reduce your boost. Its not your fault, just bad pump, but its ok go ahead and tell them.

I'm pretty sure there's no reason to lean out that much at high RPMs (since the pump is cam-driven) except for max power. The fueling issue IIRC, affects lower to mid RPMs when the pump isn't spinning as fast.

_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_
Additionally, all the detonation people are getting, because the stock intake manifold biases the flow to CYL #1, and I warned everyone about this, but everyone ASSURES me, that VWs can take -7+ timing retard








Well looks like the coils burning up might be our little window into how detonation effects the motors. I'd hate to see what would happen to a motor that loosened up that 6 hole injector window in the head...

The high timing correction is a tuning issue. Several companies feel that under 6 CFs is within the safe limits of Bosch engine management while others feel that more CFs are within a safe range.
Dave


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_The fueling issue IIRC, affects lower to mid RPMs when the pump isn't spinning as fast.

correct. T62 tends towards the inflamitory quite often.
As far as the issue with the magical burning coilpack, no one knows yet. The last thing we need, T62, is inflamitory heresy when we finaly got George to show up. Chill. Besides, this is not the first coilpack issue VW has had. Read up a little before making those kinds of comments.


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: (magilson)*

But don't you guys still love me :}
Either way, wether its Revo or not, Im very annoyed at Cylinder #1... I mean the CF just climbs for Cyl #1, and not nessicarily with #3 and 4 as much. #2 is a little agressive.
I saw another thread that showed pics of the harness issues etc, seems more electrical anyways.
A positive thing I would have to say about Revo is its ability TO switch... Now, It doesn't matter guys WHERE in the rpm range the fueling issue happens, the fact is, it seems that there might be a low pressure issue if you try and set a richer A/F without dropping off a psi or so eh?
I mean I know where the issue occurs, why it happens. But to say just drop the fuel # to a less agressive lean state IE going from say 9 to 6 lets say, would cause that Low Rail pressure issue during peak spool, would it not?


----------



## [email protected] Technik (Mar 25, 2003)

*Re: (digitalhippie)*


_Quote, originally posted by *digitalhippie* »_George, any thoughts on two REVO'd 2.0Ts blowing their #1 coil yesterday? There's some speculation the high timing pulls on cyl1 (combined with the lean looking plugs people have seen) might be related...
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2867793

The OP stated that his CP began to burn with the motor off. Additionally we are all well aware of VWs coilpack history. I've seen first hand where wireing harnesses were accidentally stripped down to bare wire when trying to expose a CP lead for an RPM pickup during dyno testing. I'm not saying that is the case with these two examples. Bearing all that in mind, I wouldn't speculate on the cause of these two CP issues.


----------



## axthomson (Jul 8, 2006)

all my spark plugs look fine none are white so im not running to lean...


----------



## [email protected] Technik (Mar 25, 2003)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Also, what is REVOtechnik's rhetoric for disabling a hardware protection map that all he other tuning companies feel is necessary to keep in place?
Dave

There is only 'rhetoric' from other companies making false accusations. In the end they are fully aware that they cannot substantiate their claims.


----------



## addicted_to_dub (Mar 9, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected] Technik)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_
There is only 'rhetoric' from other companies making false accusations. In the end they are fully aware that they cannot substantiate their claims.

_excerpt from an email written by Mitchell Simmons, Revotechnik_ 

_Quote »_
Anyway, as always I have s**t in the works that will not make people happy, there will be a new tuning company soon with software guaranteed to blow your turbos and f**k your **** up! I went the other road, run sick amounts of boost and timing, let it mess up the turbo and have it replaced under warranty. Well that is one mode (I call it my KILL Program), the others are a bit milder.



Looks like there is no need as the President of Revo Technik substantiates it for us.


_Modified by addicted_to_dub at 10:51 AM 10-10-2006_


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

I'd still like to hear about the timing pulls under the Revo recommended settings per whatever octane one is running as well as the pull under the "stock" mode...


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (addicted_to_dub)*


_Quote, originally posted by *addicted_to_dub* »_
_excerpt from an email written by Mitchell Simmons, Revotechnik_ 


Looks like there is no need as the President of Revo Technik substantiates it for us.

_Modified by addicted_to_dub at 10:51 AM 10-10-2006_

Wow what a completely worthless post, some obscure quote that has really nothing to do with the topic.
Back to relavance and the topic at hand, George will you be adressing Daves questions, specifically why Revo seems to have disabled the hardware protection map. This is something that concerns me a great deal.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_ George will you be adressing Daves questions, specifically why Revo seems to have disabled the hardware protection map. This is something that concerns me a great deal.









Yeah I wonder if he'll address my questions too.








Dave


----------



## [email protected] Technik (Mar 25, 2003)

*Re: (judgegavel)*


_Quote, originally posted by *judgegavel* »_
George will you be adressing Daves questions, specifically why Revo seems to have disabled the hardware protection map. This is something that concerns me a great deal.









I have. They haven't been disabled.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Yeah I wonder if he'll address my questions too.








Dave

oh, oh, me too! Pick me!
Timing pull? Under chipped and under stock mode, whats up with that?
I just got my Vag-Com in the mail, logs to follow soon. If I see tons of timing pull, i'd like to have an explanation to go with it, and even better if it's straight from Revo. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected] Technik)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_
I have. They haven't been disabled. 

Where's the proof? I have 4 consecutive runs in 3rd gear, maxing out the primary O2 temp sensor @900C (can't go any higher) and ZERO drop in A/F ratio. 
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Where's the proof? I have 4 consecutive runs in 3rd gear, maxing out the primary O2 temp sensor @900C (can't go any higher) and ZERO drop in A/F ratio. 
Dave

More importantly, where is the limit set in a stock ecu, and how was that verified? I thought that borg warner said that temps in excess of 1,000C are ok in bursts.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
More importantly, where is the limit set in a stock ecu, and how was that verified? I thought that borg warner said that temps in excess of 1,000C are ok in bursts.

Keep in mind, that the EGTs are much hotter pre-turbine, than measured at the O2 post-turbo. The chart by BW that I posted gives a rough approximation of 180C diff between measured and actual.
Well, apparently one GIAC EGT run was enough to kick it into hardware protection and they run richer and the timing correction is probably about the same. The fact that I did four runs and it didn't kick in . . . . well that's suspicious as hell. 
My guess is that it has to kick in somewhere under 900C, given that there's no other way for the ECU to measure the temps otherwise.
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Keep in mind, that the EGTs are much hotter pre-turbine, than measured at the O2 post-turbo. The chart by BW that I posted gives a rough approximation of 180C diff between measured and actual.
Well, apparently one GIAC EGT run was enough to kick it into hardware protection and they run richer and the timing correction is probably about the same. The fact that I did four runs and it didn't kick in . . . . well that's suspicious as hell. 
My guess is that it has to kick in somewhere under 900C, given that there's no other way for the ECU to measure the temps otherwise.
Dave

Enough with the guessing already. Let me ask the question again:
More importantly, where is the limit set in a stock ecu, and how was that verified?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Enough with the guessing already. Let me ask the question again:
More importantly, where is the limit set in a stock ecu, and how was that verified? 

I'd have to ask one of the tuners where it's set in the stock ECU . . . . however . . . (i know you've seen this thread millions of times) . . . . jmhart posted this:

_Quote, originally posted by *jmhart* »_
Speaking of AF ratios and the resulting EGTs, and this supposition that GIAC ignores safeguards...I thought I'd repost my AF graph for 2 back to back runs and you'll notice once the temps were up a map with a richer AF ratio kicked in.








I don't think that would happen if the safeguards were disabled, do you?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*

Ok, assumptions again.
We have hard limits, as asked for, and I (against what I just said) assume there are also adaptive limits. One must look at the whole picture instead of just one data set.
We have had one tuner state that egt threshold has been disabled by his competition, but we have tuners having to come in and state that it's false. Well, what exactly is false? That is why I asked the question, since we all seem to be a lot of assumptions lately.
What is the hard EGT limit and how was it verified? I've asked the one tuner directly a few times here, and to date, there still not a clear answer from him. keith


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Ok, assumptions again.
We have hard limits, as asked for, and I (against what I just said) assume there are also adaptive limits. One must look at the whole picture instead of just one data set.
We have had one tuner state that egt threshold has been disabled by his competition, but we have tuners having to come in and state that it's false. Well, what exactly is false? That is why I asked the question, since we all seem to be a lot of assumptions lately.
What is the hard EGT limit and how was it verified? I've asked the one tuner directly a few times here, and to date, there still not a clear answer from him. keith

These are excellent questions. The limit varies by a complex model that is used in calculating EGT from the wideband and a multidude of other complex maps. It is a model that assumes the stock a/f ratio and stock hardware. When you change the a/f ratio the model for EGT can be rendered inacccurate, so Daves readings may actually be low.
But back to looking at the limits. One thing we see is that Bosch explicitly states they prefer to use as lean of a mixture as possible and only when hardware protection WOT mode kicks in do they use enrichment and this is based on very complex models of EGT taken using pre turbine EGT probes and comparing them to their models in a multitude of test situations that tuners are not able to replicate. 
This may also help for reading. Keep in mind the values given for EGT are preturbine which will be well over 100 decrees C higher than our readings taken at the downpipe. For a estimation of actual EGT there is a block that Dave or others may wich to log that estimates preturbine EGT.








cheers! Mike


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_These are excellent questions. 

There is only one (1) question. Should I post it for the third (3) time?
edit: Mike, isn't that information (picture) copyrighted/RR that you posted up?


_Modified by syntrix at 2:49 PM 10-10-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
There is only one (1) question. Should I post it for the third (3) time?
edit: Mike, isn't that information (picture) copyrighted/RR that you posted up?

_Modified by syntrix at 2:49 PM 10-10-2006_

Syntrix, I don't understand why you expect me or anyone else that isn't a tuner to answer your question. 
It's not hard to figure out if you look at it logically. If it kicks in, which is evidenced by the GIAC map, it has to kick in using the primary O2 sensor where it detects exhaust temps. Given that the sensor only reads up to 900C, it obviously has to kick in somewhere before that.
BTW Mike, block 112 is capped at 999C I think. I've received several logs of block 112 (estimated egts) and for some reason it never goes anywhere beyond 999C . . . . it just plateaus there.
Dave


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
These are excellent questions. The limit varies by a complex model that is used in calculating EGT from the wideband and a multidude of other complex maps. It is a model that assumes the stock a/f ratio and stock hardware. When you change the a/f ratio the model for EGT can be rendered inacccurate, so Daves readings may actually be low.
But back to looking at the limits. One thing we see is that Bosch explicitly states they prefer to use as lean of a mixture as possible and only when hardware protection WOT mode kicks in do they use enrichment and this is based on very complex models of EGT taken using pre turbine EGT probes and comparing them to their models in a multitude of test situations that tuners are not able to replicate. 
This may also help for reading. Keep in mind the values given for EGT are preturbine which will be well over 100 decrees C higher than our readings taken at the downpipe. For a estimation of actual EGT there is a block that Dave or others may wich to log that estimates preturbine EGT.








cheers! Mike

Mike, that looks exactly like the info that I posted earlier. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Good to know that it is still current.
Dave


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Syntrix, I don't understand why you expect me or anyone else that isn't a tuner to answer your question. 
It's not hard to figure out if you look at it logically. If it kicks in, which is evidenced by the GIAC map, it has to kick in using the primary O2 sensor where it detects exhaust temps. Given that the sensor only reads up to 900C, it obviously has to kick in somewhere before that.
BTW Mike, block 112 is capped at 999C I think. I've received several logs of block 112 (estimated egts) and for some reason it never goes anywhere beyond 999C . . . . it just plateaus there.
Dave

Absolutey right. It is pegged at 999C on the vag com. Do you have any estimated preturbine EGT readings (i'll say estimated readings since ALL the egt readings are estimated). 
cheers! Mike


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
Absolutey right. It is pegged at 999C on the vag com. Do you have any estimated preturbine EGT readings (i'll say estimated readings since ALL the egt readings are estimated). 
cheers! Mike

Of REVO? Yes . . . a bit busy tonight . . . . will try to get around to posting up more graphs tomorrow. 
Dave


----------



## bassbiker (Oct 30, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Of REVO? Yes . . . a bit busy tonight . . . . will try to get around to posting up more graphs tomorrow. 
Dave

But truthfully we have to see these numbers on more than just REVO performance settings.
I need to see more data from the other companies and more true bone stock logs before I could condemn REVO.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

oaky, well I got my vag-com. could someone list the blocks they would like to see for a revo stage 1 settings T3 B6 F9 with non-ethanol 93 octane and an EVO MS intake.
I have a few ideas but everyone keeps throwing around block numbers and I don't know which is best or whatnot.
List por favor.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*

Run two groups...
1. 20, 31, 115
2. 31, 34, 112
Make sure to press the "turbo" button on vag-com.
Also can you log the "advanced ID" button under the engine control module and see what the values for the flash counters are. Would be cool for everyone to check to see if they are not moved.
cheers! Mike


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_Run two groups...
1. 20, 31, 115
2. 31, 34, 112
Make sure to press the "turbo" button on vag-com.
Also can you log the "advanced ID" button under the engine control module and see what the values for the flash counters are. Would be cool for everyone to check to see if they are not moved.
cheers! Mike

Well... It rained, so traction was an issue, so I got logs but I don't feel confident in them. They were a little better than what crew217 was showing. around -4.5 cf however the projected exhuast temps were very high with the max projected temp at 954, that was the hottest I could get it after a lot of trying and I might speculate that the average projected temp was around 900. Ambient temps were around 61-64 deg. farehnheit (sp) and rain. Not sure what that would do. Again, I think my CF might be because of my milder tune (T3 B6 F9) and 93 octane without ethonal (not sure if that might help). Either way, seeing the data I would classify this chip as "intense"...
Again, sorry about not having actual graphs. So long as I can keep the wheels from spinning tommorow I'll post up that data. I just didn't want it to seem like I disapeered when crunch time came around. Hopefully my SPS plus will be here by the end of the week as well.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
Well... It rained, so traction was an issue, so I got logs but I don't feel confident in them. They were a little better than what crew217 was showing. around -4.5 cf however the projected exhuast temps were very high with the max projected temp at 954, that was the hottest I could get it after a lot of trying and I might speculate that the average projected temp was around 900. Ambient temps were around 61-64 deg. farehnheit (sp) and rain. Not sure what that would do. Again, I think my CF might be because of my milder tune (T3 B6 F9) and 93 octane without ethonal (not sure if that might help). Either way, seeing the data I would classify this chip as "intense"...
Again, sorry about not having actual graphs. So long as I can keep the wheels from spinning tommorow I'll post up that data. I just didn't want it to seem like I disapeered when crunch time came around. Hopefully my SPS plus will be here by the end of the week as well.

Matt, you're essentially running their 91 octane program on 93. I'm a bit surprised that you're still seeing -4.5 cfs. The EGTs went down a bit because of the reduced timing (which is a good thing), but you're right about the testing not being optimal. By having traction issues, I don't think you put full load on the engine, which would skew the results. 
You should have a tracking # for the SPS. It shows delivery on the 12th via Fedex ground.
Dave


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (crew217)*

Should anyone have hig CF's on normal hiway driving or only during full boost/ full engine load. ?


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_Should anyone have hig CF's on normal hiway driving or only during full boost/ full engine load. ?

only under load. Revo runs 0 cf until you really start to hammer on it, just as you would expect. No rain forcasted for today so more logs to come.
I have many tests I want to run once I get the SPS. That and I want to log my IAT and some other things. I'd love to test all this with an intercooler. I want to know how much IAT is playing into this. But yes essentially I am running Revo detuned and I am still seeing high EGT's and a lot of timing pull. I'll have a buddy along this time to get more accurate data and a lot more data so I'm excited to get a bigger picture.


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (magilson)*

Well I made a mad dash to Memphis to get the Stage 2 flash with B6 T4 F9. Hoping that my timing pull problems were somehow related to the intake and DP, thinking that maybe a flash specifically designed for a intake and downpipe would correct the problem. Unfortunately, I still have up a of CF's during normal hiway driving topping out a -7.5~-8.3 and upto 10 on a hard pull, mostly on cyl 4. 
Since my fuel is turned all the way up on the #9 setting, could running a little rich cause this much knock?
I plan on getting some more logs of AFR/Boost/CF's today. I am really getting bummed about this. I am wanting to go drive my car but am hesitant about possible damage with this many CF's, so often.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_Well I made a mad dash to Memphis to get the Stage 2 flash with B6 T4 F9. Hoping that my timing pull problems were somehow related to the intake and DP, thinking that maybe a flash specifically designed for a intake and downpipe would correct the problem. Unfortunately, I still have up a of CF's during normal hiway driving topping out a -7.5~-8.3 and upto 10 on a hard pull, mostly on cyl 4. 
Since my fuel is turned all the way up on the #9 setting, could running a little rich cause this much knock?
I plan on getting some more logs of AFR/Boost/CF's today. I am really getting bummed about this. I am wanting to go drive my car but am hesitant about possible damage with this many CF's, so often.

Running at 9 is the leanest setting. 
I've heard varying information regarding the fueling adjustment. From reading the SPS literature in the program, it made it sound as if there were only two settings, stock and performance. Other people say that it has 9 different settings. Not sure which.
Honestly, single digit CFs are not horribly detrimental, but they are unecessary IMO. If timing is already being retarded, what's the point of further advancing timing?








Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*

Zack, you are hitting huge cf's on #3, spikes over -10.
I'm looking at your data from last night, but if you have time to get some cleaner runs, that'll be easier to graph up!


----------



## [email protected] Technik (Mar 25, 2003)

*Re: (syntrix)*

Everyone seems to be either missing or ignoring one very important fact. Your tuning is fully adjustable. With VAG-COM and the Select-Plus you have about as close as you can get to a stand alone at this price.
All of these logs, from different cars, with different modifications running different fuel from different parts of the country with different ambient temperatures and humidity levels, collectively are meaningless. Individually they represent what that specific car is doing in its specific area, with the specific fuel it’s running on and the specific modifications it has or doesn’t have.
All of these factors affect a vehicles performance. If one accepts that fact that no two cars will run precisely the same then factoring in these additional variables makes this point even more conclusive.
Everyone who installs Revo Technik programming has the built in ability to TUNE their software. If your car is running what you believe to be excessive CF’s you can lower the timing. If your actual boost is considerably lower than requested, you can increase it. If your running what you think is a lean A/F at high RPMs, you can richen the mixture. With VAG-COM and about* 20-minutes *one can optimize their tuning for their specific vehicle and performance factors weather they’re mechanical, environmental or fuel related. How many *hours* have been spent trying to find faults when in fact that time could have been spent maximizing the tuning?
The link below is to our advanced users guide. It comprehensively outlines the basics of ‘tuning’ within the scope of our software and SPS Select-Plus. I’d encourage all of you to download it and review it. If you don’t have an SPS Select-Plus, you can take your car back to your Revo Technik dealer and they will optimize your tuning for you free of charge.
You have *TOTAL* control over your programming. Take advantage of it.

*Advanced Users Guide*



_Modified by [email protected] Technik at 11:13 AM 10-11-2006_


----------



## digitalhippie (Apr 21, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected] Technik)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_*SPS Advanced users guide*

Fixed that link for ya


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected] Technik)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_Everyone seems to be either missing or ignoring one very important fact. Your tuning is fully adjustable. With VAG-COM and the Select-Plus you have about as close as you can get to a stand alone at this price.
All of these logs, from different cars, with different modifications running different fuel from different parts of the country with different ambient temperatures and humidity levels, collectively are meaningless. Individually they represent what that specific car is doing in its specific area, with the specific fuel it’s running on and the specific modifications it has or doesn’t have.
All of these factors affect a vehicles performance. If one accepts that fact that no two cars will run precisely the same then factoring in these additional variables makes this point even more conclusive.
Everyone who installs Revo Technik programming has the built in ability to TUNE their software. If your car is running what you believe to be excessive CF’s you can lower the timing. If your actual boost is considerably lower than requested, you can increase it. If your running what you think is a lean A/F at high RPMs, you can richen the mixture. With VAG-COM and about* 20-minutes *one can optimize their tuning for their specific vehicle and performance factors weather they’re mechanical, environmental or fuel related. How many *hours* have been spent trying to find faults when in fact that time could have been spent maximizing the tuning?
The link below is to our advanced users guide. It comprehensively outlines the basics of ‘tuning’ within the scope of our software and SPS Select-Plus. I’d encourage all of you to download it and review it. If you don’t have an SPS Select-Plus, you can take your car back to your Revo Technik dealer and they will optimize your tuning for you free of charge.
You have *TOTAL* control over your programming. Take advantage of it.

*SPS Advanced users guide*
_Modified by [email protected] Technik at 10:46 AM 10-11-2006_

Look, I completely agree, this is actually why I got Revo, with the intention of getting the SPS (which by the way is stoopid hard to get at this point George).
I will tune my vehicle to my liking. Here are my issues with that however.
1) not everyone will do this, you are selling a product which when installed with Revo's recommended settings (or the SPS recommended for that matter) exhibits high EGT's and high levels of timing pull. Now I am not going to speculate wether or not these are bad characteristics, however future chippers should know what they are getting into, this is a free market after all.
2) If I have to "detune" my chip settings to where I personally feel they should be and I end up making less power than one of Revo's competitor, then It begs the question what's the point?
I do appreciate the tunability and as I said that's one of the biggest reasons I went Revo, but not everyone will, and that IS Revo's problem.
I have not abandoned this product yet. I WANT the abilities the SPS will afford me. But I am going to post my findings here, and I will make judgement calls about the results.
P.S. I'd still like to know why the "stock" program exhibits so much timing pull... Is there a setting that isn't being reset properly by the SPS or what's the deal?


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
Look, I completely agree, this is actually why I got Revo, with the intention of getting the SPS (which by the way is stoopid hard to get at this point George).
I will tune my vehicle to my liking. Here are my issues with that however.
1) not everyone will do this, you are selling a product which when installed with Revo's recommended settings (or the SPS recommended for that matter) exhibits high EGT's and high levels of timing pull. Now I am not going to speculate wether or not these are bad characteristics, however future chippers should know what they are getting into, this is a free market after all.
2) If I have to "detune" my chip settings to where I personally feel they should be and I end up making less power than one of Revo's competitor, then It begs the question what's the point?

Exactly, the solution is simple, but in a way it makes the product not what was promised (if you do have to "detune"), which 
I feel is definitly cause for concern. The definitive answer we need (with support) is that the suspected high EGT's and level of timing pull is safe by BW standards. To simply say you can adjust it if you want, does not really make me feel safer.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected] Technik)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_Everyone seems to be either missing or ignoring one very important fact. Your tuning is fully adjustable. With VAG-COM and the Select-Plus you have about as close as you can get to a stand alone at this price.

So your response to the problem is "hey, buy this product!"
You can't even compare SPS to standalone. You're basically altering two settings, timing and boost . . . but you have no control over the overall timing & boost characteristics. Lemmiwinks was as close to standalone as you could really get, but it isn't avail for the ME9 ECUs.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_
All of these logs, from different cars, with different modifications running different fuel from different parts of the country with different ambient temperatures and humidity levels, collectively are meaningless. Individually they represent what that specific car is doing in its specific area, with the specific fuel it’s running on and the specific modifications it has or doesn’t have.
All of these factors affect a vehicles performance. If one accepts that fact that no two cars will run precisely the same then factoring in these additional variables makes this point even more conclusive.
Everyone who installs Revo Technik programming has the built in ability to TUNE their software. If your car is running what you believe to be excessive CF’s you can lower the timing. If your actual boost is considerably lower than requested, you can increase it. If your running what you think is a lean A/F at high RPMs, you can richen the mixture. With VAG-COM and about* 20-minutes *one can optimize their tuning for their specific vehicle and performance factors weather they’re mechanical, environmental or fuel related. How many *hours* have been spent trying to find faults when in fact that time could have been spent maximizing the tuning?

Shouldn't this be done through the distributors? If you claim that REVO needs to be tuned to the car, then it should be included in the install. Then, it'd take a few hours for each distributor to log each car and make appropiate settings, instead of 7 minutes to flash. 
Also, given that REVO gives octane specific "tunes" shouldn't they work well for that particular octane? I understand how REVO can't be accountable once the owner adds on further mods, but cmon, at least give us a 93 octane program that works well on 93 octane. As mentioned earlier, people are still seeing significant timing pull running REVO-specified 91 octane settings on 93 octane fuel.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_
The link below is to our advanced users guide. It comprehensively outlines the basics of ‘tuning’ within the scope of our software and SPS Select-Plus. I’d encourage all of you to download it and review it. If you don’t have an SPS Select-Plus, you can take your car back to your Revo Technik dealer and they will optimize your tuning for you free of charge.
You have *TOTAL* control over your programming. Take advantage of it.

*Advanced Users Guide*

I have yet to see a distributor that will actually spend several hours of their time "tuning" their customer's vehicle. 
And no . . . you don't have total control over the programming . . . you have three obscure settings whose effects are minimally different. 
*BTW, you still haven't answered my questions regarding why REVO chooses not to offer lifetime reflashes (if not caused by a dealer reflash) to the original purchaser when every other company does?*
Dave


_Modified by crew217 at 8:33 AM 10-11-2006_


----------



## marf34 (Oct 27, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*

I bought Revo thinking SPS would be an option if i wanted to get the most out of my car. NOT!! that I would have to buy SPS for my car to run correctly. You should just include it with the flash if it's needed.


----------



## smartyin (Jul 24, 2005)

lets see my apr98oct chips+MIlltek HFC+AWE EXHAUST
















SEEMS my EGTs & A/F is safe,,,but the timing is suck...do i need to detune to apr95oct


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (smartyin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *smartyin* »_lets see my apr98oct chips+MIlltek HFC+AWE EXHAUST
SEEMS my EGTs & A/F is safe,,,but the timing is suck...do i need to detune to apr95oct
















This is not a thread for APR logs. Please start your own thread. 
Also, I don't really have a clue as to what type of fuel you run in Hong Kong, so I cannot answer your question. 
Dave


----------



## axthomson (Jul 8, 2006)

i htink some people wanted to see an apr log, so its probobly good he posted it on here.. but in reply to him , change to the apr95 and do another scan and see what you get


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (axthomson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axthomson* »_i htink some people wanted to see an apr log, so its probobly good he posted it on here.. but in reply to him , change to the apr95 and do another scan and see what you get

In as much as I want to post videos of me in action, when i used to make money off of it, the apr logs have nothing to do with helping the OP and other that have REVO address the questions and discussion here.
More importantly, my wants and the apr post are simply off topic, with no correlation to the discussion here.
Thank you... I'll be playing in Vegas tomorrow if anyone wants to catch my show.
Zack, how's that logging going? Did you want me to post the graph, or should we just hold off for now?


----------



## smartyin (Jul 24, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*

SORRy..for that








i thought some others wanted to see and compare it ,,so that i posted in the same thread.... i just start a new thread,
CHEERS~


----------



## [email protected] Technik (Mar 25, 2003)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
You can't even compare SPS to standalone. You're basically altering two settings, timing and boost . . . but you have no control over the overall timing & boost characteristics. Lemmiwinks was as close to standalone as you could really get, but it isn't avail for the ME9 ECUs.

My mistake. That was a subjective comparison. However if you compare Revo's tuning ability to our compeitors, we definitely are closer to a stand alone _*'type'*_ of product.

_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_shouldn't this be done through the distributors? If you claim that REVO needs to be tuned to the car, then it should be included in the install. Then, it'd take a few hours for each distributor to log each car and make appropiate settings, instead of 7 minutes to flash.

You are correct, this _should_ be done everytime a dealer installs the software. With 80+ dealers in North America we can't police them all however they are trained to install the software in this manner and the vast majority do. In actuallity the entire process from start to finsih would take about 45-minutes.

_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Also, given that REVO gives octane specific "tunes" shouldn't they work well for that particular octane? I understand how REVO can't be accountable once the owner adds on further mods, but cmon, at least give us a 93 octane program that works well on 93 octane. As mentioned earlier, people are still seeing significant timing pull running REVO-specified 91 octane settings on 93 octane fuel.

Define significant? We can account for the octane yes, but nobody can account for the fuel quality or additives such as ethanol, or ambient temperature or mechanical deficiencies. All of which can and do affect timing pull

_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_I have yet to see a distributor that will actually spend several hours of their time "tuning" their customer's vehicle.

How many have you seen? As I said earlier, we have 80+ dealers in North America. By my accounts it was only one at a GTG. I wouldn't think you would have purchased multiple installations of our software? As I said before, the entire process usually takes about 45-minutes

_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_And no . . . you don't have total control over the programming . . . you have three obscure settings whose effects are minimally different.

So you're saying that the most influential and fundemental parameters that effect the performance of the vehicle, boost, timing and A/F are obscure? 

_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_*BTW, you still haven't answered my questions regarding why REVO chooses not to offer lifetime reflashes (if not caused by a dealer reflash) to the original purchaser when every other company does?*

I'm sorry Dave but that is irrelevant to this particular discussion.
Dave

_Modified by crew217 at 8:33 AM 10-11-2006_[/QUOTE]


----------



## axthomson (Jul 8, 2006)

NA motorsports spent over an hour with me on my revo tune the first time. but all in all they have spent at least 4 with me helping me out..


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected] Technik)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_
My mistake. That was a subjective comparison. However if you compare Revo's tuning ability to our compeitors, we definitely are closer to a stand alone _*'type'*_ of product.

Not even close

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_
You are correct, this _should_ be done everytime a dealer installs the software. With 80+ dealers in North America we can't police them all however they are trained to install the software in this manner and the vast majority do. In actuallity the entire process from start to finsih would take about 45-minutes.
 
George, you cannot "tune" a car in 45 minutes from start to finish. There is the ever so critical adaptation period that needs to be run through first, then the customer needs to come back and get it "tuned", which takes at least an hour, given that the installer can select the appropiate settings.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_
Define significant? We can account for the octane yes, but nobody can account for the fuel quality or additives such as ethanol, or ambient temperature or mechanical deficiencies. All of which can and do affect timing pull

I'm pretty sure most companies take these variables into consideration when determining a safe, yet powerful timing curve that gives enough headroom for regional differences.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_
How many have you seen? As I said earlier, we have 80+ dealers in North America. By my accounts it was only one at a GTG. I wouldn't think you would have purchased multiple installations of our software? As I said before, the entire process usually takes about 45-minutes

George, we're not talking about getting flashed, we're talking about the distributor hooking up a vag-com, doing logs, making adjustments, doing more logs. The 45 minutes you stated barely accounts for greeting the customer, running a vag-com scan/clearing codes, setting up the REVO flash, doing the REVO flash, hooking up vag-com again and running another scan and clearing codes, and accepting payment.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_
So you're saying that the most influential and fundemental parameters that effect the performance of the vehicle, boost, timing and A/F are obscure? 

No, just that SPS doesn't give you the type of control over those variables that you imply in your statements.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected] Technik* »_
I'm sorry Dave but that is irrelevant to this particular discussion.


Would you like me to create a different thread to address that question?
Dave


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (axthomson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axthomson* »_NA motorsports spent over an hour with me on my revo tune the first time. but all in all they have spent at least 4 with me helping me out.. 

Do you know what settings they put you at? 
Thumbs up to NAMotorsports. I've had good dealings with them as well. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Unfortunately for those that don't live close to their dealers, that might be a hassle to go back four times.
Dave


----------



## axthomson (Jul 8, 2006)

f9 t4 b7 is what i am at now...


----------



## sa_vagfan (Mar 7, 2005)

Hi
I have read the last 6 pages with some interest and some shock. I think the first thing that stands out for me is the shocking cheap shot-taking from Keith from APR. I dont kow if this is the way a company the calibre of APR needs to behave, I wonder if APR management shares his curious and obviously flawed sniping at opposition tuners? Its not the first time, which is why I raised it. It is so unnecessary.
That aside, I would like to make some points on the subject of the Revo settings. It is worth noting that the ECU codes vary on the GTI, as do the RON and operating conditions. Therefore recommended settings are not something that can be assumed from one car to another. Furthermore no two cars are the same.
Sometimes less is more. I would venture to suggest that the settings should be done using EGT's, Datablock 20 and 115 to tune the perfect fit. More so it should be done on the road, where real world conditions pervail. Timing pull of 2 CF is acceptable under wide open throttle, beyond the 3's and you need to relook at your settings. Also, from my experiences there is a definitive relationship between timing and boost settings that will influence the thermal load and the subsequent EGT's. Running aggressive settings will generally also adapt out at a limit. Also, you can reduce the default Fuel 9 settings without sacrificing much power, and in the process you will liberate more scope for timing and boost.
If you want to setup your settings from scratch, and you have a VAG cable plus SPS Select, disconnect the battery for 10 minutes to reset, start with conservative settings of T2B2F6 and datalog your way forward on the settings until you have found a happy relationship between these parameters. Chances are you will find not only more power with this approach but you will be surprised by the refinement when you hit the setting sweetpoint.
Without any hesitation, I can demonstrate that using this approach there is absolutely no chance of skyhigh EGT readings. Just dont run settings too high. As George pointed out, you have the capability to set this right.
If you dont have Select Plus your Revo dealer should be able to help you out!


----------



## judgegavel (Apr 26, 2002)

*Re: (sa_vagfan)*

Yea but the point is the car should be set right from the begining, while for those who have the time an the intrest, logging is great. But truth is if this is something that is necessary to run revo correctly for your car it should be addressed at the time of the install, not pointed out later on.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (sa_vagfan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *sa_vagfan* »_Hi
I have read the last 6 pages with some interest and some shock. I think the first thing that stands out for me is the shocking cheap shot-taking from Keith from APR. I dont kow if this is the way a company the calibre of APR needs to behave, I wonder if APR management shares his curious and obviously flawed sniping at opposition tuners? Its not the first time, which is why I raised it. It is so unnecessary.

WOW!!!!!


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (sa_vagfan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *sa_vagfan* »_That aside, I would like to make some points on the subject of the Revo settings. It is worth noting that the ECU codes vary on the GTI, as do the RON and operating conditions. Therefore recommended settings are not something that can be assumed from one car to another. Furthermore no two cars are the same.
Sometimes less is more. I would venture to suggest that the settings should be done using EGT's, Datablock 20 and 115 to tune the perfect fit. More so it should be done on the road, where real world conditions pervail. Timing pull of 2 CF is acceptable under wide open throttle, beyond the 3's and you need to relook at your settings. Also, from my experiences there is a definitive relationship between timing and boost settings that will influence the thermal load and the subsequent EGT's. Running aggressive settings will generally also adapt out at a limit. Also, you can reduce the default Fuel 9 settings without sacrificing much power, and in the process you will liberate more scope for timing and boost.
If you want to setup your settings from scratch, and you have a VAG cable plus SPS Select, disconnect the battery for 10 minutes to reset, start with conservative settings of T2B2F6 and datalog your way forward on the settings until you have found a happy relationship between these parameters. Chances are you will find not only more power with this approach but you will be surprised by the refinement when you hit the setting sweetpoint.
Without any hesitation, I can demonstrate that using this approach there is absolutely no chance of skyhigh EGT readings. Just dont run settings too high. As George pointed out, you have the capability to set this right.
If you dont have Select Plus your Revo dealer should be able to help you out!

These are the things I will doing later this week when I get my SPS plus. Like I have stated, I am not abandoning this chip as of yet. Also, I was unaware you could set fuel at anything other than 0 or 9 as per the Revo SPS plus advanced tuning document george posted earlier. If it is possible I will definitely be doing it.
I guess I just feel like maybe Revo should start out a little safer, that's all, more testing later.
AND GEORGE, PLEASE GOD STOP IGNORING MY QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!! SIMPLY SAY "I CAN'T TELL YOU" AND I WILL AT LEAST KNOW YOUR ANSWER! Now, what is the deal with the aggressive timing during "stock" mode that seemingly creates a lot of timing pull for what is supposed to be a stock tune?


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: (sa_vagfan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *sa_vagfan* »_
That aside, I would like to make some points on the subject of the Revo settings. It is worth noting that the ECU codes vary on the GTI, as do the RON and operating conditions. Therefore recommended settings are not something that can be assumed from one car to another. Furthermore no two cars are the same.
Sometimes less is more. I would venture to suggest that the settings should be done using EGT's, Datablock 20 and 115 to tune the perfect fit. More so it should be done on the road, where real world conditions pervail. Timing pull of 2 CF is acceptable under wide open throttle, beyond the 3's and you need to relook at your settings. Also, from my experiences there is a definitive relationship between timing and boost settings that will influence the thermal load and the subsequent EGT's. Running aggressive settings will generally also adapt out at a limit. Also, you can reduce the default Fuel 9 settings without sacrificing much power, and in the process you will liberate more scope for timing and boost.
If you want to setup your settings from scratch, and you have a VAG cable plus SPS Select, disconnect the battery for 10 minutes to reset, start with conservative settings of T2B2F6 and datalog your way forward on the settings until you have found a happy relationship between these parameters. Chances are you will find not only more power with this approach but you will be surprised by the refinement when you hit the setting sweetpoint.
Without any hesitation, I can demonstrate that using this approach there is absolutely no chance of skyhigh EGT readings. Just dont run settings too high. As George pointed out, you have the capability to set this right.
If you dont have Select Plus your Revo dealer should be able to help you out!
 
Reading this thread i wonder when everyone has time to drive and enjoy thereNEW 20K + cars with NO WORRIES







. IMO chip tuning should be " chip and forget about " that's why you pay the big bucks ( $500-800) if it was engineered correctly in the first place and all the safety's still in place just in case something freak happens or a sensor gis working out of its oem spec/ range. 
It would be different if your chip tuning company had a legal disclaimer saying " once you change setting from what we recommended we are not responsible for any engine damage " or they limit the range of the adjustments device so nothing can be damaged no matter what setting is installed .
Is all the fuss worth MAYBE 2HP?? and possible shortening the life of your hardware components ? i just dont get it







Bob.G



_Modified by rracerguy717 at 3:55 PM 10-11-2006_


----------



## bassbiker (Oct 30, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_

AND GEORGE, PLEASE GOD STOP IGNORING MY QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!! SIMPLY SAY "I CAN'T TELL YOU" AND I WILL AT LEAST KNOW YOUR ANSWER! Now, what is the deal with the aggressive timing during "stock" mode that seemingly creates a lot of timing pull for what is supposed to be a stock tune?









Matt, you seriously need to drop the stock mode "issue" if you're basing it on my graphs.
I told Dave that CF #'s that showed up were more than likely due to the "stock" mode not being fully adapted after I had made the switch.
I have been driving around in stock mode for a while now and can confirm that my CF's are back to 0's.
The timing angles from my Sunday "stock" mode chart match exactly to the timing angle chart I ran way back before I ever tested Revo.
REVO stock = factory specs... at least it is that way on my car


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (bassbiker)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bassbiker* »_
Matt, you seriously need to drop the stock mode "issue" if you're basing it on my graphs.
I told Dave that CF #'s that showed up were more than likely due to the "stock" mode not being fully adapted after I had made the switch.
I have been driving around in stock mode for a while now and can confirm that my CF's are back to 0's.
The timing angles from my Sunday "stock" mode chart match exactly to the timing angle chart I ran way back before I ever tested Revo.
REVO stock = factory specs... at least it is that way on my car

haha, well then you gotta tell me when I post the question like 4 times!


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (bassbiker)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bassbiker* »_
Matt, you seriously need to drop the stock mode "issue" if you're basing it on my graphs.
I told Dave that CF #'s that showed up were more than likely due to the "stock" mode not being fully adapted after I had made the switch.
I have been driving around in stock mode for a while now and can confirm that my CF's are back to 0's.
The timing angles from my Sunday "stock" mode chart match exactly to the timing angle chart I ran way back before I ever tested Revo.
REVO stock = factory specs... at least it is that way on my car

Jim, as I mentioned to you through the phone, I drove on REVO stock for quite some time. It is nothing like stock driveability. Any tech who knows what to feel will instantly notice that it feels different. I suspect the aggressive timing angle may have something to do with it.
Dave


----------



## bassbiker (Oct 30, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Jim, as I mentioned to you through the phone, I drove on REVO stock for quite some time. It is nothing like stock driveability. Any tech who knows what to feel will instantly notice that it feels different. I suspect the aggressive timing angle may have something to do with it.
Dave

Dave, that's exactly why I stated "on my car". All I can say it feels exactly like ~200HP stock setup to me. Logs show it and my butt feels it.
I also sent you my old stock data confirming that timing angle, Pre- and Post-Revo match up exactly. Even if they were what you consider high, they were the timing angles spec'd from the factory. Can't really argue that.
I can only _assume_ the SPS device you had was not throwing you back to stock specs for whatever reason. Dunno???
Jim


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (bassbiker)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bassbiker* »_
Dave, that's exactly why I stated "on my car". All I can say it feels exactly like ~200HP stock setup to me. Logs show it and my butt feels it.
I also sent you my old stock data confirming that timing angle, Pre- and Post-Revo match up exactly. Even if they were what you consider high, they were the timing angles spec'd from the factory. Can't really argue that.
I can only _assume_ the SPS device you had was not throwing you back to stock specs for whatever reason. Dunno???
Jim

It was def putting me in "stock" mode. I think the difference is that you have DSG and I have 6mt. With a 6 speed, you can really feel differences more since you tend to run through the entire revband and shift by feel. The throttle feel & boost peak & etc didn't feel like stock at all. 
Dave


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

okay so then it's not answered. I'll take a look at that too. I think "resetting" the ECU beforehand might speed up any adaptation period so I can be sure sooner.
Good thing gas is relatively cheap right now cuz i'm running through it to get all this data.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*

A stock car is going to run more ignition advance because its running less boost, go to the dealer and log a bone stock car off the lot if you don't believe me.
REVO stock is setup identical to factory stock, like every other chip company stock program it is not the EXACT file that came on your car, just a file setup to mimic it.

I've done a range of testing with stock mode and the different REVO AF settings and have seen very little change in EGTs.

I have new probes for my datalogging equipment coming this week and should have it setup by mid next week to do some testing and lay this to rest.
Those complaining about EGTs need to look at all the facts before commenting.
Those complaining about timing retard need to do some tests of a stock car and see that you can pull 6+ degrees on a warm day with a stock car even on 93 octane.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
I've done a range of testing with stock mode and the different REVO AF settings and have seen very little change in EGTs.

I disagree with you Chris, and I have logs to show it. 








Where are your logs?
That sounds awfully familiar.

_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance 6/26/06* »_Actually I did alot of testing a few months back with different A/F ratios ranging from high 9:1 range to mid 12:1 range.
EGTs varied by less then 50c between settings and were all under the spec set by the manufacture of the turbo as the maximum sustained EGT.


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
I have new probes for my datalogging equipment coming this week and should have it setup by mid next week to do some testing and lay this to rest.

That sounds familiar too.









_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance 6/26/06* »_EGTs were actually done using the calculated EGT block and the actual 02 sensor readings. While I do not agree that they are definitive for pre-turbine temps. If using them for comparison between stock and chipped with varying A/F levels you can at least see what is changing.
As for accurate readings.. I did probably 5-6 pulls with each change of settings.
I"ve been way to busy to finish setting up my datalogging stuff which has its own EGT probe which will be setup pre turbine.


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Those complaining about EGTs need to look at all the facts before commenting.

Yes, they are ridiculously high, I'm also seeing high timing pull and poor low RPM performance on less than the REVO settings recommended by REVO NA. 

_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Those complaining about timing retard need to do some tests of a stock car and see that you can pull 6+ degrees on a warm day with a stock car even on 93 octane.

Never saw that when I did stock logs, but that was in March of 06. 
Dave


_Modified by crew217 at 4:19 PM 10-11-2006_


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
I disagree with you Chris, and I have logs to show it. 



The simple fact that your starting temps are so far off makes those logs invalid.. Under part throttle cruise conditions the AF would be identical to stock, roughly 14.7:1. Good testing would make sure that it is at least starting at a similar point to get a comparison as it goes up.
I saw low 700s today just cruising in 4th gear about 4K rpm at 10inchs of vacum... stock car will do identical. Wish I could have done more testing on the commute but it was about 50 ft visibility with the rain we are having.


_Quote »_Where are your logs?

I actually am looking for them, When I would have done the tests I would have been on this laptop but I can't find any of the tests. I need to check and see if maybe I was using my other laptop to log, not sure why I would have though.

_Quote »_
Yes, they are ridiculously high, I'm also seeing high timing pull and poor low RPM performance on less than the REVO settings recommended by REVO NA. 


I have run 9 9 9 for settings and still seen 6ish degrees timing pull. Its all based on conditions. Factory cars pull timing... modified cars pull timing 6 degrees is perfectly acceptable. I've seen cars pull 12 degrees and show almost known knock sensor activity.

_Quote »_
Never saw that when I did stock logs, but that was in March of 06. 


Fair is fair.. were are your logs?


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
I've seen cars pull 12 degrees and show almost known knock sensor activity.


Wait a minute, maybe im just slow, and definitly new at tuning, but I thought the amount of CF's were determined by the knock sensor?


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_
Wait a minute, maybe im just slow, and definitly new at tuning, but I thought the amount of CF's were determined by the knock sensor?











It is, but it all depends what the table is asking for and how it is tuned. If they up the sensitivity at a certain load point, smaller amounts of actual knock can pull more timing purely as a measure of safety.. where as you can have more high knock value and lower pull at other points in the maps.
This is just what I have gathered from my testing and go over other peoples maps, I unfortunately do not have the ability to actually go in and read/alter the maps.


----------



## SSS_Hoon (Oct 5, 2005)

i dont get why tuners put so much timing in if it only gets taken out wouldnt it be better to say ok its taking out 6dg y not lower the timing by 6 and stop the timing pull wouldnt it be safer?
SSS_Hoon


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
The simple fact that your starting temps are so far off makes those logs invalid.. 

Wait my logs are invalid? That's BS. I did the standard 3rd gear pull. This exact same behavior has been exhibited on two other cars that have given me logs, both using the same pull. You're wrong about this Chris.


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
I actually am looking for them, When I would have done the tests I would have been on this laptop but I can't find any of the tests. I need to check and see if maybe I was using my other laptop to log, not sure why I would have though.

Been a few months and you said the same things back in feb when I was asking you about EGTs through PM.


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
I have run 9 9 9 for settings and still seen 6ish degrees timing pull. Its all based on conditions. Factory cars pull timing... modified cars pull timing 6 degrees is perfectly acceptable. I've seen cars pull 12 degrees and show almost known knock sensor activity.

So I guess 55 degrees and cloudy wasn't good enough for the mild settings of 5/6/9?


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Fair is fair.. were are your logs?

I believe this is all what this thread is about. 
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_Wait a minute, maybe im just slow, and definitly new at tuning, but I thought the amount of CF's were determined by the knock sensor?









That's the hardcore way, but ME9 also will look at other variables to pull different maps.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (SSS_Hoon)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SSS_Hoon* »_i dont get why tuners put so much timing in if it only gets taken out wouldnt it be better to say ok its taking out 6dg y not lower the timing by 6 and stop the timing pull wouldnt it be safer?
SSS_Hoon

Yes, but again, you are only looking at one data set. Which I've flogged over and over and over and over again in this forum. You need to look at the complete picture.


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

Ok, folks, this has been one of the better debated topic in here.
But, it's looking like it's starting to get personal so try and take the emotions out of it and continue to debate.


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_

It is, but it all depends what the table is asking for and how it is tuned. If they up the sensitivity at a certain load point, smaller amounts of actual knock can pull more timing purely as a measure of safety.. where as you can have more high knock value and lower pull at other points in the maps.
This is just what I have gathered from my testing and go over other peoples maps, I unfortunately do not have the ability to actually go in and read/alter the maps.

What is the difference between "small knock" and "high knock"? I always kinda thought of knock as just knock.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (SSS_Hoon)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SSS_Hoon* »_i dont get why tuners put so much timing in if it only gets taken out wouldnt it be better to say ok its taking out 6dg y not lower the timing by 6 and stop the timing pull wouldnt it be safer?
SSS_Hoon

Because in other conditions it may actually be adding timing.. You have to remember as I pointed out it pulls on stock so go ask vw/audi why they do it. These cars are highly advanced they have the ability to adjust in ways people 10 years ago never dreamed up.. and also remember its going by readings from the knock sensor.. it doesn't take actual knock to adjust just feed back that knock may occur or just higher activity. Just changing motor mounts can cause higher knock readings that will result in timing to be pulled. Too many factors to just say why don't they.....


----------



## Scuba2001 (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_What is the difference between "small knock" and "high knock"? I always kinda thought of knock as just knock.

Thats what I always thought. Knock at any RPM range is not good for any performance. The whole point of electronic advance timing is to prevent knock. If the software is operating to the point where its causing the car to knock 12 degrees adjustment, then something is clearly wrong.
Just my take on things... But maybe Im an automotive technician student for nothing.








Thanks Dave for the logs, this has really been eye opening.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Wait my logs are invalid? That's BS. I did the standard 3rd gear pull. This exact same behavior has been exhibited on two other cars that have given me logs, both using the same pull. You're wrong about this Chris.


Your starting temps are not the same which means conditions before each test were not the same.. Starting with a hotter cat temp means you will get hotter temps as it rises.. not valid comparisons.
When I do testing on a dyno to get comparible runs I don't go by say time between runs I go by al the different temps and start in an acceptable range between runs.. If I start the first one at say 25C intake temps.. I try and start the rest between say 22 and 28C.. If I start one run at 50 and one run at 25 of course my results will vary... common sense there.


_Quote »_
Been a few months and you said the same things back in feb when I was asking you about EGTs through PM.

You are right I did.. I have two jobs, a house and family my car and my testing comes last in all of those. My new EGT probe will be here tomorrow, old one is stuck in my jetta. The rest of the stuff is here I just need to wire it all in. Fiancee has me claimed for the next few days but I will try my best to get it all installed in a timely manner (that and I have to dig some stuff out that is still packed from the shop move)

_Quote »_
So I guess 55 degrees and cloudy wasn't good enough for the mild settings of 5/6/9?

I see no problems in any of your logs with how the vehicle is running... especially compared to any other results I've seen in the past or even posted in the last 24hrs on this forum. Your EGTs are lower and timing pull is similar then those posted of an APR chip in this very forum.


_Quote »_
I believe this is all what this thread is about. 

Yes you posted some logs up.. I was referring to the ones you mentioned in your last post, where are those since those are the ones ou are claiming to refute my claims, but offered nothing to back up what you said.
Also you have not posted any APR graphs on your specific vehicle to prove that their EGTs are any less or that their timing is pulling any less. Again recent posts in these forums would show that it is the sam if not worse.


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Because in other conditions it may actually be adding timing.. You have to remember as I pointed out it pulls on stock so go ask vw/audi why they do it. These cars are highly advanced they have the ability to adjust in ways people 10 years ago never dreamed up.. and also remember its going by readings from the knock sensor.. it doesn't take actual knock to adjust just feed back that knock may occur or just higher activity. Just changing motor mounts can cause higher knock readings that will result in timing to be pulled. Too many factors to just say why don't they.....

So, the fact that I am have some serious timing pull at WOT ( ~8.3-10) could be ok? If I understand correctly, the car is smart enough to know that X amount of boost + Y amount of Fuel it will need to correct the timing? and it does this without knock ever happening. 
I was under the impression the the CF's were determined solely from the knock sensor, and the the knock sensor is REactive and not PROactive in preventing knock.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (Scuba2001)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Scuba2001* »_
Thats what I always thought. Knock at any RPM range is not good for any performance. The whole point of electronic advance timing is to prevent knock. If the software is operating to the point where its causing the car to knock 12 degrees adjustment, then something is clearly wrong.
Just my take on things... But maybe Im an automotive technician student for nothing.








Thanks Dave for the logs, this has really been eye opening.

You are taking knock as too literal of a one dimensional thing.. The ECM pulls timing well before knock actually occurs.. Knock sensors are not an on/off switch they are scaled. The car has the ability to adjust timing based on the readings from the knock sensor.
say you are under light load (downhill for example in a low gear) and you get a knock reading of 25volts.. That is going to mean very little. 
that same 25volt reading under heavy load (uphill in a high gear) is going to mean a great deal.
The timing pull is preventitive. It does not mean that damaging knock already occured, it means that the car based on its calculations if conditions remain the same or get more severe may eventually cause knock.
I have yet to see one 1.8t or 2.0t show any signs of real detonation... These ECMs do their job arguably too good.
People have swapped from the factory ECM and put in stand alone in 1.8ts and been able to make tons more power just by adding timing. Timing that was safe but the ECM was pulling.. still no problems with those cars either..


----------



## Scuba2001 (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_Your starting temps are not the same which means conditions before each test were not the same.. Starting with a hotter cat temp means you will get hotter temps as it rises.. not valid comparisons.

I understand what youre saying here, but the temp of the cat is going to level off once the car is warmed up anyway and such if you are idling through on the highway, or whatever. The cat temp isnt going to continually sky rocket like you are implying.
No matter how you look at things, outside temperature, intake temps, vehicle condition, etc are all going to be different. Even in a fully controlled environment, its going to be hard to duplicate the same results on two different cars.
Rule of thumb, take these results with a grain of salt. Each car is going to be different, but I see that its not the best to have these egt's so high above the OE's recommended temps... Makes me wonder what the turbo looks like after a hard pull.
Lastly... The more timing pull you have, the more heat that will be transmitted through the exhaust. If the timing wasnt so far out of wack, then the EGT's wouldnt be so sky high like they are.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Your starting temps are not the same which means conditions before each test were not the same.. Starting with a hotter cat temp means you will get hotter temps as it rises.. not valid comparisons.
When I do testing on a dyno to get comparible runs I don't go by say time between runs I go by al the different temps and start in an acceptable range between runs.. If I start the first one at say 25C intake temps.. I try and start the rest between say 22 and 28C.. If I start one run at 50 and one run at 25 of course my results will vary... common sense there.


I clearly labeled which run I did first. It had a lower starting point and lower peak point, albeit it was still very high. I also posted EGT graphs of my drive going up to the area which I did the logging. 
By your rhetoric, we should run logs when the engine is dead cold.
I did 4 overall pulls btw. 

_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
I see no problems in any of your logs with how the vehicle is running... especially compared to any other results I've seen in the past or even posted in the last 24hrs on this forum. Your EGTs are lower and timing pull is similar then those posted of an APR chip in this very forum.


My EGTs are maxed out at the maximum reading the primary O2 sensor can read . . . . . how is that normal? 
If you're referring to the overseas APR customer, that is not a valid comparison. There's logs of an APR car running the 93 octane program on 91 octane fuel with less timing retard than I have.

_Quote, originally posted by *PDPerformance* »_
Yes you posted some logs up.. I was referring to the ones you mentioned in your last post, where are those since those are the ones ou are claiming to refute my claims, but offered nothing to back up what you said.
Also you have not posted any APR graphs on your specific vehicle to prove that their EGTs are any less or that their timing is pulling any less. Again recent posts in these forums would show that it is the sam if not worse.

If you must ask, my laptop was damaged several weeks ago (ask Judge if you don't believe me) and I purchased a new 20" imac to replace it. The logs I have remaining are just those left on my photobucket. These are new logs. Where are yours? The ones from February . . . 
Of course I haven't posted my APR graphs yet. It has been stated several times why I haven't done it. I don't own a windows laptop and have to do my logging with other people's schedules in mind. I have promised logs by this weekend. I will deliver.
Dave


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_
So, the fact that I am have some serious timing pull at WOT ( ~8.3-10) could be ok? If I understand correctly, the car is smart enough to know that X amount of boost + Y amount of Fuel it will need to correct the timing? and it does this without knock ever happening. 
I was under the impression the the CF's were determined solely from the knock sensor, and the the knock sensor is REactive and not PROactive in preventing knock.


They are REactive in detecting activity from the knock sensors.. but PROactive in doing it before there is actually a problem.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*

Zack, can we post your graph? I have it in the link I gave to you earlier in .jpg format. It's in that link I sent to ya.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
That's the hardcore way, but ME9 also will look at other variables to pull different maps.


Correct...


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

Chris: are you speaking on behalf of REVOtechnik? 
Just wondering if we can assume your comments to be an official response from REVO.
Dave


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Zack, can we post your graph? I have it in the link I gave to you earlier in .jpg format. It's in that link I sent to ya.

Yes, I think it is time..


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (Scuba2001)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Scuba2001* »_
I understand what youre saying here, but the temp of the cat is going to level off once the car is warmed up anyway and such if you are idling through on the highway, or whatever. The cat temp isnt going to continually sky rocket like you are implying.

Level off.. not really. That temp will change by 400+ degrees while cruising with 10% throttle changes in a matter of seconds.. Go grab a vag com and drive around for 10 minutes just watching the cat temp.. Never once seeing boost you will see 700C+.. remember cats work better they hotter they are.


_Quote »_
No matter how you look at things, outside temperature, intake temps, vehicle condition, etc are all going to be different. Even in a fully controlled environment, its going to be hard to duplicate the same results on two different cars.

not true.. In a controlled environment and even in careful street testing you can get variables within a few percent.. That is 15% plus difference in start temp.


_Quote »_
Rule of thumb, take these results with a grain of salt. Each car is going to be different, but I see that its not the best to have these egt's so high above the OE's recommended temps... Makes me wonder what the turbo looks like after a hard pull.

I am still trying to dig up the article I had but it specificalyl stated that the max peak EGTs were about 1020-1050C for the turbo used on our engines. I can't seem to find it though.. haven't spent much timing looking either. And so far no one has proved they are above it.


_Quote »_
Lastly... The more timing pull you have, the more heat that will be transmitted through the exhaust. If the timing wasnt so far out of wack, then the EGT's wouldnt be so sky high like they are.

Yes and no.. comes back to the big picture.. 
Its not about pull its amount actual point of ignition.. you can run 30 degrees advance and have 10 degrees pull.. your EGTs will be lower (given all other variables the same) then a car running 15 degrees and 5 degrees pull.
That is because total timing in those cases would be 20 and 10... More timing pull does not mean more EGTs.. You need to look at actual ignition advance.
Thanks for bringing that up though. That is something I was meaning to mention all day but kept forgetting, and something no one brought up yet in this thread that I have seen.. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
I am still trying to dig up the article I had but it specificalyl stated that the max peak EGTs were about 1020-1050C for the turbo used on our engines. I can't seem to find it though.. haven't spent much timing looking either. And so far no one has proved they are above it.

Chris, both Mike and I have posted that document. It also says that it shouldn't exceed 970C under steady state conditions. That being said, if I'm routinely seeing temps of 800C+, it can be inferred that the preturbine temps are substantially more. 
In that same article you're referencing, they give a rough estimate on how much heat loss there is from the preturbine. 
In your words, how does REVO justify running significantly higher EGTs while disabling the hardware protection map? From what I've seen, it just gives better top-end power.
Dave


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*



crew217 said:


> I clearly labeled which run I did first. It had a lower starting point and lower peak point, albeit it was still very high. I also posted EGT graphs of my drive going up to the area which I did the logging.
> By your rhetoric, we should run logs when the engine is dead cold.
> I did 4 overall pulls btw.
> 
> ...


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Chris: are you speaking on behalf of REVOtechnik? 
Just wondering if we can assume your comments to be an official response from REVO.
Dave


How would I be speaking on behalf of REVO, I am not a REVO employee the same as you are not an employee of any tuning company as far as we all know.

Also none of my comments could be taken as official REVO statements as I have said nothing official about the product.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Who is making a comparison.. You have nothing to compare yours against. I was simply looking at the hard numbers of that post just as people are here since there are no posts of your car with APR or any other software posted.. That car was getting 7+ degrees pull and hit 876 degrees max egts.. whether you can compare it to your car or no.. similar numbers are what you are claiming makes your car unsafe on REVO.. So by YOUR logic that APR car is also unsafe.

Chris, that was MY car. These are mostly MY logs with the exception of a few. I hit 900C every time except for the first time (894C) a second after letting off the throttle. Graphing it would have made the curve go backwards.
Please re-read this thread. It is obvious that you haven't looked at a single graph or document that has been posted.

_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
As stated I am searching for them.. I did a full HD scan on this laptop and they are not present. The mouse is dead on my other laptop and I left my usb one at home (fiancees mouse is also dead on her laptop).
The only logs I can actually find are cruising ones.. no boost I am seeing 800 plus in some spots







They are minutes long though and no way to get graphs on line so I'll see wha tI can do about getting them up eventually.

Fair enough, you don't have them.

_Quote, originally posted by *PDPerformance* »_
Then how can you be so confident in this post and others that your results will be any better... information posted on this fourm proves otherwise.

There have actually been quite a few APR logs on the 2.0t forum. I realize that you've been busy, so you may have not seen them. Do a search and you'll find them.
Dave


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Chris, both Mike and I have posted that document. It also says that it shouldn't exceed 970C under steady state conditions. That being said, if I'm routinely seeing temps of 800C+, it can be inferred that the preturbine temps are substantially more. 
In that same article you're referencing, they give a rough estimate on how much heat loss there is from the preturbine. 
In your words, how does REVO justify running significantly higher EGTs while disabling the hardware protection map? From what I've seen, it just gives better top-end power.
Dave

The only article I have seen in this thread was not specific to the 2.0T turbo.. The one I had and am kicking myself for not saving was specific to our turbo speaking about changes in blade material and other things that allowed for higher temps to be sustained.
Who stated that REVO disabled the protection maps.. The only claims that have been made about that were started by APR employees with no proof to back it up. The same as they have provided no proof that they have done any other further testing to back up their claims on these forums that they are running lower EGTs?
Why is the word of APR taken as fact but other chip manufactures must provide physical data? Little ridiculous if you ask me or anyone else.
As for preturbine temp differences. I saw roughly 170F difference between 02 temps and my equipment pre turbine on my 1.8t.
Facts I have stated before on this subject matter which you somehow seem to not quote even though you are digging up every other thing I have said in the last year.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_

There have actually been quite a few APR logs on the 2.0t forum. I realize that you've been busy, so you may have not seen them. Do a search and you'll find them.
Dave


You are right.. and one posted in the last day showed the same results as your car....
you even commented in his thread and told him to get out of yours... something you are afraid of in the results..


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*

Allright, well in all my logging and graph making I missed a pretty large amount of activity.
My settings and conditions...
Revo stage I V2 (T3B6F9 essentially Revo 91 program). 15k miles, 93 octane using mtbe (not ethanol). outside temps at 65 deg F. Evo MS V-flow intake. no other mods.








































I can also personally vouch for the widely varying EGT temps, at least when chipped. I can do a full out flogging run for a few minutes straight and come to an idle and the cat temps will for from 800 down to mid 400s in just a few seconds. EGT's cruising around town sit between 400-550ish. (all this in Celcius)

_Modified by magilson at 8:56 PM 10-11-2006_


_Modified by magilson at 9:00 PM 10-11-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_

You are right.. and one posted in the last day showed the same results as your car....
you even commented in his thread and told him to get out of yours... something you are afraid of in the results..

No, several people were asked to keep it on-topic, not only by me, but by several other members and moderators. 
His situation was also different. He is running different fuel, from a foreign country, from a different chip company & it had nothing to do with REVO 93 logs. 
Please keep this thread on topic.
Dave


----------



## Scuba2001 (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_Level off.. not really

I understand that no matter what, the cat temp is going to change with the slightest variation in throttle position and such. But if you keep a constant speed for x distance, the cat will level off in temps. Yes, you will still have the temperature variation here and there, but nothing like a 400 degree spike.

_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_Thanks for bringing that up though. That is something I was meaning to mention all day but kept forgetting, and something no one brought up yet in this thread that I have seen.. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

You're welcome... Might as well lay all of the cards out on the table for discussion.
Some of these things just don't jive. Having a cat operate out side of its effeciency range isn't logical and in the long run, will blow a cat up and become useless. My question to you is this: Why would a tuning software company, such as Revo Technik for example, allow software to be released that is on the brink of being detrimental to the integrity of the vehicles emissions system?


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
No, several people were asked to keep it on-topic, not only by me, but by several other members and moderators. 
His situation was also different. He is running different fuel, from a foreign country, from a different chip company & it had nothing to do with REVO 93 logs. 
Please keep this thread on topic.
Dave

Then why yourself mention APR chipped cars in this thread? How is that any different.
The fuel is equal to our 93 octane.. The engine codes aroun the world are the same as well as every other bit of hardware...
The turbine is still IDENTICAL and if 875 C is too high in the US then 875 is too high in HK... doesn't take much to figure that out..


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (Scuba2001)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Scuba2001* »_
You're welcome... Might as well lay all of the cards out on the table for discussion.
Some of these things just don't jive. Having a cat operate out side of its effeciency range isn't logical and in the long run, will blow a cat up and become useless. My question to you is this: Why would a tuning software company, such as Revo Technik for example, allow software to be released that is on the brink of being detrimental to the integrity of the vehicles emissions system?









I have personally blown up cats by running too rich.. fuel ignites when it hits the hot cat..
I have never seen a cat go down from constantly running high EGTs.. They work from heat.. simple as that..
Peak EGTs will occur at 14.7:1 given all other constants.. That is the only AF a cat properly works at... because of the heat. That is why when you are driving around and you check block 031 you will see a requested of 1 lambda and it bouncing from just below to just above.


----------



## Scuba2001 (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_I have never seen a cat go down from constantly running high EGTs.. They work from heat.. simple as that..
Peak EGTs will occur at 14.7:1 given all other constants.. That is the only AF a cat properly works at... because of the heat. That is why when you are driving around and you check block 031 you will see a requested of 1 lambda and it bouncing from just below to just above.

I understand the whole heat thing... Heat is best for a cat to operate, we covered that a few posts back.
But what I more concerned about is the integrity of the items BEFORE the cat. If you're running EGT's higher then the car was designed to handle, then over time, that turbine housing is just going to crack to bits and peices. I'd be more concerned with oil at extremely high temps.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Its not about pull its amount actual point of ignition.. you can run 30 degrees advance and have 10 degrees pull.. your EGTs will be lower (given all other variables the same) then a car running 15 degrees and 5 degrees pull.
That is because total timing in those cases would be 20 and 10... More timing pull does not mean more EGTs.. You need to look at actual ignition advance.


Hi Chris,
No big deal but just to clarify are you sure the above examples aren't reversed. 
cheers! Mike


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

i go to all that work and no comments? bummer...


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_i go to all that work and no comments? bummer...

matt, mind sending me the raw data?
Dave


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

crew217 pointed out I need to cary to redline a little longer when looking at cat temps and A/F ratio, I'll giver er another try tommorow.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

also, from what I'm seeing there is absolutely no way the protection maps could possibly still be there. No way. I think George's comment was misleading earlier becuase there hasn't been any proof to show the protection map is still there.


----------



## addicted_to_dub (Mar 9, 2006)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_They are REactive in detecting activity from the knock sensors.. but PROactive in doing it before there is actually a problem.

The only way I can imagine that the ECU can detect knock before it happens is that if it knows the timing/fueling/boost levels being requested are so far off the map that knock is the enevitable outcome.
So what is happening is the ecu esentially says "What are these guys, nuts? No effin way I'm doing that, I'll pull the timing 10 degrees and keep myself from sounding like a 70s mercedes diesel and bending something."
Tell me how knock can be forcast if all the relevant settings of timing, boost, fueling, etc are within spec. I don't see how it can because if they were in spec there would be no danger of knocking! Knock sensors are reactive plain and simple. It's the ECU that is being proactive and saying the programming is off of it's rocker and dialing things back to protect it's self.
Guess you guys haven't figured out how to tell that part of it that you know better.


_Modified by addicted_to_dub at 8:58 PM 10-11-2006_


----------



## sa_vagfan (Mar 7, 2005)

*Re: (addicted_to_dub)*

I think you are misunderstanding the capability of the MED9 ECU to forecast and control events using CF as a mechanism. Besides mixture, there are other inputs from map sensors, inlet temp sensors. So the evidence of CF indicates that the ECU is pre-emptively using timing as a protective mechanism based on inputs from other areas. Also the actions of the adaption channels that will retain conservative settings based on the historical inputs.
Which gets back to the subject of revo settings. Running aggressive settings that fly in the face of the physics of the engine under certain conditions will most certainly mean that engine management will adapt out these settings, and one of the characteristics/manifestations of that is elevated CF figures.
You can datalog until you are blue in the face trying to prove a point but the bottom line is that just because you can wind in high settings on a Revo car, does not necessarily mean that firstly they will enhance gains, or that secondly the ECU will tolerate them.








An instance of this is demonstrated by a FSI-T running a Revo Stage 1 map produces best and consistent power at T4B2F9 on rubbish fuel at sea level, whereas an identical spec car running better fuel performs best on the same map with settings T2B6F9 at 4500ft above sea level. 
Horses for courses!


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (sa_vagfan)*

After reading through all this baloney,I have some questions....as someone that has personally tuned standalone cars from scratch,I can say that different cars with different setups can run different EGT temperatures,and this is common knowledge......
HOW do you KNOW WHAT EGT is safe or unsafe for the 2.0T FSI engine??Are you a VW engineer?Borgwarner states 970C,but HOW do you know this is higher pre-turbo?DO you have EGT probes??
WHY are you guys so worried about "EGT"??Have any of you tuned cars and know what is "safe"??Some cars run 1800+F and love it,some will melt [email protected] melt a piston first and tell us what EGT did it!(you should have probes if you are all so worried about EGT)
We all know that puny turbines and retarded timing add to higher EGT right?
Guess what?2.0T motor is 10:1 compression,running a PUNY turbo,and chipped is pushing out over 250HP,which HAS to run low timing and you WILL get higher EGT......you can richen it up,but this can also melt your cat if you get to happy with this........REVO has done a EXCELLENT job tuning these cars.......I am a dealer in Hawaii which has super high humidity,92 octane,and year round'hot weather...... ALMOST EVERY 2.0T customer that has been chipped here has 
been running BOOST 8-9,Timing 3-5on 92 octane.........whether you want to believe it or not,there are absolutly NO ISSUES!!!
You do know these cars adapt,and will only run as much timing as the KS will allow,and you can run 87 octane p*ss water and boost 9 and STILL NOT BLOW THESE MOTORS!!
How about the guys running 13 sec.1/4 mile and trapping 100mph??? ((using REVO)
IMO that says a LOT,more than "logs" and "EGT"'s,etc.....find SOMEONE that has melted a piston or a cat on REVO,THEN you have something to b*tch about.







In fact I see more "APR issues" 
in this forum than ANY "REVO issues"....maybe some are trying to make "EGT" a issue??WHat about the "fuel pressure issue?"Is this a 
non-issue now?








What is funny is that sometimes "e-life" tries to transcend "real life" where the points some are arguing here are just moot.
Buy the APR,have your "richer mixture" and less power.......when you are passed by a car with REVO you can yell out your window."hey your car is faster,but I have lower EGT's!!"















Internet tuning at its best!!








In real life,99.9% of people DON'T CARE about logs,CF,EGT,timing,etc.........they just want performance SW that is 100% trouble-free,and that makes POWER...REVO does this!!!











_Modified by VWAUDITECH at 1:39 AM 10-12-2006_


----------



## sa_vagfan (Mar 7, 2005)

He He!








Love that reply. What is the most dangerous thing in the world? Tsunami? Nuclear "dirty bombs"? 
Naaaah, much worse, it's a guy with a car, a laptop and Vagcom. 
I identify with your distate for this sort of argument, but all it really takes is either an opposition tuner to put a flea in the ear of a previous non-disgruntled customer telling him his EGT's are high OR settings which are patently over-ambitious.
I must disagree with you about settings of Boost 8 or 9 being OK for every instance. Whilst the mappings that Revo have done for your region in Hawaii may facilitate this, assuming that you could apply the same settings to a Revo map elsewhere is an assumption that even Mitch, George or others from Revo will quickly dispel.
It is not impossible to over-run these turbos with settings (esp. where mods like exhausts are added to a Stg 1 tune), and whilst this does not necessarily equate to a meltdown, it will certainly affect the refinement/ performance of an otherwise fantastic map.
BTW, in SA we have rubbish fuel (beer is better) high ambient heat, altitude, humidity and any other characteristic you might want to consider a barrier to tuning, so we try to adjust maps to provide optimal performance under all conditions!


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (sa_vagfan)*

Haha,yes......I was ranting......







I agree,not everyone will want to run the higher boost levels..but that is what is great about REVO,you can turn it down,AND adjust the AFR to a certain extent.If you buy the powerful GIAC SW,these run high boost levels yet,I have not heard of turbos blowing,melted pistons/cats,from any of the "big 3".....







Turn it up!!















I run 24psi daily in my TT with 2871R,I AM NOT scared to turn up the boost







No CEL


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_ HOW do you KNOW WHAT EGT is safe or unsafe for the 2.0T FSI engine??Are you a * VW engineer? * Borgwarner states 970C,but HOW do you know this is higher pre-turbo?DO you have EGT probes??

 
It's funny you bring this up .If there is so much " unknown " about this new FSI engine as far as EGT why change the AFR that VAG though was safe 10.5 A/F ?, does Revo or G.I.A.C spent more on R & D ? or know more ? or have more resource than VAG ? .
APR is the only tuning company that i know of that has Bosch engineers ON STAFF and invests in ALOT of IN HOUSE R & D on there OWN DYNO'S and the only company out of the three tuners that where speaking of that design and make there own hardware for there BT kits .Funny thing is that they do this and still stay with all the factory safety's in place as they where design espec with the OEM 10.5 AF and still build within a few HP ( 2-5hp maybe) is this worth logging and playing and worrying about things? on your NEW CAR? .
Things should be engineered correct for the beginning so your engine and its hardware ( specifically your turbo ) lives a LONG and HEALTHY life . You should not have to worry , just know your going to be safe and just go out and enjoy and have fun with your new power from your chip







Bob.G
edit to add:
If you want to see how much APR has invested back in there company and see all there products and meet all of them in person and see how much they love what they do and the passion they have for what they do ( including all the engineers) I recommend that people take a few day off in march and go to APR BBQ ( open house ). Doesn't matter what chip you run ( you will get a beat down after the BBQ out on RT 75 when we meet up there







) .
Go and see whats invested and then you will understand why the guys at APR ( Brett, Keith , etc ) get there panties in a bunch and start to defend them self here on the tex. I ll be driving down this year 
( i missed last year ) and i have room for at least one person so if anyone from the NY Tristate area needs a ride LMK its always a good trip and time .
Sorry about the Rambling Dave now back on topic











_Modified by rracerguy717 at 8:00 AM 10-12-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_
HOW do you KNOW WHAT EGT is safe or unsafe for the 2.0T FSI engine??Are you a VW engineer?*Borgwarner states 970C,but HOW do you know this is higher pre-turbo?*DO you have EGT probes??
WHY are you guys so worried about "EGT"??Have any of you tuned cars and know what is "safe"??Some cars run 1800+F and love it,some will melt [email protected] melt a piston first and tell us what EGT did it!(you should have probes if you are all so worried about EGT)


I'm sorry, but do you know how a turbo works? Also, look at the picture that I posted from BW that clearly states that there's at least a 100C temperature gradient between pre-turbine and post-turbine, and an additional approximation of 80C lost to ambient after the turbo. 
Technically, if I'm seeing an estimated [email protected] the preturbine, I'm running 1900F EGTs, which I feel is unsafe . . . . esp when stock & other competitors products are running 850-900C @ the preturbine, which translates to ~1500F-1600F.
Dave


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

more Air to Fuel and EGT logs from today.
Still don't see a big swing in the A/F ratio when the projected temps approach and pass the 920 deg C point (if that truley is the protection point)
















I do not see any evidence that the hardware protection map is in place unless a tuner would like to step forward and give us the protection temp (for example 920, 970, 999, whatever). With countless logs I think we can safely say Revo is not using the stock protection maps, this based on the assumption that APR and GIAC are because of logging we've seen with their chip behavior.


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: (PD Performance)*

OK ok ok ...
PD you need to be very clear about what your stating here regarding knock... I don't want you spreading misinformation to people so I need clarification.
So according to you, the CF are NOT nessicarily just a result from readings from knock sensors. Is this correct?
Secondly, If that is the case, why are people logging CF's when they don't even matter when determining knock. If they are software and knock based. Why aren't people logging the voltage data from the Knock sensors?
Because if the CF are indeed mostly based off knock sensors ( which I believe they are ) you are 100% in love with foot in mouth syndrom.
You even stated yourself that knock sensors are RE-Active. Sir, they don't work unless they detect slight to major amounts of knock. Period, unless you have metal hitting metal somewhere else. Don't tell people that it will read from the knock sensor, and then CORRECT IT BEFORE there is knock. That is wrong, and your spreading misinformation.
Now again. If that is not the case, see question #1 and explain pretty please.


----------



## prom king (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_OK ok ok ...
PD you need to be very clear about what your stating here regarding knock... I don't want you spreading misinformation to people so I need clarification.
So according to you, the CF are NOT nessicarily just a result from readings from knock sensors. Is this correct?
Secondly, If that is the case, why are people logging CF's when they don't even matter when determining knock. If they are software and knock based. Why aren't people logging the voltage data from the Knock sensors?
Because if the CF are indeed mostly based off knock sensors ( which I believe they are ) you are 100% in love with foot in mouth syndrom.
You even stated yourself that knock sensors are RE-Active. Sir, they don't work unless they detect slight to major amounts of knock. Period, unless you have metal hitting metal somewhere else. Don't tell people that it will read from the knock sensor, and then CORRECT IT BEFORE there is knock. That is wrong, and your spreading misinformation.
Now again. If that is not the case, see question #1 and explain pretty please.









I can't wait to see Chris own you.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_OK ok ok ...
PD you need to be very clear about what your stating here regarding knock... I don't want you spreading misinformation to people so I need clarification.
So according to you, the CF are NOT nessicarily just a result from readings from knock sensors. Is this correct?
Secondly, If that is the case, why are people logging CF's when they don't even matter when determining knock. If they are software and knock based. Why aren't people logging the voltage data from the Knock sensors?
Because if the CF are indeed mostly based off knock sensors ( which I believe they are ) you are 100% in love with foot in mouth syndrom.
You even stated yourself that knock sensors are RE-Active. Sir, they don't work unless they detect slight to major amounts of knock. Period, unless you have metal hitting metal somewhere else. Don't tell people that it will read from the knock sensor, and then CORRECT IT BEFORE there is knock. That is wrong, and your spreading misinformation.
Now again. If that is not the case, see question #1 and explain pretty please.









For the record, I dont see 6 degrees of retard as eminently dangerous at all. But to chime in on your question...
You are correct. Knock correction or timing retard is part of what is called the IKC or ignition knock control system on the Bosch ME computers. The knock correction is indeed based on one single parameter, knock that is picked up by the knock sensors. Knock voltages are meaningless for us to interpret using our level of diagnostic tools since voltages of 25 or even 30 can be seen as the norm for cars that have race mounts in them or are very noisy cars but they wont pull a single degree of timing BECUASE no knock is detected. The 25 voltage is simply background noise. Thats how they work. They week out the instantaneous spikes from the background noise and read that as knock. Then the knock control retards timing. Now, ignition angle on the other hand relies on a multitude of simple and complex 3d maps, but no the knock control. When the computer senses knock, it pulls pack timing. It then CONTINUES to pull back timing UNTIL it no longer senses knock occuring. Interestingly you can actually make much less power overtiming a car. This is because the BTDC tables take into account the knock control channel and when it sees you have overtimed a car it will adjust back timing and attempt to protect hardware assuming you have not disables these protections as well. 
BTW, i'm not sure what people are so worked up about. 6 degrees is aggressive but if you havent noticed GIAC retards upwards of 8-12 degrees due to knock on their cars and no one has ever seemed concerned about it in the least?
cheers! Mike


_Modified by bhvrdr at 8:23 AM 10-12-2006_


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

Chris won't own me because, how do you own fact?
So according to bhvrdr, the Bosch unit uses timing pull from knock detection only.
I've tuned before, I've adjusted knock sensitivities I know how all of that works...
But PD just said that its NOT just knock detection that causes CF timing pulls, and then BHV just said that knock detection IS the only reason for timing pull. In other words its not making it up based off of IATs or Coolant temp, or other maps, it says I want to run this timing, and will until I hear otherwise from the knock sensors.
So with that said, IF BHV is right, then I want PD to explain again how a knock sensor predicts the future and prevents knock, when the knock sensor tells the computer AFTER something happened.
That would be like giving a speech in front of an audience, and having the speaker produce your voice before you spoke into it.
The Knock sensor is not a crystal ball, all it does it hear ping we cannot hear, voltage progressivly increases based on knock, tables counter with timing retard UNTIL the voltage falls within stock parameters.
Knock sensors have decay rates, sensitivity base lines, all kinds of things that allow them to be super sensitive/insensitive.
All I wanna know if BHV is right, explain how the sensor tells the motor to retard timing BEFORE any indication of knock. THIS I would love to see.
P.S. EXPECTO PATRONUM







: Ignore 19 year olds living at home :

_Modified by T62 at 1:48 PM 10-12-2006_


_Modified by T62 at 1:51 PM 10-12-2006_


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

Guys, PLEASE do not make this confortational. We've gotten this far without it, we don't need it to continue.
If it does I will lock this.


----------



## addicted_to_dub (Mar 9, 2006)

*Re: (sa_vagfan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *sa_vagfan* »_I think you are misunderstanding the capability of the MED9 ECU to forecast and control events using CF as a mechanism. Besides mixture, there are other inputs from map sensors, inlet temp sensors. So the evidence of CF indicates that the ECU is pre-emptively using timing as a protective mechanism based on inputs from other areas. Also the actions of the adaption channels that will retain conservative settings based on the historical inputs.
Which gets back to the subject of revo settings. Running aggressive settings that fly in the face of the physics of the engine under certain conditions will most certainly mean that engine management will adapt out these settings, and one of the characteristics/manifestations of that is elevated CF figures.
You can datalog until you are blue in the face trying to prove a point but the bottom line is that just because you can wind in high settings on a Revo car, does not necessarily mean that firstly they will enhance gains, or that secondly the ECU will tolerate them.








An instance of this is demonstrated by a FSI-T running a Revo Stage 1 map produces best and consistent power at T4B2F9 on rubbish fuel at sea level, whereas an identical spec car running better fuel performs best on the same map with settings T2B6F9 at 4500ft above sea level. 
Horses for courses!

Consider this, the "tuner" is the one setting boost, timing, and fueling, taking it out of control of the ECU. What does that leave it with to protect it's self? Guess what, CFs! So unless the CFs locked from changing the ECU will use them. Unless someone is dumb enough to do that.
Think about it, and it might makes sense to you. The timing map is LOCKED by the tuner as that is the timing they want, the ECU can't change the timing so it reverts to using CFs.


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (addicted_to_dub)*

here are some quick logs of CF and A/F. 
2006 VW GTI 2.0tfsi
Revo Stage 2 V.2 set to the 91oct program *B6,T3,F9*Atp 3" dp, no cats
3" custom cat back w/ magnaflow ( a custom autotech copy)
EVOMS Intake
93oct fuel in the tank
75deg Farh. outside temp

These log are just just normal hiway driving, not a 3rd for 4th grear pull.


















_Modified by mk4driver22 at 3:19 PM 10-12-2006_


----------



## RyanA3 (May 11, 2005)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*

Can anyone explain what that seismograph is trying to explain to us inquiring minds?


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (RyanA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RyanA3* »_Can anyone explain what that seismograph is trying to explain to us inquiring minds?









Not to put down that graph but it's not telling much. Logging while loafing along on the freeway gives results like those. It looks like the car runs a 28:1 fuel ratio (lambda can spike up to 1.99 off throttle) and timing pull should be very low. If you can get a WOT run it would be great.


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
Not to put down that graph but it's not telling much. Logging while loafing along on the freeway gives results like those. It looks like the car runs a 28:1 fuel ratio (lambda can spike up to 1.99 off throttle) and timing pull should be very low. If you can get a WOT run it would be great. 


Its coming, my laptop battery last for about 15min's then dies.
I also have noticed lots of soot on the back of hatch, not just on the tailpipe. I pull the plugs today, and they looked a little black, like the car is running rich.


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

should I have CF's of -8.3 while off throttle?


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_should I have CF's of -8.3 while off throttle?

No, probably not. But I guess it could be worse. Do you have SPS Plus? You can PM me if you want to try and get it right after you get some more logs. Be happy to help if I can.
cheers! Mike


----------



## meanvw (Jan 1, 2005)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*

I'm running a similar set up:
ATP downpipe no cat connected to stock exhaust.
Revo Stg 2, Boost 7, Timing 5, Fuel 9. 
Carbonio intake, A3 hard pipe, forge spacer, Bosch F5DP0R plugs.
We have 93 octane no ethanol here.
Here's what I'm seeing:
















If it were me, I'd call the Revo dealer or Trevor at Revo NA and ask to get re-flashed. Looks to me like your flash didn't take or you've got some other mechanical issue making it do what it's doing.
I'd be happy to log whatever else anyone else wants to see. I dont know how to do the graphs, but I can e-mail files to someone if they want them.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (meanvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *meanvw* »_I'm running a similar set up:
ATP downpipe no cat connected to stock exhaust.
Revo Stg 2, Boost 7, Timing 5, Fuel 9. 
Carbonio intake, A3 hard pipe, forge spacer, Bosch F5DP0R plugs.
We have 93 octane no ethanol here.
Here's what I'm seeing:
















If it were me, I'd call the Revo dealer or Trevor at Revo NA and ask to get re-flashed. Looks to me like your flash didn't take or you've got some other mechanical issue making it do what it's doing.
I'd be happy to log whatever else anyone else wants to see. I dont know how to do the graphs, but I can e-mail files to someone if they want them.

Actually, I don't think you did your logs right.
Did you do your pull with full load and go WOT @ 2krpms? From your data, it looks as if you drove fairly normally. Ideally, you want to run the car on a slight incline in order to really max out the load on the engine.
I'm seeing a rough average time to get from 2-6800rpms in 12 seconds. The time itself is irrelevant, but given that you're doing what it took me 7 seconds to do (3,2-6,5) in half the time, I don't think you had full load on the vehicle. 
What you're showing is merely a part-load situation which doesn't reflect the true WOT conditions of the engine.
Dave


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*

Well crew,I have to say that I DO know how a turbo works and have have MUCH more experience than you building and tuning turbo cars......one thing you DO NOT understand is that IF the EGT's ae so "dangerous" as you say.....then it would have MELTED your motor already.........it is not a "gradual" thing......a motor will melt in SECONDS.......and MANY people hacve REVO and NOT ONE case of melted pistons OR CATS .........WHERE is you "logic" of "too high" a EGT??
You may be proficient in your line of "business" and you can "log and do Excel" well,but please leave the tuning to the "tuners"....you are making much ado about NOTHING......
WHAT qualifies YOU as someone to make ANY judgement on tuning or "too high" EGT?? Have you actually suffered or KNOW ANYONE that has suffered engimne damage using REVO??
Like I said,IF the EGT is REALLY "too high" then you would have melted pistons like the plague,and it happens VERY QUICKLY.......not "over time"......4 years ago,before I knew how to tune stand alone,I melted pistons on OE management (Digi-1) let me tell you ,pistons melt INSTANTLY........not "over time".....








BTW,wher are the APR 13 sec. cars?? I see GIAC and REVO tops in the power game.......that is what people want POWER.not "lower EGT's"


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_Well crew,I have to say that I DO know how a turbo works and have have MUCH more experience than you building and tuning turbo cars......one thing you DO NOT understand is that IF the EGT's ae so "dangerous" as you say.....then it would have MELTED your motor already.........it is not a "gradual" thing......a motor will melt in SECONDS.......and MANY people hacve REVO and NOT ONE case of melted pistons OR CATS .........WHERE is you "logic" of "too high" a EGT??
You may be proficient in your line of "business" and you can "log and do Excel" well,but please leave the tuning to the "tuners"....you are making much ado about NOTHING......
WHAT qualifies YOU as someone to make ANY judgement on tuning or "too high" EGT?? Have you actually suffered or KNOW ANYONE that has suffered engimne damage using REVO??
Like I said,IF the EGT is REALLY "too high" then you would have melted pistons like the plague,and it happens VERY QUICKLY.......not "over time"......4 years ago,before I knew how to tune stand alone,I melted pistons on OE management (Digi-1) let me tell you ,pistons melt INSTANTLY........not "over time".....








BTW,wher are the APR 13 sec. cars?? I see GIAC and REVO tops in the power game.......that is what people want POWER.not "lower EGT's"









Think turbo, not the block . . . 
It's pretty simple. The manufacturer of the turbo says X temperature limit, the engine puts out Y temp. If Y exceeds X, then you're running into issues. The fact that the two largest tuning companies can make power while keeping EGTs and the hardware protection map intact speaks volumes. 
FYI, there have been two APR 2.0t cars in the 13"s. 1/4 mile doesn't mean much IMO. A lot of it has to do with the driver. 
Dave


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*

FYI,when you are tuning for power you are alays on the threshold of knock........even when a turbo car is running PERFECTLY and making power it will knock a bit.........but I guess everybody knew this already!


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*

1/4 MILE is the STANDARD on which a cars power output is judged in "real life"...........read a car mag sometimes,you will see it in there.
The APR cars are A4 correct?Not GTI/Jetta.
You can have your "less power and lower EGT" but please quit being a one man alarmist spreading mis-information that may "appear" credible due to you skills at loggong and Excel and your ASSUMPTIONS.
Like I asked earlier,WAS YOUR ENGINE/CAT damaged due to "excessive EGT"???? Like I said,REAL LIFE is MUCH different than "internet mis-information".!!


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_1/4 MILE is the STANDARD on which a cars power output is judged in "real life"...........read a car mag sometimes,you will see it in there.

Actually, dynos are used to judge power output. 1/4 mile is a judge of both driver skill and the car's overall performance.

_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_
The APR cars are A4 correct?Not GTI/Jetta.


I know one of them is a 3600lb A4 . . . yes.

_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_
You can have your "less power and lower EGT" but please quit being a one man alarmist spreading mis-information that may "appear" credible due to you skills at loggong and Excel and your ASSUMPTIONS.
Like I asked earlier,WAS YOUR ENGINE/CAT damaged due to "excessive EGT"???? Like I said,REAL LIFE is MUCH different than "internet mis-information".!! 


It is not mis-information. While I appreciate your enthusiasm in this debate, it is hard to separate the fact that you're a REVO dealer and have a vested interest in disproving my findings.
Dave


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*

Trust me you have NO "findings".............only YOU are saying that the EGT is "too high" compared to WHAT?
As for the "turbo" being damaged.......WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS?
Please show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE of ANY turbos,cats,pistons,heads,valves,etc. being damaged by REVO SW.
I have customers with thousands of miles on REVO with high boost 8-9 on 92 octane pump gas in Hawaii,and NO signsof ANYTHING going wrong,not even a CEL,let alone catastrophic engine damage
You are spreading mis-information by even "pushing" your new "APR agenda"............








IF you had been "done wrong" by REVO and the SW ACTUALLY hurt 
something on your VW,then I can see WHY you would be concerned and have a gripe,but all you have is assumptions and that IS IT.
Yes I am a REVO dealer and proud,especially when I have had 4 APR cars come in here with "internal control module error" and cannot turn off the CEL,I say "should have got REVO!!








Since you are dealing with assumptions and I am dealing with REAL LIFE (satisfied customers,excellent torque AND HP gains,NO issues,NO problems)I feel a need to dispell your accusations and assumptions with no basis of fact.I mean there was a debacle over fuel pressure....did people care?Not really cars still running,no blown motors!This "EGT issue"which is a NON-ISSUE,do people care?NO they will still buy REVO since it is a quality product that does its job well,and GUESS WHAT??? NO BLOWN MOTORS!!!
Oh yeah.........GO REVO!!








In fact people are SO pleased,they come back for IC's,suspension,gauges,exhaust/DP's,brake upgrades.......if ANYTHING REVO has only helped my business grow,and this is due to many satisfied customers........ask anyone on this board from Hawaii and see if they have issues...IM them,whatever,I do not lie.




_Modified by VWAUDITECH at 1:03 AM 10-14-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_Trust me you have NO "findings".............only YOU are saying that the EGT is "too high" compared to WHAT?

Stock, other chip companies, what BW says, heck even what VW says (since they obviously had an EGT protection map for this purpose that REVO sought to disable)

_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_
As for the "turbo" being damaged.......WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS?

Common sense & same reasons that I've stated over and over in this thread. 

_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_
Please show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE of ANY turbos,cats,pistons,heads,valves,etc. being damaged by REVO SW.

Long-term, not short term. It all depends on the amount of time you spend in these full-load conditions. As indicated by the PDF excerpt I posted earlier, BW rates their turbos under the assumption that they will see these conditions 5% of the time. If you run your car harder for a greater duration of time, logically, you would have to worry more about this. If I were to take the car to a track even and run it hard for 4 thirty minute sessions each day, it is very possible that I might see a turbo failure. I'm not willing to take the risk. You can try it out on your own perogative.

_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_
I have customers with thousands of miles on REVO with high boost 8-9 on 92 octane pump gas in Hawaii,and NO signsof ANYTHING going wrong,not even a CEL,let alone catastrophic engine damage
 And I have a friend in town whose K03 failed after 36k total miles and was chipped by REVO fairly early on. What's your point? As I mentioned earlier, it all depends on how often you put your turbo in the conditions that BW advises against.

_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_
You are spreading mis-information by even "pushing" your new "APR agenda"............








IF you had been "done wrong" by REVO and the SW ACTUALLY hurt 
something on your VW,then I can see WHY you would be concerned and have a gripe,but all you have is assumptions and that IS IT.

Not really. I got APR after I ran the logs, and I only considered switching after I ran the logs. APR was substantially closer than GIAC, otherwise I probably would have tried both, ran logs of both and purchased whichever chip I liked better. In addition, several of my friends own APR and have run numerous logs on the software. I liked what I saw . . . is that such a bad thing?

_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_
Yes I am a REVO dealer and proud,especially when I have had 4 APR cars come in here with "internal control module error" and cannot turn off the CEL,I say "should have got REVO!!








Since you are dealing with assumptions and I am dealing with REAL LIFE (satisfied customers,excellent torque AND HP gains,NO issues,NO problems)I feel a need to dispell your accusations and assumptions with no basis of fact.I mean there was a debacle over fuel pressure....did people care?Not really cars still running,no blown motors!This "EGT issue"which is a NON-ISSUE,do people care?NO they will still buy REVO since it is a quality product that does its job well,and GUESS WHAT??? NO BLOWN MOTORS!!!
Oh yeah.........GO REVO!!








In fact people are SO pleased,they come back for IC's,suspension,gauges,exhaust/DP's,brake upgrades.......if ANYTHING REVO has only helped my business grow,and this is due to many satisfied customers........ask anyone on this board from Hawaii and see if they have issues...IM them,whatever,I do not lie.

You may not lie, but you certainly have a bias. With more $$$ invested, the more bias you'll have. 
Fuel pressure certainly is an issue on these motors. Different companies have engineered around this limitation through different ways. REVO just runs it lean, and reduces the lower end power in order to keep rail pressure high. APR & GIAC seem to be using other methods that retain factory safeguards. Bringing up developmental "hiccups" that have been resolved doesn't really support your case. All it shows is greater innovation from the companies that didn't sacrifice safeguards and still retain a strong lower end.
Customer comments are about as credible as the butt-dyno fallacy. Initial impressions are important, but I find long-term evaluations and comparisions between products more credible. 
One last comment: Why is it that all of the REVO representatives haven't shown a single ounce of technical evidence to substantiate their claims? Their comments are either directed towards me, or have little relevance to the actual questions that are being brought up from this thread. Good night.
Dave


----------



## BIGNICKSGTIS420 (Apr 16, 2006)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*

what does APR have to do with revo logs?you cant justify why these revo logs look the way they do, with out bashing APR?


----------



## Scuba2001 (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_And I have a friend in town whose K03 failed after 36k total miles and was chipped by REVO fairly early on. What's your point? As I mentioned earlier, it all depends on how often you put your turbo in the conditions that BW advises against.

Add a friends car to that stat also... Ran 23 lbs consistently. He ran it at the track, huge FMIC, ran it at the track more. Then the power slowly got worse. Eventually at just shy of 30k miles, he blew up his K03 Sport on his '04.5 Jetta GLS 1.8T.

_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_One last comment: Why is it that all of the REVO representatives haven't shown a single ounce of technical evidence to substantiate their claims? Their comments are either directed towards me, or have little relevance to the actual questions that are being brought up from this thread. Good night.
Dave

I think we all know the answer to this very important question. They truely dont have an honest answer to the core question. If the vendor cant supply an answer to the issue, then I would begin to question their product integrity.
Steve


----------



## meanvw (Jan 1, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Actually, I don't think you did your logs right.
Did you do your pull with full load and go WOT @ 2krpms? From your data, it looks as if you drove fairly normally. Ideally, you want to run the car on a slight incline in order to really max out the load on the engine.
I'm seeing a rough average time to get from 2-6800rpms in 12 seconds. The time itself is irrelevant, but given that you're doing what it took me 7 seconds to do (3,2-6,5) in half the time, I don't think you had full load on the vehicle. 
What you're showing is merely a part-load situation which doesn't reflect the true WOT conditions of the engine.
Dave

OK Here are 2 more logs from the bottom of third to the top of 4th on a private road. I logged 005 so you could see engine load and vehicle speed. It's not a "hill" but it is an incline as you suggested.
















I guess I would never expect the car to behave properly going WOT outside of the power band (2k rpm). I cant go WOT in third under 3K without ESP kicking in, or breaking traction when I turn it off. (running all season tires)
I still suspect a bad flash or other mechanical problem with some of the other logs others posted earlier. If you have the 93octane available try the settings I'm running T5/B7/F9. I wouldn't think running too low a setting would have a negative impact on numbers, but I guess it would be worth a try. I always clear codes and reset throttle body right after I change revo setting so I'm startiing with a clean plate.
I ran 30K miles with stage 1 revo and have 3K on now with stage 2 and the downpipe. I've never had many of the other problems (DV tear, boost leak, etc) that people are experiencing either. 



_Modified by meanvw at 10:12 AM 10-14-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (meanvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *meanvw* »_
OK Here are 2 more logs from the bottom of third to the top of 4th on a private road. I logged 005 so you could see engine load and vehicle speed. It's not a "hill" but it is an incline as you suggested.
















I guess I would never expect the car to behave properly going WOT outside of the power band (2k rpm). I cant go WOT in third under 3K without ESP kicking in, or breaking traction when I turn it off. (running all season tires)
I still suspect a bad flash or other mechanical problem with some of the other logs others posted earlier. If you have the 93octane available try the settings I'm running T5/B7/F9. I wouldn't think running too low a setting would have a negative impact on numbers, but I guess it would be worth a try. I always clear codes and reset throttle body right after I change revo setting so I'm startiing with a clean plate.
I ran 30K miles with stage 1 revo and have 3K on now with stage 2 and the downpipe. I've never had many of the other problems (DV tear, boost leak, etc) that people are experiencing either. 

_Modified by meanvw at 10:12 AM 10-14-2006_

Def not a bad flash or mechanical issue. My settings were slightly lower than yours. T5 B6 F9. Looking at your logs, I can tell that at WOT, you'd be seeing the same thing as I did. You're already hitting 6.8CFs in part throttle . . . that is not good. As demonstrated by how quickly your RPMs climb, you're still not putting that much load on the car. 
Dave


----------



## meanvw (Jan 1, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Def not a bad flash or mechanical issue. My settings were slightly lower than yours. T5 B6 F9. Looking at your logs, I can tell that at WOT, you'd be seeing the same thing as I did. You're already hitting 6.8CFs in part throttle . . . that is not good. As demonstrated by how quickly your RPMs climb, you're still not putting that much load on the car. 
Dave

Could you log the same 3 blocks 020,005 and 112 and post it up. The exact same way I did. From 3K to redline in third and fourth on an incline. I did mine on about a 10% grade. It was wide open throttle on my runs. I could log throttle angle if you would like, but I've seriously got no reason to b.s. anyone. I believe the 005 load status has 3 possible readings (idle/part throttle/overrun). There is no WOT or other value that drops to that block. The quick RPM's climb and the load is what it is. I do not have an interior in my car, so possibly that accounts for some of the difference in load, but I'd like to see what yours actually is.



_Modified by meanvw at 10:47 AM 10-14-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (meanvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *meanvw* »_
Could you log the same 3 blocks 020,005 and 112 and post it up. The exact same way I did. From 3K to redline in third and fourth on an incline. I did mine on about a 10% grade. It was wide open throttle on my runs. I could log throttle angle if you would like, but I've seriously got no reason to b.s. anyone. I believe the 005 load status has 3 possible readings (idle/part throttle/overrun). There is no WOT or other value that drops to that block. The quick RPM's climb and the load is what it is. I do not have an interior in my car, so possibly that accounts for some of the difference in load, but I'd like to see what yours actually is.
_Modified by meanvw at 10:47 AM 10-14-2006_

I no longer have REVO. 
I get my load from block 115. IIRC it was in the 433 range? Just by looking at the RPMs and timestamps, you're accelerating too quickly to pull a proper log. Part of it really has to do with you starting the run so high up in the RPM range. Start at 2k and I think you won't have the tire slippage issues.
Dave


----------



## axthomson (Jul 8, 2006)

it looks to me that people are running their cars to lean, thus causeing high egt's, im a power Turbin Engineer. YES, thats right. same as a turbo, but it drives itself. One problem you have with turbine engines is when it start to run to lean egt's go up and **** starts to melt, and you lose power. if your turbo explodes thats something different than high egt's. compressor surge or stall would be more on that lvl. most large turbine engines cant operate for more than a second or so above 950 degrees Celcius after that a hot end inspection is needed to see if any turbine damage has occured.


----------



## meanvw (Jan 1, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
I no longer have REVO. 
I get my load from block 115. IIRC it was in the 433 range? Just by looking at the RPMs and timestamps, you're accelerating too quickly to pull a proper log. Part of it really has to do with you starting the run so high up in the RPM range. Start at 2k and I think you won't have the tire slippage issues.
Dave

Then post up the logs like I asked for whatever you're running now then, (stock or whatever other software). 
I guess I'm not understanding what you're saying, so I'll probably come off pretty sarcastic. First you say it looks like I'm not accerating at full throttle, and now you're saying I'm accerating too quickly. I've figured out how to manage how to not slip the wheels on my car and it's not to hit WOT until I'm in the power band.
I'm sure I could do another set of 3-4 uphill pulls, get the intercooler even more heat soaked and lug the motor way down low to produce some terrible looking logs if I really wanted to, but that's not how I drive my car and no negative indication on Revo. 6.8 on a 4th almost back to back up hill pull with a stock intercooler is ok with me. 
The way I drive (commute and weekend fun) I only need to pull to redline in a couple of gears once or twice and I've either won or lost. After that the car gets time for the intercooler and exhaust to cool down before the next time.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

_Quote, originally posted by *meanvw* »_Then post up the logs like I asked for whatever you're running now then, (stock or whatever other software).


Link in my sig . . . now running APR. I also can't do logs whenever I wish. I don't own a windows laptop.

_Quote, originally posted by *meanvw* »_I guess I'm not understanding what you're saying, so I'll probably come off pretty sarcastic. First you say it looks like I'm not accerating at full throttle, and now you're saying I'm accerating too quickly. I've figured out how to manage how to not slip the wheels on my car and it's not to hit WOT until I'm in the power band.


It's simple. Start your log at 2krpms in 3rd gear . . . . just coast at 2k. Smash the accelerator pedal down and hold 3rd gear all the way to redline. Unfortunate, with DSG it might kick you into 2nd gear. The problem is that you're not putting enough load on the engine to get an accurate reading. I can tell this by looking at the time stamps and your RPMs. 
Dave


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*

To the turbine engineer.......well we can agree if things are "too hot" then stuff would start melting yes?Well we have one guy with 30K on stage 1,and 3K on stage 2,and there isn't any "melting" yet..........I really think taking readings off of a 02 sensor for EGT is erroneous,since the ONLY proper way is to have a ACTUAL EGT probe in the car.
My customers car that has been down the strip 100's of times,maxxes out his Autometer EGT [email protected]+ at the end of a 1/4 mile run........runs mid 11'[email protected]+,and no damage at all,plugs.piston tops look great,car is still running 3 years later.
How about someone remove their turbo or use a boroscope to see if their is any ACTUAL evidence of "damage"








Better yet has ANYONE HERE with REVO sustained ANY damage at all?
As for the "REVO blew my friends K03 in 36K".........that is a moot argument since I have a customer that I had installed a K04,I hooked him up with REVO stage 2,and he said it was not "aggresive" enough,so he went to the GIAC dealer and got their SW.
Well,that SW ran that puny turbo to 24+psi







,8 mos.later,not even 1 year,turbo siezed...........but I am not saying GIAC is at fault....it is the end user that wants to run ridiculous amounts of boost out of a puny hairdryer!
IMO if you want EVERYTHING 100% factory,whether it is gas mileage,AFR,EGT,DV lasting,PCV,ride comfort..........THEN DON'T MOD YOUR CAR!!!


----------



## meanvw (Jan 1, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
It's simple. Start your log at 2krpms in 3rd gear . . . . just coast at 2k. Smash the accelerator pedal down and hold 3rd gear all the way to redline. Unfortunate, with DSG it might kick you into 2nd gear. The problem is that you're not putting enough load on the engine to get an accurate reading. I can tell this by looking at the time stamps and your RPMs. 
Dave

I understood what you were saying from the begining. What I'm saying is why would you falsely inflate the load on a car by driving it in a way that would have no use on the street or track (lugging the motor at 2K) and then be concerned by those logs. I keep the car in the right gear and keep it in the power band and that gives a log with useful information. I dont know how else to say it without sounding rude, but why not do a pull with the handbrake 1/2 way up to increase the load if poor numbers is what you're striving for??
I did run the way you suggested and here are the results.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (meanvw)*


_Quote, originally posted by *meanvw* »_
I understood what you were saying from the begining. What I'm saying is why would you falsely inflate the load on a car by driving it in a way that would have no use on the street or track (lugging the motor at 2K) and then be concerned by those logs. I keep the car in the right gear and keep it in the power band and that gives a log with useful information. I dont know how else to say it without sounding rude, but why not do a pull with the handbrake 1/2 way up to increase the load if poor numbers is what you're striving for??
I did run the way you suggested and here are the results.









I think you're missing the point. We're not testing the performance of the car, we're testing the performance of the engine. Speed itself is irrelevant, and 2k is not lugging the engine. WIthout placing max load on the engine, you're not testing it out at all. This method is also the same way that people do block 120 logs, block 115 logs & etc. Part throttle means nothing. If you don't like the procedure, don't do it, but don't expect your logs to mean much.
Dave


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*

Dude,your logs mean JUST as MUCH as his.............meaning that is what YOUR CAR ran on THAT DAY,just like this is WHAT HIS CAR ran ON THIS DAY.Which proves my point that all this discussion about your logs is absolutley POINTLESS.........there is NO way cars will RUN EXACTLY the SAME in differnt parts of the world!!
COme on,for someone I assume has a modicum of intelligence you are either thick headed or stubborn!!
I do not know what you do for a living,but I do THIS for a living!!!
I run my own shop repairing and tuning VAG vehicles.........I would say I have a lot more credibilty and experience when it comes to the arena of turbo VAG cars. 
It is like someone going to yur workplace and telling you that you are wrong when they really don't understand what they are arguing!


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

Could you guys dial it back?


----------



## axthomson (Jul 8, 2006)

well from my understaning of catalytic converters, dont they heat up even more than the exhaust gases due to how their made? so you would expect after the cat to be hotter, which is the readings everyone is getting. on turbine engines they used to do EGT's but they werent to acurate, to they made TGT turbine gas temp. pretty much temperatures after the first stage GG turbine. so if you want to be acurate and see what really is comming out preturbine, then you would need to put a probe in there. i have yet to have any problems with my stage one revo, i do only run my timming at 4 for safety, but even so, there are people out there who do 5 and 6 and have over 20k miles at that setting and have yet to show any signs of engine and turbine problem. the first sign would be of course lower boost and slower boost speeds/ more turbo lag. and from what i have read on here and golfmkv.com, no one has had any symptoms. but i belive at such high egts you would melt your pistons real fast and there would be a temp jump on the gauge in your car. cause 900 degrees is alot to suck up for a small amount of water. also note that with turbine enines that 75 percent of the air sucked in is used for cooling, not combustion like reciprocating engines. so im sure we would have seen something by now if there really was a problem


----------



## meanvw (Jan 1, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
WIthout placing max load on the engine, you're not testing it out at all. This method is also the same way that people do block 120 logs, block 115 logs & etc. Part throttle means nothing. If you don't like the procedure, don't do it, but don't expect your logs to mean much.
Dave

I am placing the max load on the engine that my car will see the way that I drive it. Why not do your pulls with 4 of your heaviest adult friends in the car with you for additional engine load and accuracy then?? I dont know where you keep getting part throttle, that's just what VAG Com says, I mentioned above what the different possible values are for that field.



_Modified by meanvw at 6:04 PM 10-14-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (axthomson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axthomson* »_well from my understaning of catalytic converters, dont they heat up even more than the exhaust gases due to how their made? so you would expect after the cat to be hotter, which is the readings everyone is getting.

No, the primary O2 sensor is before the precat and the cat. That is where all the temp readings are from. 
Dave


----------



## traviswho (Aug 29, 2006)

*Re: (crew217)*

I have heard several people they had REVO then went APR or something along the lines of switching ECU programs. I did not think this was possible after going one way or the other. I know its possible but I thought you had to get a new ECU. Am I completely wrong here or did you guys go out and buy new ECUs when you changed programs. I did not think you could simply flash over REVO with APR.


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: (traviswho)*


_Quote, originally posted by *traviswho* »_ I did not think you could simply flash over REVO with APR.
 
Yes you can flash over it







Bob.G


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *traviswho* »_I have heard several people they had REVO then went APR or something along the lines of switching ECU programs.

Really?.. I've only hearsd of just a very few people on here.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_
Really?.. I've only hearsd of just a very few people on here.

This guy just made the switch last friday
I also knew of a few people that were going to do it after I posted my APR logs.
Dave


----------



## axthomson (Jul 8, 2006)

just wondering does GIAC or Neuspeed also have DSG specific tunes like APR does??


----------



## petethegreat (Mar 28, 2006)

*Crew ive been following this thread through and through!*

I would like to thank you for your hard work , and information.BUT some of your information is indeed misinformation! I was one of the first to get flashed with the APR program and have fueling problems, so i made the swicth to REVO (thanks to you ), and ive been extremely happy,and my car ran flawlessly. As for power my dynos speak for themselves (242whp 270wtrq). ,And i recomend Revo to my peers they are a great company! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I too though have made the switch back to APR, for simple reason that i want a bigger turbo and Revo does not offer that. For a week now ive been running the APR software stage 2 +. And i can tell you first hand that there fueling issues are not resolved yet







Although i am confident that they will indeed resolve the issue.Keith has shown alot of interest in resolving my fuel issue and i respect him for that ( thank you keith)and i will be patient. The point that i am trying to make is , that instead of spending so much time trying to find reasons to bash another company, and pointing out there flaws, why dont you try working with them to fix the problems and make it better! Every tuning company has there pros and cons , but there all here to make are motors (cars) Faster, stronger , and better for us(and to make money offcourse) so stop slowing down the process , help speed it up. Cause we all love speed! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (petethegreat)*


_Quote, originally posted by *petethegreat* »_I too though have made the switch back to APR, for simple reason that i want a bigger turbo and Revo does not offer that. For a week now ive been running the APR software stage 2 +. And i can tell you first hand that there fueling issues are not resolved yet







Although i am confident that they will indeed resolve the issue.Keith has shown alot of interest in resolving my fuel issue and i respect him for that ( thank you keith)and i will be patient. 

Pete, you know you're leaving a lot out. You're leaving out the fact that your car had tons of codes with REVO that were unresolved, and that your was wasn't running right on REVO either. You clearly have a mechanical/electrical issue with the car, yet you still decided to run BETA programming. Out of 38 beta testers, you are the only one having a problem. You also called me up blaming me for my recommendation on the NGK spark plugs when you left out the fact that your intake manifold flaps are not functioning properly. I personally don't feel that you should have ran the BETA 2+ file given that your car has so many mechanical problems. 

_Quote, originally posted by *petethegreat* »_
The point that i am trying to make is , that instead of spending so much time trying to find reasons to bash another company, and pointing out there flaws, why dont you try working with them to fix the problems and make it better! Every tuning company has there pros and cons , but there all here to make are motors (cars) Faster, stronger , and better for us(and to make money offcourse) so stop slowing down the process , help speed it up. Cause we all love speed! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Actually this is a technical thread about my REVO logs . . . a thread that REVO has chosen not to respond with technical answers. I know about the REVO V3 flash that is coming out soon, and if I felt as if it were going to be any better, then I would have waited a bit more before ditching REVO. However, preliminary hearsay from people running this V3 program have indicated to me that it is not good, and in a few ways worse than the current version 2.
Dave


----------



## petethegreat (Mar 28, 2006)

*And you are leaving alot out aswell!*

My car through alot of codes due to bad gas! hasnt thrown a code since! And please dont try to make it seem like im bashing cause im not! BTW my intake runner flap problem was fixed 15,000 miles ago. and when there was a problem it through codes! But that wasnt my point . The fact of the matter is the reason you posted all of your logs were to bash not to inform!


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: And you are leaving alot out aswell! (petethegreat)*


_Quote, originally posted by *petethegreat* »_My car through alot of codes due to bad gas! hasnt thrown a code since! And please dont try to make it seem like im bashing cause im not! BTW my intake runner flap problem was fixed 15,000 miles ago. and when there was a problem it through codes! But that wasnt my point . The fact of the matter is the reason you posted all of your logs were to bash not to inform!

How are my logs not informative? I followed the exact same procedure for REVO and APR and have posted up both in the same exact way. The two companies showed different results, therefore you can't assume that since one company fared "poorly", that the motives behind the graphs were for the purposes of "bashing"
IIRC, the only person doing bashing in our conversations was you. I am surprised that you went back to APR after what you said over the phone. 
Anyways, back on topic now . . . 
Dave


----------



## petethegreat (Mar 28, 2006)

*the reason why i went back to APR is....*

i called Keith and he told me that i was not the only one in north ameriva with the same problem , and that he would work with me to resolve the problem. Yes indeed i did say to you on the phone that i couldnt stand APR for the simple reason that they gave me the runaround , and they blamed everything else on my car except there software. Keith is now trying to make good of the situation by helping me get my car running rite with there software. The way they should have done from the begining. Yes i am willing to give them the opportunity to. I will be there test dummy if need be for the sake of tuning! I also was once a basher dave , because i was upset that my car was not running and noone from APR was helping the situation. I was upset and i bashed! They are now willing to resolve the problem, so im back!


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: the reason why i went back to APR is.... (petethegreat)*

There is no loyalty in internet tuning!!








Wow Crew,does that make you a "decision maker" when people change SW because of your E"logs"








All you did was make them waste money,when they had a perfect program to begin with!It is like the blind leading the blind!









I already know how guys like you operate....you are ONE E"log" away from going to GIAC!.........then back to REVO.........then back to.......we all know how this goes!










_Modified by VWAUDITECH at 9:51 PM 10-15-2006_


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: the reason why i went back to APR is.... (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_There is no loyalty in internet tuning!!








Wow Crew,does that make you a "decision maker" when people change SW because of your E"logs"








All you did was make them waste money,when they had a perfect program to begin with!It is like the blind leading the blind!








I already know how guys like you operate....you are ONE E"log" away from going to GIAC!.........then back to REVO.........then back to.......we all know how this goes!









_Modified by VWAUDITECH at 9:51 PM 10-15-2006_

uh, actually I have seen the same behaviour from Revo Stage 1 as crew, and I tend to agree that APR and GIAC run "safer" than Revo. I will be checking out the SPS over the course of this week. Something tells me it won't do much without sacrificing power, which in the end is the point. So then why would I stick with Revo?
The problem with coming on here claiming Crew217, or myself, doesn't know what he is talking about is without merit is because he has come up with data to show Revo is taking the engine beyond the safety limits designed into it by VW. All you have been able to do is pass insults and second hand information. I'm sure there are plenty of cars that run with Revo their whole life. However all that has been shown is that Revo (almost despite what fuel grade it's given) will show significantly more knock retard and produce higher estimated exhaust gas temperatures. Revo choses to run with an Air to Fuel ratio near 12:1, a significantly leaner mixture than what GIAC and APR, which approaches 10:1, have used which comes from the stock protection maps.
What would be useful from pro revo people would be helpful advice, insight into your feelings that this behavior is not unsafe, and some cold-hard evidence. Passing insults makes you look follish and helps diminish your case. keep it clean and helpful and I'm sure people will start to listen.


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: the reason why i went back to APR is.... (magilson)*

Quick question,
If -8 timing pull is happening on the 91oct program is there any performance to be gained from running the 93oct program?


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: the reason why i went back to APR is.... (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_Quick question,
If -8 timing pull is happening on the 91oct program is there any performance to be gained from running the 93oct program?

depends, you need to look at your timing angle first, then compare that to your timing pull, and also look at your boost and see if your achieving any more boost. From there you can make a judgement call on whether or not your making more power. If all the timing advance is being pulled then you probably aren't.


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: the reason why i went back to APR is.... (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_depends, you need to look at your timing angle first, then compare that to your timing pull, and also look at your boost and see if your achieving any more boost. From there you can make a judgement call on whether or not your making more power. If all the timing advance is being pulled then you probably aren't.

humm.. ok, I will look at that, and post my finding in my thread. Sounds like I need to go dyno.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: the reason why i went back to APR is.... (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_Quick question,
If -8 timing pull is happening on the 91oct program is there any performance to be gained from running the 93oct program?

The answer is NO if the 93 program was more aggressive with timing (which it should be). Adding timing to a car retarding 8 degrees would be something you would absolutely not want to do under any circumstance. First find the cause of the knock. cheers! mike


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: the reason why i went back to APR is.... (bhvrdr)*

I'm still waiting to get "owned" by PD and have him explain himself to the questions I've asked earlier. The silence really kinda makes that whole, (paraprhazed) 'the knock sensors tell the computer to pull timing before there is knock' debate :}


----------



## csih (Aug 27, 2006)

My settings on Revo Stage II are T5 B9 F9 and i logged CF and tha maximum value i've seen is 3. on T3 is 0. Also i'm running decat..


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (csih)*


_Quote, originally posted by *csih* »_My settings on Revo Stage II are T5 B9 F9 and i logged CF and tha maximum value i've seen is 3. on T3 is 0. Also i'm running decat..

Any reason why you're running B9? I'd be interested in seeing what your block 115 looks like. 
Dave


----------



## csih (Aug 27, 2006)

after i removed the cat. converter from the car i played around boost settings and liked better b9 setting. For your information actual vs specified boost are very close.


----------



## csih (Aug 27, 2006)

Regarding APR i think its one of the major VW tuners around but they didnt support me when i actually needed them. Beside telling me that my car was the problem and their software was fine they didnt do anything. After a while they admitted they have fueling problems.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (csih)*


_Quote, originally posted by *csih* »_Regarding APR i think its one of the major VW tuners around but they didnt support me when i actually needed them. Beside telling me that my car was the problem and their software was fine they didnt do anything. After a while they admitted they have fueling problems.

I hear ya. I was one of their biggest critics earlier on. However, I feel that they have released a very good product with their latest revisions, and that I am able to get a very high level of customer service from them. Sorry to hear that your previous experience with them wasn't very good.
Dave


----------



## axthomson (Jul 8, 2006)

csih are you running stg 1 or 2? and what are your EGT's at? if anyone is going to have high egt's it would be you so i would like know what your at


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (csih)*


_Quote, originally posted by *csih* »_after i removed the cat. converter from the car i played around boost settings and liked better b9 setting. For your information actual vs specified boost are very close.

Really? What psi are you peaking at?, and what does is hold through the rev's?
If I can get my timing pull taken care of, I will try it for myself.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_
Really? What psi are you peaking at?, and what does is hold through the rev's?
If I can get my timing pull taken care of, I will try it for myself.

I think your going to find you need to adjust both at the same time to find the sweet spot.


----------



## csih (Aug 27, 2006)

i'm peaking at 1.8bar and holding 1.2bar up to 5.5k and ~0.9 til rev limit


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (csih)*

Did a few runs tonight with the following specs:
'06 GTI
Revo Stage 1 V2 with settings T2B6F0
Evo MS V-Flow Intake
55 deg. F. outside temperatures
Edit: running on BP 93 octane (non-ethenol) gasoline








































Beginning to look a little bit like another tuners results (not sure about timing angle though. crew217, got any logs of overall timing angle yet?). Will try others later. Enjoy.


_Modified by magilson at 8:20 PM 10-16-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_Did a few runs tonight with the following specs:
'06 GTI
Revo Stage 1 V2 with settings T2B6F0
Evo MS V-Flow Intake
55 deg. F. outside temperatures

Beginning to look a little bit like another tuners results (not sure about timing angle though. crew217, got any logs of overall timing angle yet?). Will try others later. Enjoy.

How's the driveability / power? Any better/worse than before? 
I probably won't be doing anymore logs for awhile. The roads i usually use for testing are getting infested with deer, and I also think the snows might be going on sometime soon.
Dave


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_How's the driveability / power? Any better/worse than before? 
I probably won't be doing anymore logs for awhile. The roads i usually use for testing are getting infested with deer, and I also think the snows might be going on sometime soon.
Dave

No worries, I was just wondering what the timing looked like on APR vs Revo at my settings. I just picked these setting from what I felt would improve the numbers to a little bit safer area. I'll play some more later.
driveability/power. To be honest it feels like it lost a little bit of top end. Only a tad though. That makes sense when you look at the a/f ratio up top. Like I said, I think i'd learn a lot more if I could see other timing angles, and I wish I had taken them down on the 91 octane program. For what it's worth, I can still break traction just like I could before. I hate speculating using the "butt-dyno" but in my opinion these are settings that other tuners should consider because there is no appreciable feeling that i've really lost any power on these settings (even though tuning logic says I have).
I still feel like the cat temps are high considering that my a/f is now close to factory again and I am not pulling all that much timing. The timing I do pull seems uniform so I think it is the fuel causing the knock, not the infamous better flow of certain cylinders causing it to lean out. I bought 93 octane in some small town that I was camping in last weekend, so maybe the gas was a little dirty or had lost some of it's octane-iness from age. It was still BP though 
I'd like to play around with boost a little more to learn what affect it has as well. Maybe decreasing boost and increasing timing will yeild better power results while staying "safe".


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_Did a few runs tonight with the following specs:
'06 GTI
Revo Stage 1 V2 with settings T2B6F0
Evo MS V-Flow Intake
55 deg. F. outside temperatures
Edit: running on BP 93 octane (non-ethenol) gasoline








Beginning to look a little bit like another tuners results (not sure about timing angle though. crew217, got any logs of overall timing angle yet?). Will try others later. Enjoy.

_Modified by magilson at 8:20 PM 10-16-2006_

Why did you set the fuel to Zero? I thought we were shooting for somthing like 12:1


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_Why did you set the fuel to Zero? I thought we were shooting for somthing like 12:1 

If you are shooting for 12:1, then there is no need to change Revo's Fuel setting of 9. It already achieves 12:1 at WOT all the way to redline as you can see from other's graphs.
12:1 is a little lean when trying to maintain a lower EGT. The extra fuel helps cool combustion temps as well as makes sure you aren't knocking due to lean conditions.
All I'm doing right now is trying to emulate the results of other companies using the Revo SPS Plus. I am not able to dyno any of the results, and I'm not going to try to speculate on lost power as much as possible (unless it's really obvious). All I want to do is give others, and myself, some clear options and data.


_Modified by magilson at 9:06 PM 10-16-2006_


----------



## Kev06A3 (Oct 26, 2005)

Ever since this thread came about I've been trying oput more conservative fuel settings. I had been getting some mild knock on hot days with the standard Revo 91 settings and the engine power in general was not real consistent. One day power would be fine, next day it'd be flat. This comment applies to both standard 91octane B6 T3 F9 and upped-timing B6 T4 F9 settings. I only have 91 octane available here in PHX. Things I've noticed:
- B6 T4 F0 completely corrected the mild knock and gave consistent power over days unlike before
- B6 T5 F0 again gives consistent results but with better power up top (obviously, more timing). I have not come across power delivery incosistencies yet after ~5 days' driving. This is with 91 octane so obviously is pretty aggressive timing-wise.
- B6 T5 F5 generally is more consistent than F9 but I still detected more knock and less consistent power delivery.
I have not had a chance to try B6 T4 F5 yet and honestly probably won't due to being pretty satisfied with the F0 performance right now. 
I wish I contribute more to this thread because I think there's merit in this discussion. Unfortunately, I don't have VAGCOM nor access so I can't pull #s which would lend at least some credibility to my, I admit, rather worthless "feel" tuning. Nonetheless, I wanted to point out that fuel settings between stock 0 and max 9 appear to be valid fuel maps. If someone with VAGCOM and Select Plus switch wants to validate some of these results and take it further, that would be sweet.


_Modified by Kev06A3 at 1:48 AM 10-17-2006_


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (Kev06A3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Kev06A3* »_Ever since this thread came about I've been trying oput more conservative fuel settings. I had been getting some mild knock on hot days with the standard Revo 91 settings and the engine power in general was not real consistent. One day power would be fine, next day it'd be flat. This comment applies to both standard 91octane B6 T3 F9 and upped-timing B6 T4 F9 settings. I only have 91 octane available here in PHX. Things I've noticed:
- B6 T4 F0 completely corrected the mild knock and gave consistent power over days unlike before
- B6 T5 F0 again gives consistent results but with better power up top (obviously, more timing). I have not come across power delivery incosistencies yet after ~5 days' driving. This is with 91 octane so obviously is pretty aggressive timing-wise.
- B6 T5 F5 generally is more consistent than F9 but I still detected more knock and less consistent power delivery.
I have not had a chance to try B6 T4 F5 yet and honestly probably won't due to being pretty satisfied with the F0 performance right now. 
I wish I contribute more to this thread because I think there's merit in this discussion. Unfortunately, I don't have VAGCOM nor access so I can't pull #s which would lend at least some credibility to my, I admit, rather worthless "feel" tuning. Nonetheless, I wanted to point out that fuel settings between stock 0 and max 9 appear to be valid fuel maps. If someone with VAGCOM and Select Plus switch wants to validate some of these results and take it further, that would be sweet.

_Modified by Kev06A3 at 1:48 AM 10-17-2006_

allright, my curiosity has been peaked. I'll have to try an "in-between-er" fuel setting at some point...
George, feel free to chime in and save me some time if it won't do anything, or anyone else for that matter. My interpretation of the online tuning manual for Revo says to me that I get a choice of 0 or 9, not 0 through 9. But I will have to try it out....


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *t62* »_OK ok ok ...
PD you need to be very clear about what your stating here regarding knock... I don't want you spreading misinformation to people so I need clarification.
So according to you, the CF are NOT nessicarily just a result from readings from knock sensors. Is this correct?
Secondly, If that is the case, why are people logging CF's when they don't even matter when determining knock. If they are software and knock based. Why aren't people logging the voltage data from the Knock sensors?
Because if the CF are indeed mostly based off knock sensors ( which I believe they are ) you are 100% in love with foot in mouth syndrom.
You even stated yourself that knock sensors are RE-Active. Sir, they don't work unless they detect slight to major amounts of knock. Period, unless you have metal hitting metal somewhere else. Don't tell people that it will read from the knock sensor, and then CORRECT IT BEFORE there is knock. That is wrong, and your spreading misinformation.
Now again. If that is not the case, see question #1 and explain pretty please. 


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
For the record, I dont see 6 degrees of retard as eminently dangerous at all. But to chime in on your question...
You are correct. Knock correction or timing retard is part of what is called the IKC or ignition knock control system on the Bosch ME computers. The knock correction is indeed based on one single parameter, knock that is picked up by the knock sensors. Knock voltages are meaningless for us to interpret using our level of diagnostic tools since voltages of 25 or even 30 can be seen as the norm for cars that have race mounts in them or are very noisy cars but they wont pull a single degree of timing BECUASE no knock is detected. The 25 voltage is simply background noise. Thats how they work. They week out the instantaneous spikes from the background noise and read that as knock. Then the knock control retards timing. Now, ignition angle on the other hand relies on a multitude of simple and complex 3d maps, but no the knock control. When the computer senses knock, it pulls pack timing. It then CONTINUES to pull back timing UNTIL it no longer senses knock occuring. Interestingly you can actually make much less power overtiming a car. This is because the BTDC tables take into account the knock control channel and when it sees you have overtimed a car it will adjust back timing and attempt to protect hardware assuming you have not disables these protections as well. 
BTW, i'm not sure what people are so worked up about. 6 degrees is aggressive but if you havent noticed GIAC retards upwards of 8-12 degrees due to knock on their cars and no one has ever seemed concerned about it in the least?
cheers! Mike


Mikes reply was no different then what I was saying.
What he left out was that the car is capable of pulling knock before it becomes dangerous knock which is what I said.
It is still using "knock" as the means to determine whether to pull timing or not. But knock comes in varying degrees and that is all that I meant about it being able to pull timing before damaging knock occurs.

Edit:
I attempted to do some logs last wednesday evening but it was pouring rain and I couldn't keep the wheels from spinning in third gear even in stock mode.
Thursday I was contacted by one of the REVO engineers who happened to be in the area and he borrowed my car for a few days to do some testing and play with the software a little, they had done some hot climate testing the week before and wanted to do some cold weather testing. Since my code is now no longer exactly what is currently being distributed I can't offer to post any valid logs.
I will say the car is still running fuel 9 (as well as boost 9 and timing I think 5) with no problems. Fuel 9 is still running in the 12:1 AF range, nothign was changed there.


_Modified by PD Performance at 6:33 AM 10-17-2006_


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_

George, feel free to chime in and save me some time if it won't do anything, or anyone else for that matter. My interpretation of the online tuning manual for Revo says to me that I get a choice of 0 or 9, not 0 through 9. But I will have to try it out....

It is 0 through 9. 0 being a stock like fuel curve, 9 being a leaner fuel curve. With varying maps between.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
It is 0 through 9. 0 being a stock like fuel curve, 9 being a leaner fuel curve. With varying maps between.

rock, testing will commence.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
rock, testing will commence.


cool keep us posted.
I may bail out of my one job early today to go put myEGT probe in and the rest of my datalogging stuff.


----------



## RyanA3 (May 11, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_cool keep us posted.
I may bail out of my one job early today to go put myEGT probe in and the rest of my datalogging stuff.

it's going to be raining all day. good luck.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (RyanA3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *RyanA3* »_
it's going to be raining all day. good luck.

Its barely drizzling here right now. I am more concerned with finally getting the stuff installed then actually doing the logging today.


----------



## steppenwolff (Mar 24, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*

So what's the verdict? I've spoken with some guy at Revo in CA and they even said they do run leaner than the other companies. I don't know about a/f ratios, but I do know lean conditions are not good. So what's the bottom line, is REVO more "dangerous" for the 2.0t's or no more than any other chip company because of whatever a/f ratios are? I want to get REVO, but I've held back after all the negative comments. After all, how can a company knowingly sell a product which they know can cause internal engine damage to their customer's cars. Right?


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (steppenwolff)*


_Quote, originally posted by *steppenwolff* »_So what's the verdict? I've spoken with some guy at Revo in CA and they even said they do run leaner than the other companies. I don't know about a/f ratios, but I do know lean conditions are not good. So what's the bottom line, is REVO more "dangerous" for the 2.0t's or no more than any other chip company because of whatever a/f ratios are? I want to get REVO, but I've held back after all the negative comments. After all, how can a company knowingly sell a product which they know can cause internal engine damage to their customer's cars. Right?









Truthfully, any modifications to the ECU of this car could cause issues. As a Revo owner I can only say that it might be worth your time to decide what exactly it is you want out of your car. Once you know that (saftey or power or both or niether or whatever) then you can work with your REVO dealer to tune your car properly.
Since I don't want to start a fight maybe i'll just include a summary:
Revo's recommended files set up an a/f ratio of 12:1 at wide open throttle all the way to redline. Revo chipped cars have for the most part seen more knock retard than other chip companies, they are around -5 to -9 on average. Revo chipped cars also see higher projected exhaust gas temperatures than other companies.
With a good Revo distributor you should be able to tune your car exactly the way you want. So the moral of my story? Chose the chip based on your local support, based on which dealer you trust and which one will work with you. This advice is true no matter which chip you go with.
At this point I am sticking with Revo to finish all the testing I want, if I am not satisfied with the kind of results I am getting, then I'll switch. Until then I'm testing and sharing.
To answer your final question specifically, I think you can see by posts in this thread there are differing opinions on that. Quite a few people have posted that they feel these characteristics are not dangerous, that the ECU, motor, turbo, etc. can handle it.
All you will get from us are biased opinions. So before you get them from us, be sure you know exactly what you want from your car or we'll all just be leading you around.


----------



## prom king (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*

I'm really dissapointed with my revo software. Everytime I hook it to an SPS system, it says my timing is 0.. Nundrea can vouch for this because he's changed my settings at show and go..
I've had my settings even adjusted by Geogre at waterfest, he saw my timing was set to zero... Changed it to 5, then a few months later, 1 dealer visit for a seized brake caliper... and my settings were back at zero...
He wants me to bring my car to a dealer, but I don't have time yet to drive 2 hours to get it looked at.... I'm dissapointed and I wish I could just get a refund... I've never thrown a CEL, but I was always dissapointed about how linear the curve was, because it was basically stock + a little more boost... 
I want GIAC or APR


----------



## placenta (Jun 3, 2003)

*Re: (97jazzgti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *97jazzgti* »_ but I was always dissapointed about how linear the curve was, because it was basically stock + a little more boost... 
I want GIAC or APR









dood. that aint Revo. Thats 2.0T. All the chips are pretty linear.


----------



## Kev06A3 (Oct 26, 2005)

*Re: (97jazzgti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *97jazzgti* »_Everytime I hook it to an SPS system, it says my timing is 0...
...I've had my settings even adjusted by Geogre at waterfest, he saw my timing was set to zero... Changed it to 5, then a few months later, 1 dealer visit for a seized brake caliper... and my settings were back at zero...


Dood, there is something wrong with your flash or the way the changes are being made via SPS. That simply should not happen. The Revo settings are not changeable by the ECU, only manually via SPS unit. I would take the car back to the Revo dealer who did the flash and have them FIX the issue before you go spending money on another program. The default Revo settings should be B6 T3 F9 for 91octane or B6 T5 F9 for 93octane. Make sure the dealer personally shows you these settings after the changes are made.
This just goes to show how important having a good installer is, IMHO far more important than what brand program you get. The same botched install could happen on an APR or GIAC flash also.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (97jazzgti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *97jazzgti* »_I'm really dissapointed with my revo software. Everytime I hook it to an SPS system, it says my timing is 0.. Nundrea can vouch for this because he's changed my settings at show and go..
I've had my settings even adjusted by Geogre at waterfest, he saw my timing was set to zero... Changed it to 5, then a few months later, 1 dealer visit for a seized brake caliper... and my settings were back at zero...
He wants me to bring my car to a dealer, but I don't have time yet to drive 2 hours to get it looked at.... I'm dissapointed and I wish I could just get a refund... I've never thrown a CEL, but I was always dissapointed about how linear the curve was, because it was basically stock + a little more boost... 
I want GIAC or APR









One thing you should check out . . . . is whether or not the knob on your SPS unit is set correctly. The knob is removeable and there's an internal knob down low with markings and an arrow. My SPS was sent to me with the arrows not matching up which resulted in me running in stock mode for a little under a month, thinking something was wrong with my car.
Dave


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (steppenwolff)*


_Quote, originally posted by *steppenwolff* »_So what's the verdict? I've spoken with some guy at Revo in CA and they even said they do run leaner than the other companies. I don't know about a/f ratios, but I do know lean conditions are not good. So what's the bottom line, is REVO more "dangerous" for the 2.0t's or no more than any other chip company because of whatever a/f ratios are? I want to get REVO, but I've held back after all the negative comments. After all, how can a company knowingly sell a product which they know can cause internal engine damage to their customer's cars. Right?









Its not causing internal engine damage, so no one is knowing selling anything that does so. If you would like the maps to be run richer like other companies you have the option to do so. All of the dealers can setup the car however you would like.


----------



## prom king (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*

The SPS unit was on the computer, the computer program where you can select it, not do it by the knob, it was the plus unit. Where the computer tells you the settings. My boost is at 7 timing 0 and fuel 9.
I'm just sick of this.. My friends giac, is faster and I love it. I'm just really dissapointed, and hopefully I can get this fixed or I'm just going to switch to APR or GIAC.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
Revo's recommended files set up an a/f ratio of 12:1 at wide open throttle all the way to redline. Revo chipped cars have for the most part seen more knock retard than other chip companies, they are around -5 to -9 on average. Revo chipped cars also see higher projected exhaust gas temperatures than other companies.



you cannot comment on retard without knowing total timing. If you request more you can have more pull. If you request less you will pull less.. both with average out to roughly the same timing given all other conditions the same.
I see no real difference in the amount of pull between fuel 0 and fuel 9. My current settings are boost 9, timing I think 5 and fuel 9 and I see no more then 3.8 degrees pull (if I picture my last set of logs on my old file correctly)
As for the exhaust gas temp, there is a log on this forum right now from another tuner which is in the same range as those posted by revo customers recently.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (97jazzgti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *97jazzgti* »_I'm really dissapointed with my revo software. Everytime I hook it to an SPS system, it says my timing is 0.. Nundrea can vouch for this because he's changed my settings at show and go..
I've had my settings even adjusted by Geogre at waterfest, he saw my timing was set to zero... Changed it to 5, then a few months later, 1 dealer visit for a seized brake caliper... and my settings were back at zero...
He wants me to bring my car to a dealer, but I don't have time yet to drive 2 hours to get it looked at.... I'm dissapointed and I wish I could just get a refund... I've never thrown a CEL, but I was always dissapointed about how linear the curve was, because it was basically stock + a little more boost... 
I want GIAC or APR










Do you have an SPS plus or select? how are you checking your settings? The software cannot just switch its settings, I hav never seen that ever. The only time I have seen a problem with settings going back to zero was with a defective SPS 1 on a 1.8t. Where it was not resetting properly after going back to stock. I could do it over and over again without problems with my dealer cable and software but once I plugged in the SPS 1 it would work once, the second time would go to 0. 
No point in spending 500 bucks on new software when it could be a simple hardware fix which would be covered.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (97jazzgti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *97jazzgti* »_The SPS unit was on the computer, the computer program where you can select it, not do it by the knob, it was the plus unit. Where the computer tells you the settings. My boost is at 7 timing 0 and fuel 9.
I'm just sick of this.. My friends giac, is faster and I love it. I'm just really dissapointed, and hopefully I can get this fixed or I'm just going to switch to APR or GIAC.


Do you switch it to other settings then let it be for a month check it again and randomly its back to 0? This makes no sense as its not possible to just happen. Are you changing the settings one at a time and then saving them? If you don't save between each adjustment it wont' save.
I have not worked directly with the new consumer SPS software only our dealer version which you have to save between each timing boost or fuel change.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_Its not causing internal engine damage, so no one is knowing selling anything that does so.

ignorance is not bliss, no matter how rich it makes you.


----------



## prom king (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: (PD Performance)*

I have never adjusted my settings myself...as i do not own the sps software...
The first time I notiiced this problem, I contacted Geogre at waterfest to check out my program... which he did and notiched my timing was at 0... He changed it to 5. I'm sure he knows how to use SPS
Then at this past show and go, my settings were checked by Nunendra, and he noticed my timing was back at 0.. So obviously there is something wrong with my program... This week I am bringing my car to JVR on Long Island a brand new Revo dealer... and I think he is going to try and reflash my ECU... But since Dynamic Motorworks chipped me at SHow and go... I don't think he can do much... They wanted nothing to do with me, when I first presented my problems at Waterfest. That's why Geogre checked out my car personally. 
I just don't think I should have to make constant trips, and babysit my program to make sure it's operating... It sucks... Espically after I say to my friend who bought a mk5.. go revo no problems... he laughs and says no and goes giac.... runs faster then me, and has zero problems.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_you cannot comment on retard without knowing total timing. If you request more you can have more pull. If you request less you will pull less.. both with average out to roughly the same timing given all other conditions the same.

That's just fine and dandy, but the point is you are pulling timing. And despite the magic which you think this ECU can perform, it is coming from real knock, which is not good.
Ask yourself this: If I could, would I eliminate all knock from a motor, or leave a little because it's fine. That will tell you your philosophy about tuning and knock, end argument.

_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_I see no real difference in the amount of pull between fuel 0 and fuel 9. My current settings are boost 9, timing I think 5 and fuel 9 and I see no more then 3.8 degrees pull (if I picture my last set of logs on my old file correctly)

What boost are you seeing at setting 9? What are your intake temps? What grade fuel do you use. Show us some logs to prove your not insane for asking a K03 for that much boost.

_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_As for the exhaust gas temp, there is a log on this forum right now from another tuner which is in the same range as those posted by revo customers recently.

That's great, and your point? If we judge a tuner company by it's flukes, none of them would ever have customers. Your wallet is showing.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
ignorance is not bliss, no matter how rich it makes you.

What internal damage is occuring? what signs of any damage has anyone posted on these forums?
Its not ignorance if its not occuring.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (97jazzgti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *97jazzgti* »_
I'm just sick of this.. My friends giac, is faster and I love it. I'm just really dissapointed, and hopefully I can get this fixed or I'm just going to switch to APR or GIAC.

I hear ya . . . . I tried multiple settings and in the end, APR was just much better than REVO in ways that adjusting the SPS would never compensate for. Although you can tweak numbers and values with SPS, it really doesn't do much for driveability. I'd base your next decision on trying out both APR and GIAC before you buy. 
Dave


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_What internal damage is occuring? what signs of any damage has anyone posted on these forums?
Its not ignorance if its not occuring.

EXACTLY. You are asking for evidence. Evidence which NO ONE HAS. LONG TERM EVIDENCE is something some people may be interested it. AGAIN, ignorance is not bliss.
I have never claimed to know any signs of damage, but I am not ignorant enough to claim it will not claim damage. Admit the truth that you do not know what long term affects it will have. Just as APR and GIAC do not know the long term affects their tuning will have.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
That's just fine and dandy, but the point is you are pulling timing. And despite the magic which you think this ECU can perform, it is coming from real knock, which is not good.


go to the dealer lot and test drive a car. It WILL pull timing its a simple fact its what the car does.

_Quote »_
Ask yourself this: If I could, would I eliminate all knock from a motor, or leave a little because it's fine. That will tell you your philosophy about tuning and knock, end argument.

there is not ONE chip tuner on these forums that tunes for no timing pull at all.
You need to start thinking of timing pull as a slight adjustment by the ECM not as preventing a catastrophic event.
Again an exmaple I brought up earlier. People have taken cars pushed to the limits of chp tuning and swapped to stand alone and have been able to make MORE power since htey were simply able to add more timing. If you can make power by adding timing you are not near the knock limit since it will plateau in power well before it starts to have real knock. Just becuase an increase in knock activity is detected doesnot mean its causing engine damage or even close to. ACtual knock does not have to occur like you are thinking of in the sense of eating piston tops or whatever else you think is happening. If the ECM thinks it may happen due to an increase in activity of the knock sensor it will pull the timing WELL BEFORE it will actually cause damage.


_Quote »_
What boost are you seeing at setting 9? What are your intake temps? What grade fuel do you use. Show us some logs to prove your not insane for asking a K03 for that much boost.

I have some logs from when I put my ATP intake in.. settings are on this from what it looks like in my log notes boost 8, timing 6 fuel 9. Exhaust is a full 3" turbo back with a 300 cell metal cat.
and never said I wasn't insane for pushing the boost.. but you are all scared that the exhaust temps are gonna cause problems.. well I've been running it pretty much full tilt for the last 15k without a single problem.. still on the stock DV (30K total)
car has been on 93 octane since day 1
sorry I can't geton my FTP from my laptop right now so here is the raw data
rpm/temp/request/actual
2640	35	1280	1220
2680	35	2170	1220
2760	35	2380	1440
2800	35	2370	1700
2880	36	2430	1950
3000	36	2450	2170
3080	36	2510	2290
3160	36	2500	2360
3280	36	2480	2400
3360	36	2480	2420
3440	36	2470	2430
3560	36	2460	2420
3640	36	2460	2410
3760	36	2450	2420
3840	36	2450	2400
3960	36	2450	2380
4040	36	2440	2370
4120	36	2430	2350
4240	37	2420	2330
4320	37	2410	2320
4400	37	2400	2300
4480	38	2390	2260
4560	38	2370	2260
4640	38	2350	2220
4720	38	2330	2180
4800	38	2300	2140
4880	39	2280	2130
4960	39	2250	2100
5040	39	2230	2080
5160	39	2210	2070
5160	39	2190	2060
5280	39	2170	2040
5440	39	2160	2040
5400	39	2140	2040
5480	40	2130	2030
5560	40	2110	2000
5600	40	2090	1980
5680	41	2080	1970
5760	41	2060	1970
5800	41	2040	1940
5880	42	2030	1930
5960	42	2000	1920
6000	42	1990	1900
6080	42	1990	1870
6120	42	1980	1880
6200	43	1960	1860
6240	43	1950	1850
6280	43	1950	1830
6360	44	1940	1820
6400	44	1930	1800
6440	44	1920	1800
6520	44	1910	1780
6560	45	1900	1770
6640	45	1890	1770
6640	45	1870	1760
6720	45	1870	1760
6760	45	1670	1750
6800	45	1850	1750
6840	45	1560	1740


_Quote »_
That's great, and your point? If we judge a tuner company by it's flukes, none of them would ever have customers. Your wallet is showing.

facts are facts.. what does this have to do with anyones wallet. People are posting that running 12:1 AF is causing the high EGTs.. yet someone posts a log from a company running 10:1 and its got the same EGTs... can't really aruge that. Its also the only log I have seen from a transverse 2.0t application from that company. The original logs in thise thread were taken as fact not flukebefore others were posted, so why can't those?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
facts are facts.. what does this have to do with anyones wallet. People are posting that running 12:1 AF is causing the high EGTs.. yet someone posts a log from a company running 10:1 and its got the same EGTs... can't really aruge that. *Its also the only log I have seen from a transverse 2.0t application from that company.* The original logs in thise thread were taken as fact not flukebefore others were posted, so why can't those?









http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2875224
BTW chris, if you haven't noticed, other people doing logs on their REVO have shown the same thing as I have . . . only that they've been running less timing than I originally did. Jim / Bassbiker was running T4, whereas Matt/magilson was running 3, both on 93. I was running 5. Of course you can expect their EGTs to be slightly lower than mine. Also, Jim didn't do repeated runs, whereas I did the same 5 repeated runs for APR and REVO. Not sure what Matt's experimental procedure was, but as long as he kept it consistent, his testing is perfectly comparable to previous testing he's shown. Sorry, I think it's hilarious that you opt to discredit others testing when you have shown nothing on your behalf.
Dave



_Modified by crew217 at 7:03 PM 10-17-2006_


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
EXACTLY. You are asking for evidence. Evidence which NO ONE HAS. LONG TERM EVIDENCE is something some people may be interested it. AGAIN, ignorance is not bliss.
I have never claimed to know any signs of damage, but I am not ignorant enough to claim it will not claim damage. Admit the truth that you do not know what long term affects it will have. Just as APR and GIAC do not know the long term affects their tuning will have.


It doesn't make me ignorant to say what I am saying. I am speaking from experience. just becuase these engines are new doesn't mean its a new process.. Detonation still occurs from the same things and causes the same problems. The simple fact that we have direct injection REDUCES the chances of damaging knock over standard manifold injection. I have disambled MANY 1.8ts that were pushed to hte points of rods exploding and still not a single sign of any damage to the pistons or any other parts.

You guys are really dumbing down our factory ECMs.
Timing retard comes from knock activity.. It does not have to come from knock that will cause damage... IT is really that simple, end of story.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_








http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2875224


As I stated only one I had seen. I had not seen your logs, glad you finally got them up.. 


_Quote »_
BTW chris, if you haven't noticed, other people doing logs on their REVO have shown the same thing as I have . . . only that they've been running less timing than I originally did. Jim / Bassbiker was running T4, whereas Matt/magilson was running 3, both on 93. I was running 5. Of course you can expect their EGTs to be slightly lower than mine. Also, Jim didn't do repeated runs, whereas I did the same 5 repeated runs for APR and REVO. Not sure what Matt's experimental procedure was, but as long as he kept it consistent, his testing is perfectly comparable to previous testing he's shown. Sorry, I think it's hilarious that you opt to discredit others testing when you have shown nothing on your behalf.


Less total timing means higher EGTs.. so no those running less advance very well could see higher EGTs not lower EGTs.

Having timing closer to TDC.. meaning less total timing, you are starting your ignition of the A/F mixture later. Given all other conditions the same the flame will burn later in the cycle which will result in higher EGTs.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_It doesn't make me ignorant to say what I am saying. I am speaking from experience. just becuase these engines are new doesn't mean its a new process.. Detonation still occurs from the same things and causes the same problems. The simple fact that we have direct injection REDUCES the chances of damaging knock over standard manifold injection. I have disambled MANY 1.8ts that were pushed to hte points of rods exploding and still not a single sign of any damage to the pistons or any other parts.

You guys are really dumbing down our factory ECMs.
Timing retard comes from knock activity.. It does not have to come from knock that will cause damage... IT is really that simple, end of story.

Let me ask you this then: If a car were to run higher CF's is it running more or less risk of damage than it's lower CF counterpart? Careful here...


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
Let me ask you this then: If a car were to run higher CF's is it running more or less risk of damage than it's lower CF counterpart? Careful here...

From my experience no extra risk.
I just for kicks and went to check the repair manual for a 1.8t. don't have any 2.0T stuff here, and most of its is not published since guided fault finding is required to be used. But the specifid values for the knock value is .75 to 12. with a note saying 0 is expected at idle. Now the specified values mean what youshould see in this field. If you see other readings then there may be a problem. 
Try this example, I will try my best.
You have a pillow and a hammer and someone is swinging them at your head.

Swing strength is a load condition

The pillow swung lightly you barely feel. Once it is swung harder you feel it but it does not hurt. However you take note that you felt it more then before so you request the person to not swing it any harder. But the program for the swinger says to swing it harder so it needs to detune its next swing. If it kept going and did not pull it really wouldn't hurt but it would be annoying.
Now with the hammer even a light swing you feel. So you know if it gets harder you will probably be hurt. So you tell it to go even lighter then the light swing.. the program would have to detune a little more then that of the swing with the pillow to match. If it kept going then it would definitly hurt.
So the break down.
The knock sensors are the face picking up the feeling. they are not on or off they are variable and can tell how it felt. The swing is the load value. The ECM compares the feeling with the type of swing and makes its adjustments from that.
A car with less initial advance is the pillow. A car with more initial advance is the hammer. Because the knock sensors are so sensitive and the ecm is so smart it never allows it to get annoying let alone hurt.
The way knocks is being thought about in this thread is like the pillow with a light swing or the hammer at full swing.. When the fact is there are infinite combinations in between and it barely ever sees a small portion of them.


----------



## prom king (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: (PD Performance)*








= me


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_One thing you should check out . . . . is whether or not the knob on your SPS unit is set correctly. The knob is removeable and there's an internal knob down low with markings and an arrow. My SPS was sent to me with the arrows not matching up which resulted in me running in stock mode for a little under a month, thinking something was wrong with my car.
Dave


hahahaha, that happend to you too?


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*

WHY are some running timing 5 on 92 octane??I always run timing 2-3 for piss-water 92.
Some of you are still not looking at the big picture.........10.1 compressiuon+small turbo+92 octane+high boost= low timing or knock correction.......Chris is right,the ECU is faster than you guys can imagine,we are talking millisecond correction times here,yet some think it is "hurting your motor".








How about the guys with 20-30K is that not "long-term"?
If you guys REALLY knew what it is you are trying to argue,then you would realise there is NO argument since,I have said this before........
ENGINES WILL BLOW VERY QUICKLY IN THE PRESENCE OF DETONATION,NOT "OVER-TIME".........YOU WILL KNOW,SINCE YOUR CAR WILL SOUND LIKE A SUBARU!!
I really think a lot post on here just to hear themselves talk!!





























Show me some melted pistons,broken ringlands,etc.......








Especially with the 10.1 compression IF there was ANY problem with ANY chip,there would be melted engines EVERYWHERE!!!NOt just 
"high CF's".............


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

1) 10.5:1
2) I have not argued specifically the safety of knock retard vs. no knock. All I have asked for are commom sense inspections of the evidence. I am trying to show evidence of the behavior of the chip (in fact I was trying to show evidence that it is possible to attain APR or GIAC-like behavior out of REVO. They aren't APR or GIAC, but they can act like it to some extent and all this to show potential Revo buyers what is possible with the SPS Plus), the decision of safety vs. power vs. whatever is up to those who read this thread.


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*

I will ask again................WHY are people so WORRIED about NOTHING???? 
WHERE is the PROOF of ANY detriment to the cars engine???
I think a lot that post here are a testament to the American psyche of always "living in fear"..........I mean jesus,is there anything better you can think of to do with your car?ENJOY it for goodness sake.........some DRIVE AROUND WITH LAPTOPS,AND "LOG" AND MAKE COMMENTS AS IF THEY WERE ACTUALLY VAG ENGINEERS!!LOL
You wnet to the dealer,you bought a car,you own a laptop,and Excel,you bought a chip................voila!!!INSTANT CHIP TUNER/ENGINEER!!!!
There are higher powers at work here.........and it IS NOT the guys logging with laptops!!


----------



## addicted_to_dub (Mar 9, 2006)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_WHY are some running timing 5 on 92 octane??I always run timing 2-3 for piss-water 92.
Some of you are still not looking at the big picture.........10.1 compressiuon+small turbo+92 octane+high boost= low timing or knock correction.......Chris is right,the ECU is faster than you guys can imagine,we are talking millisecond correction times here,yet some think it is "hurting your motor".








How about the guys with 20-30K is that not "long-term"?
If you guys REALLY knew what it is you are trying to argue,then you would realise there is NO argument since,I have said this before........
ENGINES WILL BLOW VERY QUICKLY IN THE PRESENCE OF DETONATION,NOT "OVER-TIME".........YOU WILL KNOW,SINCE YOUR CAR WILL SOUND LIKE A SUBARU!!
I really think a lot post on here just to hear themselves talk!!





























Show me some melted pistons,broken ringlands,etc.......








Especially with the 10.1 compression IF there was ANY problem with ANY chip,there would be melted engines EVERYWHERE!!!NOt just 
"high CF's".............









It's reasoning like this that makes REVO run the way it does.
And you are completely missing the argument. Yes, you are correct, severe detonation will kill your engine instantly. The ECU will not allow that to happen.
The real question is how stupid is it to be requesting so much timing that the ECU has to have large correction factors?
And don't give me the BS about you end up with the same timing in the end regardless because that does not count as "tuning" that's just a hack. Requesting the world and counting on the ECU to pull timing into a acceptable range is not tuning, it's stupid. Tuning is getting the most out of the engine while staying within limits. A few degress of CF fine, but, keep the EGTs in manufacturer specs which means have a responsible A/F ratio. Neither of which based on these logs REVO seems to be able to do.
And I agree that seeing requested timing for all chips is worthwhile but either REVOs is going to be higher than all the others hence the high CFs oer it will be the same as the others but because revo is running lean the engine is adjusting timing to bring down EGTs. But, that last bit is speculation on my part because I don't know if the ME9 will pull timing to combat high EGTs
Oh, and try to write less like a 12 year old. you're supposed to be a professional and a representative of REVO and so far you're not doing them any favors.
-


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (addicted_to_dub)*

addicted to dub,do me ONE FAVOR................since you "think" you have "knowledge" SHOW ME EVIDENCE of ANY engine problems with REVO.
I am not a spokesperson for REVO,I just have REAL LIFE experience with selling/using it on MANY VAG platforms,and it is flawless!!
If it was so crappy,why am I making 150K a year running a repair/tuning shop?


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_If it was so crappy,why am I making 150K a year running a repair/tuning shop?
















Because by the time anything screwed up you could chock it up to aged or bad components or for that matter ignore them because they've already paid you.
In any case that is irrelivant. You asking for long term evidence of Revo issues on a North American GTI is completely foolish, since no one has had their car on Revo long enough.
WHAT WE ARE LAYING OUT HERE IS DATA. Yes some are interpreting it, but so are you. Making foolish posts is not helping your case. Present ME with evidence that the ECU is pulling "pre-knock" timing and I'll shut right up. You haven't. That's all I'm asking for.
So I think Revo chips will kill cars? No. Do I think other chip tuners play it more safe? Yes. I have not abandoned Revo, I am still using it. I am using my SPS Plus to learn what things effect this car.
Just act reasonable and present evidence and everyone will stop talking about it, garaunteed. Chocking it up to different fuel is irrelivant, because the chip should be able to run on it all, and not by running high correction factors. That's all were asking.
Were just laying out data here, that's all. George claimed the factory protections were in place, from the evidence show he lied. I could go out to my car tonight and absolutely max out my projected exhaust temps, and if you can sit there and tell me the ECU isn't using that data and a VAG engineer wouldn't request a change in the ECU then I'd love to see your proof. Why do you think the speculation might continue after a thing like that?


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*

OK,if you "max out"your temps (do you really know what "max temps are"?)I will bet you money that you will still not melt a cat OR melt a piston.
I have customers on 4 different islands here FLOGGING these cars on 92 octane with boost at 8-9 and they have accumulated a easy 50K miles on the 2.0T platform,one car with only 26 miles on the clock when I flashed it........NO complaints,just calls wanting to buy exhausts,IC's,gauges.............you see,contrary to what SOME will say,REVO makes people HAPPY








I swear,some of you could be on a date with Brooke Burke and be turned off if she had a little zit on here forehead!!!


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_I swear,some of you could be on a date with Brooke Burke and be turned off if she had a little zit on here forehead!!!









lol, touche.








APR claims max EGT's before kicking in "protection" mode is 920 deg C, someone else had a Borg-Warner document that claimed 970 deg C. Either way all we want is evidence. Telling me I'm not as smart as APR or Revo or Giac tells me nothing more than you are more willing to trust blind faith with your 20+ thousand dollar toy than I am, that's all were getting at here.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_OK,if you "max out"your temps (do you really know what "max temps are"?)I will bet you money that you will still not melt a cat OR melt a piston.

My point about maxing out the data value is something controls engineers just do not do. You abdolutely do not put a sensor in a control loop that does not have the resolution to keep the process "in control". Me watching a temperature sensor reach it's limit in a process where temperature is a critical data point seems illogical and would lead me to believe I should see a change in the system to counteract that behavior, that's all I'm saying.
And yes I realize duty cycles for fueling and some other things are allowed to max out, but are kept under control by other sensors.
I'm a controls engineer by profession, I need to feel comfortable that VAG engineers aren't idiots and I'm made to believe that when someone disables some protection items, or if not disabled allows a sensor to max out, it's just madness in my opinon.


----------



## addicted_to_dub (Mar 9, 2006)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_addicted to dub,do me ONE FAVOR................since you "think" you have "knowledge" SHOW ME EVIDENCE of ANY engine problems with REVO.
I am not a spokesperson for REVO,I just have REAL LIFE experience with selling/using it on MANY VAG platforms,and it is flawless!!
If it was so crappy,why am I making 150K a year running a repair/tuning shop?
















I'm sorry if I have not been clear on my concerns. I'm well aware that the REVO software is not going to grenade a engine in the short or even mid term. My concern is that it has a lot of correction factor.
cor‧rec‧tion  [kuh-rek-shuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation 
–noun
1.	something that is substituted or proposed for what is wrong or inaccurate; emendation.
2.	the act of correcting.
3.	punishment intended to reform, improve, or rehabilitate; chastisement; reproof.
4.	Usually, corrections. the various methods, as incarceration, parole, and probation, by which society deals with convicted offenders.
5.	a quantity applied or other adjustment made in order to increase accuracy, as in the use of an instrument or the solution of a problem: A five degree correction will put the ship on course.
So, my concern is because the data presented so far shows REVO having what I and others consider to be a high level of correction. Which can reasonably be concluded that what it is asking for in the first place is unattainable. So I have reservations about software asking for more than what can be achived to the degree that REVO does.
I know the ECU will adapt but since it's so wrong in the first place it makes me wonder if the people tuning it really understand the engine the way others do.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (addicted_to_dub)*

More data for parusing:
Same ole specs:
'06 GTI
Revo Stage I V2 (T2B5F0) on 93 octane BP (non-ethonal)
EVO MS V-Flow intake
55 deg F ambient temps


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*

More data for parusing:
Same ole specs:
'06 GTI
Revo Stage I V2 (T3B5F0) on 93 octane BP (non-ethonal)
EVO MS V-Flow intake
55 deg F ambient temps















































[/QUOTE]


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

I don't seem to be affecting timing angle all that much between T2 and T3, I need to play some more with this...
EDIT: and YES I was allowing for a sizeable adaptation period


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*

Well Magilson,you bring up excellent points,which I will not argue,but please REMEMBER,we are modifying things to make more HP than stock.
For instance,the 1.8T motor is an example,it is DESIGNED for 180HP,yet some are making 500+HP out of STOCK motors,if we went by VAG engineers,this would be a absolute impossiblity,and K03 was "designed" for 10 psi YET every one that has SW is running more than VAG engineers EVER imagined......so I cannot say that we can keep the same criteria when we are talking modded engines.
I understand that APR has Bosch/VW ex-engineers on hire,which is great,but if we lisened to them,here would only be cars making low HP since these guys are into duty/wear cycles,of course they are conservative.
To be honest,I am a racer at heart,and would rather have REVO running 13 sec. than APR running 14 sec. and better EGT,........this is the HP game,sometimes you got to go beyond what people "say" and just trust your instincts......if you have people blowing up stuff,that is one thing,but nobody is having issues,I just see almost stock VW 2.0T running 13 [email protected],and that is SWEET GOODNESS!!


----------



## traviswho (Aug 29, 2006)

*Re: (magilson)*

Hey guys, I just got the REVO stg2 put on my car and started noticing something wierd after I drove a while today. Has to be related to the flash cause it wasn't doing it before. When im on the brake at a light I notice vibration in the brake pedal. Its wierd though, it will happen when I first start up but then when I put it in D it will stop untill I come to a stop and it will start agian, then I will throw it in Park and it will stop. So basically happens randomly when I come to a stop but when I shift gears it stops. It happened when I first started my car so I popped the hood and noticed some tapping (ticking kinda a pinging sound tap, tap, tap ,tap countinious patern or sometimes a bit sparatic) Any idea what this could be or what could have caused it? First thing that came to my mind is that maybe its an engine mount, I did install the neuspeed poly engine mount insert a couple weeks ago, maybe the extra power caused it to losen up? Would that cause continous tapping though? Anyways im stumped and I started noticing it a few hours after I got the REVO installed. For reference im running milltek TBE, Evoms intake, REVO stg2 boost 6, timing 4, fuel 9. Any thoughts?
Thanks in advance and I know I can't spell. Im really a noob to this stuff and you guys seem like you know what your talking about so I thought id ask.


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (traviswho)*

Look for loose exhaust/motor mount bolts??
REVO does not cause hardware problems!!


----------



## traviswho (Aug 29, 2006)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_Look for loose exhaust/motor mount bolts??
REVO does not cause hardware problems!!

Yeah I didn't say it caused it, since I spent $500+ on my programming today proves Im not trying to bash REVO or anything. I just noticed it a few hours after the install though so it would seem to be related in some way. The sound is coming from the engine bay, although its not that lowd... you actually can't even hear it untill you pop the hood. Vibration on the brake pedal is the most obvious thing. I will check the engine/trans mount in the morning... I hope thats it.


----------



## addicted_to_dub (Mar 9, 2006)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_Well Magilson,you bring up excellent points,which I will not argue,but please REMEMBER,we are modifying things to make more HP than stock.
For instance,the 1.8T motor is an example,it is DESIGNED for 180HP,yet some are making 500+HP out of STOCK motors,if we went by VAG engineers,this would be a absolute impossiblity,and K03 was "designed" for 10 psi YET every one that has SW is running more than VAG engineers EVER imagined......so I cannot say that we can keep the same criteria when we are talking modded engines.
I understand that APR has Bosch/VW ex-engineers on hire,which is great,but if we lisened to them,here would only be cars making low HP since these guys are into duty/wear cycles,of course they are conservative.
To be honest,I am a racer at heart,and would rather have REVO running 13 sec. than APR running 14 sec. and better EGT,........this is the HP game,sometimes you got to go beyond what people "say" and just trust your instincts......if you have people blowing up stuff,that is one thing,but nobody is having issues,I just see almost stock VW 2.0T running 13 [email protected],and that is SWEET GOODNESS!!


Funny, I thought APR's 1.8T stage 3 kit was the benchmark for the 1.8T.
Really, you need to stop posting if you're not going to contribute technical data. I'm all happy for you that you like your REVO flash. Some of us are a bit more anal if you want to label us that and purchase vag-com cables to do our own validation of the chippers claim and to weigh the results against our own perosnal tolerances.
In my mind at least in a perfect world a CF od 0 is ideal. Sure, it won't be achieved but in my opinion the more you move away from that the less adept you are at tuning for this motor.
And as for the performance bit, there have been many dynos here and all 3 of the big companies are close in power so that is pretty much moot.
You can safely make more power out of any engine so long as the basics like knock, timing, EGT, A/F ratio, etc are in check. ou can make more power if you go outside of those bounds but sacrifice reliability in the LONG run. No one is sayin REVO is going to blow your motor right after chipping and even if our suppositions are true and REVO is doing harm it will be awhile before the symptoms present themselves.
And congrats for being a racer at heart, it's a lot of fun but, I think you've proven that you know as little or as much as most of us here just from your unsubstianted points other than no one has blown a revo motor yet.
Remeber absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Bottom line is that it's a judgement call by the individual if this is ok for them or not. For me, excessive CFs and higher than recommended EGTs from BW are concerning to me and were I back at the stage where I was deciding on a chip this information would cause me to not consider REVO as it just does not meet my standards when there are other companies making similar power and not having excessing timing pull, high EGTs, and a safe A/F ratio.


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (addicted_to_dub)*

Well I guess ONLY TIME WILL TELL!!! I see "nothing" happening!!


----------



## axthomson (Jul 8, 2006)

well i blew out my type "C" dv with revo, but that hasnothing to dowith my tune. just running 20 psi.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (axthomson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *axthomson* »_well i blew out my type "C" dv with revo, but that hasnothing to dowith my tune. just running 20 psi. 

Well it really has nothing to do with anything but bad luck..
I am on my stock valve for 30K miles now, checked it a few weeks back and its still fine..


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
However, preliminary hearsay from people running this V3 program have indicated to me that it is not good, and in a few ways worse than the current version 2.
Dave

It would beh earsay since I don't see who you could have spoken with that is runnign it since you don't speak to anyone who is running it..
I happen to have a version that was being tested on my car last week by one of the engineers. I only know of one other car that would have a test version of the file and we both LOVE it.
I am actually gonna try and dyno tomorrow if its available.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (PD Performance)*

dyno is fine, i want some logs. Otherwise what is V3 gonna do for me that they couldn't have waited and put in V2?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
It would beh earsay since I don't see who you could have spoken with that is runnign it since you don't speak to anyone who is running it..


Nope I have. Don't make assumptions as to who has contacted me.
Dave


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_dyno is fine, i want some logs. Otherwise what is V3 gonna do for me that they couldn't have waited and put in V2?

The point of the dyno is logging, it allows for consistant runs so logs can be compared more legitly. It also allows me to do more logs since this coming january is 3 yrs since my last courtdate for a ticket and my license will be clean so I am not looking to ruin that doing high speed logs on the highway.
"V3" (its not really a version 3 its just some testing they were doing on my car) seems to have mostly more midrange power. I didn't get alot of time to speak with the engineer when I got my car back but EGTs are supposedly unchanged so its not like that is why they made changes. He left my car boost 9, timing 5 (I think) fuel 9. Which I am perfectly fine running all the time.. I often have the timing even higher.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Nope I have. Don't make assumptions as to who has contacted me.
Dave

I am really more interested in who actually has the file and is contacting you and who is pulling your leg or is confused as I only know of two people who have new test stuff one is me, the other you wouldn't be in contact with.
So congrats on starting more false rumors...


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
I am really more interested in who actually has the file and is contacting you and who is pulling your leg or is confused as I only know of two people who have new test stuff one is me, the other you wouldn't be in contact with.
So congrats on starting more false rumors...

Speculate all you want, but others have contacted me. It's a pretty big "world" if you get my drift.








BTW Chris, what does this have to do with REVO 93 logs? Please keep this on topic.
Dave


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Speculate all you want, but others have contacted me. It's a pretty big "world" if you get my drift.








BTW Chris, what does this have to do with REVO 93 logs? Please keep this on topic.
Dave

oh so APR files in HK are so different then those in the US that they are incomparible to those here.. But feed back from supposed testers of this file around the world are comparible?
And you brought up version 3 so why comment to me about being on topic?

sorry but now you are just being hypocrit.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_The point of the dyno is logging, it allows for consistant runs so logs can be compared more legitly. It also allows me to do more logs since this coming january is 3 yrs since my last courtdate for a ticket and my license will be clean so I am not looking to ruin that doing high speed logs on the highway.
"V3" (its not really a version 3 its just some testing they were doing on my car) seems to have mostly more midrange power. I didn't get alot of time to speak with the engineer when I got my car back but EGTs are supposedly unchanged so its not like that is why they made changes. He left my car boost 9, timing 5 (I think) fuel 9. Which I am perfectly fine running all the time.. I often have the timing even higher.

That's fine, all I really want to see are logs. I most likely won't run your settings so your dyno will mean squat to me anyway.
Which I still haven't seen logs to prove to me you aren't crazy for using those settings? What is your final timing angle, your correction factor, your EGT's, etc? I just want to see (the whole point of the thread...)


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
That's fine, all I really want to see are logs. I most likely won't run your settings so your dyno will mean squat to me anyway.

well I am gonna dyno at a few different settings.

_Quote »_
Which I still haven't seen logs to prove to me you aren't crazy for using those settings? What is your final timing angle, your correction factor, your EGT's, etc? I just want to see (the whole point of the thread...)


Whatever the results are I am gonna keep my settings unless I find some other settings make more power. I am not concerned with my settings and reliablity of the turbo or engine.
I have not posted any yet since I have not dug up any that I find are valid for comparison. I am very picky with my logs and testing to ensure that the least amount of variables are affecting the results.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Whatever the results are I am gonna keep my settings unless I find some other settings make more power.* I am not concerned with my settings and reliablity of the turbo or engine.*

Pretty much sums it up

_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
I have not posted any yet since I have not dug up any that I find are valid for comparison. I am very picky with my logs and testing to ensure that the least amount of variables are affecting the results.

Lol . . . I was informed about your "testing" with Marty. BTW, those logs were of 91 octane, not 93, so don't get your hopes up.
Dave


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Pretty much sums it up



REad it how you will but it has nothing to do with lack of concern over safety.. It has to do with the fact that I am very comfortable with how it is running.


_Quote »_
Lol . . . I was informed about your "testing" with Marty. BTW, those logs were of 91 octane, not 93, so don't get your hopes up.
Dave

My testing with marty? Seriously now you are grasping at straws. Marty came to me durning rush hour where the street in front of the shop was locked up as well as all the highways in the area. We were limited to some quick little pulls in a residential area between my shop and his store. There were no logs or anyting done because they could not be done and I would not have been comfortable using them for comparison since pulls could not be duplicated. I did do some testing about 8 months ago with his car were we did go out and log and do a bunch of other things. If I remember correctly he had codes for the intank pump not supplying the rail pump a consistant amount of fuel.. could have been another car though. At that time he was not even a customer of mine he had purchased his software elsewhere and I was just trying ot help figure out what the root of the problem was. Turned out he had some electrical problems with his ECM, I think as he was never clear with me exactly why they changed it.
not sure what logs you are talking about being 91 vs 93?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
My testing with marty? Seriously now you are grasping at straws. Marty came to me durning rush hour where the street in front of the shop was locked up as well as all the highways in the area. We were limited to some quick little pulls in a residential area between my shop and his store. There were no logs or anyting done because they could not be done and I would not have been comfortable using them for comparison since pulls could not be duplicated. I did do some testing about 8 months ago with his car were we did go out and log and do a bunch of other things. If I remember correctly he had codes for the intank pump not supplying the rail pump a consistant amount of fuel.. could have been another car though. At that time he was not even a customer of mine he had purchased his software elsewhere and I was just trying ot help figure out what the root of the problem was. Turned out he had some electrical problems with his ECM, I think as he was never clear with me exactly why they changed it.
not sure what logs you are talking about being 91 vs 93?

He was running on the 91 octane program, not the 93. Good thing you didn't post up those logs. The 820C number he mentioned was irrelevant now that you mention the context. Grasping at straws? Hardly . . . but it seemed as if you were using that # to assure him that there is no high EGT issue








Dave


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
He was running on the 91 octane program, not the 93. Good thing you didn't post up those logs. The 820C number he mentioned was irrelevant now that you mention the context. Grasping at straws? Hardly . . . but it seemed as if you were using that # to assure him that there is no high EGT issue








Dave

WTF are you talking about..
who was running 91 not 93?
good thing I didn't post up what logs?
who mentiond 820C?
Assure who there was no high EGT issue? and what numbers was I using?


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (PD Performance)*

PD no offence meant man, but. When I first started bellyaching about the huge CF on some logs that Ive seen ( any chip really ) people were all yellin at me, and saying relax its not big deal etc etc.
And again in this thread I encountered resistance. One of those people being you.
First you said (paraphrasing) CF have nothing to do with knock, it takes care of it before there is any knock.
- I contested that because I didn't want newbies to think this was the truth, so I called you out on the order of operations b/t the sensor hearing, then the pcm doing, not the other way around.
Your response was, yes the sensor is reactive, but there still isnt any knock.
Now with that not making any sense, and after I pointed that out, I think people are starting to see how this dance isn't quite holding up well. 
So then you said, ok yeah there IS knock but its not enough to hurt the motor.
Well, I guess my confusion lies in the flip flopping of your statments.
So are you agreeing with what I said before where, if the correction factors are in fact there, that there IS REAL knock. However T62 the amounts of knock that there are, are not enough to cause any type of damage?
Because your right about there being varing levels of knock no doubt, like don't blow a vac line off of a highly modified car while under full load that could = bad news :]
I'm sorry I guess I am a bit paranoid, but my experience has taught me ( from my limited experience) that treating a motor right, little to NO knock, will bring you MUCH farther down the road especially if your flogging it than not. P.S. Ive also seen bits of knock not be enough to put a hole in a piston, but be enough to weaken components including wrist pins, and bearings, making critical moving parts more friction prone, causing rods to be thrown out of the side of a block. Then everyone chalks that up to rod failure. Just for instance is all...


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_PD no offence meant man, but. When I first started bellyaching about the huge CF on some logs that Ive seen ( any chip really ) people were all yellin at me, and saying relax its not big deal etc etc.
And again in this thread I encountered resistance. One of those people being you.
First you said (paraphrasing) CF have nothing to do with knock, it takes care of it before there is any knock.
- I contested that because I didn't want newbies to think this was the truth, so I called you out on the order of operations b/t the sensor hearing, then the pcm doing, not the other way around.
Your response was, yes the sensor is reactive, but there still isnt any knock.
Now with that not making any sense, and after I pointed that out, I think people are starting to see how this dance isn't quite holding up well. 
So then you said, ok yeah there IS knock but its not enough to hurt the motor.
Well, I guess my confusion lies in the flip flopping of your statments.
So are you agreeing with what I said before where, if the correction factors are in fact there, that there IS REAL knock. However T62 the amounts of knock that there are, are not enough to cause any type of damage?
Because your right about there being varing levels of knock no doubt, like don't blow a vac line off of a highly modified car while under full load that could = bad news :]
I'm sorry I guess I am a bit paranoid, but my experience has taught me ( from my limited experience) that treating a motor right, little to NO knock, will bring you MUCH farther down the road especially if your flogging it than not. P.S. Ive also seen bits of knock not be enough to put a hole in a piston, but be enough to weaken components including wrist pins, and bearings, making critical moving parts more friction prone, causing rods to be thrown out of the side of a block. Then everyone chalks that up to rod failure. Just for instance is all...


It can appear to be flip flopping when you don't actually read what I am saying. Once you take the time to actually go do some research on the systems in our cars instead of just assuming from your GM experience then feel free to come back and comment me.
99% of your comments on this forum are about how your car sucks so bad you wish you had your pontiac back.
I explained very clearly several times in his thread how the system adjusts for "knock" please go back and actually read it.


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (PD Performance)*

IN order:
PD
"I've seen cars pull 12 degrees and show almost known knock sensor activity."
"If they up the sensitivity at a certain load point, smaller amounts of actual knock can pull more timing purely as a measure of safety.. where as you can have more high knock value and lower pull at other points in the maps."
"and also remember its going by readings from the knock sensor.. it doesn't take actual knock to adjust just feed back that knock may occur or just higher activity."
"You are taking knock as too literal of a one dimensional thing.. The ECM pulls timing well before knock actually occurs.. Knock sensors are not an on/off switch they are scaled. The car has the ability to adjust timing based on the readings from the knock sensor."
"They are REactive in detecting activity from the knock sensors.. but PROactive in doing it before there is actually a problem."
"What he left out was that the car is capable of pulling knock before it becomes dangerous knock which is what I said.
"It is still using "knock" as the means to determine whether to pull timing or not. But knock comes in varying degrees and that is all that I meant about it being able to pull timing before damaging knock occurs. " <-- I think somone else was writing under PD Performance here, and now Im starting to see what you actually were trying to say...
Then the story started to get consitant towords the end. Along the lines of, there is knock but its pulling it before its hurting anything..
Which is FINE guys, thats fine. Its just that your posts were all over the place up there, I posted all of those in order. Don't get mad at me because It took you 4-5 pages of mis quoting fact and people comin back at you with questions before you posted whats more likley.
And that seems to be, yes were getting knock, but its not severe enough to be considered dangerous at these levels.
WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY THAT ON PAGE 6!!!








Edit, had to put begin quote on a line I typoed : / Which is prone to happening for me










_Modified by T62 at 1:14 PM 10-23-2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_
It is still using "knock" as the means to determine whether to pull timing or not. 

T62, I/we all know you are passionate about learning and figuring your car out, but for the love of rocks that my dog eats.... please tone it down several notches. There's other factors besides just knock. I do hope you understand that. And if you don't understand something, you can just ask nicely.
I'm lost in this thread now, it _was_ going along well for several pages


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*

Oh im sorry, I didn't think my post was offensive, just pointing out where my confusion was. I thought The previous post to mine was a little personal towords me no?


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
T62, I/we all know you are passionate about learning and figuring your car out, but for the love of rocks that my dog eats.... please tone it down several notches. There's other factors besides just knock. I do hope you understand that. And if you don't understand something, you can just ask nicely.
I'm lost in this thread now, it _was_ going along well for several pages









Fine, what else besides the data coming from the knock sensor determines timing pull or knock retard? And I want this in a clear concise post.
Point that T62 is driving at is that knock activity is almost inevitably occuring when these timing pull events are occuring. There are other things that can trigger knock other than detonation itself. Piston slap, metal on metal contact in the engine bay, loud valve lash, our crazy loud injectors.
I've been talking to lots of independant VW "tuners" or at least performance VW shops and they've all told me quite a bit of useful stuff. Stock VW ECU's tend to be set on the very sensitive end of the spectrum as far as knock control goes; not all ECU's are created equal when it comes to controling detonation. I flat out asked a tuner, if you were going to straight up tune a turbo car with standalone, what A/F would you shoot for? 12.5:1, I hands down got that answer from countless people. Then I said, well consider that the car has 10.5:1 compression, a K03, and I want to run at the max the turbo can handle, how would you go about tuning it? Start at what boost level you want, this you can base from the turbo's flow chart thingy (i forget the technical name), then you move on to adjust fuel and timing. Well what timing pull do you feel a VW motor can handle? 6 degrees of timing retard was hands down the max CF that was given as an answer. What about EGT's? Well, power means heat means power. If you want power, your gonna get heat. You decide where that will take you.
Point is that less correction factor is better. I don't care what PD or syntrix say. Less timming pull is better.
Even IF it is percieved knock it is still bad, it is still pulling timing, you should still try to isolate it. One can try several things, different spark plugs, different or better grade fuel, make sure you engine bay is properly maintained, etc.
Just start giving some real, hard evidence. Stop wasting people's time that might not know any better and believe any or all of us at our word.
We should start seeing graphs, data, excerpts from Bosch manuals, excerpts from Borg-Warner cut sheets, anything. Please!










_Modified by magilson at 12:55 PM 10-23-2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_ Start at what boost level you want, this you can base from the turbo's flow chart thingy (i forget the technical name), then you move on to adjust fuel and timing. 

It's called a compressor map. Got one for a turbo on the 2.0TFSI?


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*

Not exactly the same but close I think.
















Multiply the x axis by 162.04 to get lbs/min

_Modified by T62 at 1:54 PM 10-23-2006_


_Modified by T62 at 1:59 PM 10-23-2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (T62)*

That's not the turbo on the 2.0TFSI.


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*

Lol, you beat me to the punch, its not the same one, but its close.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_Lol, you beat me to the punch, its not the same one, *but its close*.

What's the saying about close enough and hand grenades?
If your CF's are "close enough" then your engine could explode like a hand grenade? remember the new KKK turbo on the 2.0TFSI is a complete redesign, as stated in Borg Warner publications. 
I don't know how aggressive SJM is on copyright violations. Does anyone?
http://www.sjmautotechnik.com/...3.htm
http://www.sjmautotechnik.com/copyright.html
and from the linked in map above:
http://not2fast.wryday.com/turbo/maps/k03_2072.gif


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*

I would imagine that the Housing flows similar, and since the compressor wheel is identicle, that it would be close. You just said whos got one, so I posted some that used KO3S compressor wheels.
Whats redsigned about the turbo is its Integrated DV mostly. Go email Morgue Warner yourself to find out.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
I'm lost in this thread now, it _was_ going along well for several pages









You're right, here's a post I just did over on fourtitude. 
Here is my proof that REVO disables the factory hardware protection maps. 
I conducted several back to back 3rd gear pulls of REVO. Almost every single run resulted in the maxing out of the primary O2 sensor at 900 degrees Celcius. Even though some of the graphs may not show it, all of them except for the first run peaked at 900 degrees either during the run or right after I let off the throttle. 
Now the primary O2 is located post-turbine, and what is important is pre-turbine temperatures. Borg Warner (turbo manufacturer) gives a recommendation that no more than 970C should be seen at the preturbine. They also give a gradient of around 100-180C difference from the posturbine and preturbine temps. Seeing as how REVO continually maxes out at 900C, it is producing much higher, excessive EGTs at the preturbine. 
If REVO left the hardware protection map in place, what we would see is a richening of the A/F ratio to the stock 10.5:1 A/F map. 
Here is a log of someone with GIAC X+ showing the hardware protection map in place

_Quote, originally posted by *jmhart* »_Speaking of AF ratios and the resulting EGTs, and this supposition that GIAC ignores safeguards...I thought I'd repost my AF graph for 2 back to back runs and you'll notice once the temps were up a map with a richer AF ratio kicked in.









REVO did not exhibit this hardware protection map behavior. Through all 6 runs, REVO stayed exactly at 12.5:1 A/F while maxing out the primary O2 sensor's reading at 900C (meaning that it probably was higher than 900C). Here are the graphs to prove it.
*Run #1*


*Run #2*


*Run #3*


*Run #4*


*Run #5*


*Run #6*

As you can see, no deviation from the excessively high EGTs and lean A/F ratio.
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_ You just said whos got one, so I posted some that used KO3S compressor wheels.

No.
I asked who's got a compressor map for the one found on the 2.0TFSI.
Once again, failure to look at all the information, just one data set. Booooo (since halloween is around the corner).


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_You're right, here's a post I just did over on fourtitude. 
Here is my proof that REVO disables the factory hardware protection maps. 

Wooo Hoooo!
Now at what temp does that EGT protection come in? I don't think that anyone has proved anything to show this "egt" protection.
I know you mention 900 is where it "cuts off" on the results of your graph. But what is really going on? Shouldn't it still produce voltage?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Wooo Hoooo!
Now at what temp does that EGT protection come in? I don't think that anyone has proved anything to show this "egt" protection.

you're right . . . . I assume by logging GIAC the same way, you'll be able to find the EGT protection point since with APR I wasn't able to get the EGTs high enough , and APR runs 10.5 anyways, so it wouldn't have showed.

_Quote, originally posted by *Syntrix* »_
I know you mention 900 is where it "cuts off" on the results of your graph. But what is really going on? Shouldn't it still produce voltage? 

Yeah, the primary O2, only measures up to 900C. It still measures lambda, but it won't show anything higher than 900C. My only regret is that I didn't also log block 112, which shows estimated preturbine EGT. Those max out at 999C and several REVO logs with lower primary O2 temps than mine, were constantly maxing out at 999C. 
Given the measurement limitations of the OE hardware, I'd safely wager that any "maxing out" of block 112 or block 034 should trigger the hardware protection map. It'd be nice if one of the tuners would step in and say "this is the cutoff point", but as you know, not everyone is willing to share information.
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Yeah, the primary O2, only measures up to 900C. 

Did yours not go past 900 and then, flat line, or not produce "egt at the cat" results? The second would be a 0 value, or no value at all. I see in your graph it gets to 900 at about redline, but it's hard to see.
You really need to get a good thermocouple in there, one with logging potential http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Did yours not go past 900 and then, flat line, or not produce "egt at the cat" results? The second would be a 0 value, or no value at all. I see in your graph it gets to 900 at about redline, but it's hard to see.
You really need to get a good thermocouple in there, one with logging potential http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

It would go up to 900 and then stay at 900 for a few plots, esp after I let off the gas. All the other numbers varied . . . . it would hit like 892, 878 & etc . . . but would always suspiciously flatline at 900. Thus I believe that's the maximum reading the sensor can produce. Perhaps mike (bhvrdr) can look in his bosch books to see if it is the case.
I agree about the thermocouple . . . but I don't think any consumer should be forced to do that on their own to determine if their chip is running well








Dave


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*

Syntrix I read everything that you've said. And wrote this isn't the same but similar.
Are you saying Im not allowed to post a compressor map that is similar to the one we are using on the 2.0T FSI?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_It would go up to 900 and then stay at 900 for a few plots, esp after I let off the gas. All the other numbers varied . . . . it would hit like 892, 878 & etc . . . but would always suspiciously flatline at 900. Thus I believe that's the maximum reading the sensor can produce. Perhaps mike (bhvrdr) can look in his bosch books to see if it is the case.


Did I miss your flatline graphs?

_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
I agree about the thermocouple . . . but I don't think any consumer should be forced to do that on their own to determine if their chip is running well








Dave

I disagree. You mod the car, you should keep an eye on the vitals. Which I think you have a better grasp (with vag-com) than a lot of other vw owners.
You should be able to flog your wet APr chip and get those egt's up! Maybe you need a road course day to see how it performs under real stress!


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_If REVO left the hardware protection map in place, what we would see is a richening of the A/F ratio to the stock 10.5:1 A/F map.

Well, but if you take a look at my logs when using their Fuel setting of 0 (zero) you can see it move from 12.5:1 to 10.5:1 at around 880-890 deg C _projected_ exhuast temps. Wether that means the stock protection map is ignored under their "9" setting I don't know. However it does suggest that some sort of EGT consideration is taking place under the 0 fuel setting.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
Well, but if you take a look at my logs when using their Fuel setting of 0 (zero) you can see it move from 12.5:1 to 10.5:1 at around 880-890 deg C _projected_ exhuast temps. Wether that means the stock protection map is ignored under their "9" setting I don't know. However it does suggest that some sort of EGT consideration is taking place under the 0 fuel setting.

Matt, I think that's just how the stock A/F curve acts.
Yours.








My APR 93 (I think they leave the A/F ratios untouched from stock)








Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_Syntrix I read everything that you've said. And wrote this isn't the same but similar.
Are you saying Im not allowed to post a compressor map that is similar to the one we are using on the 2.0T FSI?

Read above, or I'll post again. You need to stop making up crap.

_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_It's called a compressor map. Got one for a turbo on the 2.0TFSI?
















And you clearly responded to me several times based on that.
So again,
Got the correct map? Your posted maps have been around for years and years, and they are for the *1.8T* and not the 2.0TFSI. They are also in violation of copyright if that is your website they are hosted on.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_ Wether that means the stock protection map is ignored under their "9" setting I don't know. However it does suggest that some sort of EGT consideration is taking place under the 0 fuel setting.

What is this stock proctection map you keep talking about?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_And wrote this isn't the same but similar.


You clearly edited your post and put that in later on. Nice one stealth boy!!


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_What is this stock proctection map you keep talking about? 

It's the thing that you can niether disprove exists nor I can prove exists. That's why we ask someone from one of any of the Tuning companies to respond.
Actually, what the heck. Prove to me it doesn't exist. For that matter, you still haven't responded to my post at the top of this page...


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_It's the thing that you can niether disprove exists nor I can prove exists. That's why we ask someone from one of any of the Tuning companies to respond.

Isn't that the point?
One salesman has brainwashed you. Even he can't give any facts that this exists. I have asked him over and over, and he keeps beating around the bush. It's a non-issue, but you keep bringing it up.


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

Tone it down guys.


----------



## placenta (Jun 3, 2003)

*Re: (iThread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *iThread* »_Tone it down guys.

iThread sounds like iPod. A Mac type change no doubt.


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: (placenta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *placenta* »_
iThread sounds like iPod. A Mac type change no doubt.

Even though this is off topic, one of the admins decided to have some fun with me and changed my username as well as my title (see if you can spot it). But, please folks just PM me if you want to talk about this. 
ZOMG mods uid has changed topic is not right for this forum or any for that matter. So, just PM me if you want to kick me about it.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Isn't that the point?
One salesman has brainwashed you. Even he can't give any facts that this exists. I have asked him over and over, and he keeps beating around the bush. It's a non-issue, but you keep bringing it up.


What point? Oh you mean the point that we, crew and magilson, keep trying to come up with emperical evidence of the behavior of various tuners? And the point that you keep puffing your chest out with "knowlege" that conclusions we are reaching are wrong with no evidence whatsoever to back it up?
Yeah that point.
Just give me some evidence and I'll stop talking about a "protection map", it's that easy? So what are you waiting for? Again, don't ignore the points I brought up in the first post of this page... It makes you look foolish, almost as if you were skirting the issue.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (magilson)*

I think iThread summed it up.

But I posted how the "egt protection map" rumor got started. And it's just that, a RUMOR. The person that stated it the first time has been asked over and over again to prove it. 
They can't. You can't. We all can't.
So I would suggest that someone prove it. Until then, it's all kittens and guessing.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_I think iThread summed it up.

But I posted how the "egt protection map" rumor got started. And it's just that, a RUMOR. The person that stated it the first time has been asked over and over again to prove it. 
They can't. You can't. We all can't.
So I would suggest that someone prove it. Until then, it's all kittens and guessing.

Whatever you say! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Keith, can you prove there is a protection map in place?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_I think iThread summed it up.

But I posted how the "egt protection map" rumor got started. And it's just that, a RUMOR. The person that stated it the first time has been asked over and over again to prove it. 
They can't. You can't. We all can't.
So I would suggest that someone prove it. Until then, it's all kittens and guessing.

Syntrix, I must really question why you believe that the hardware protection map doesn't exist. [email protected] mentioned that GIAC left it intact when it was being questioned if GIAC altered it or not, Keith has repeatedly said that they do not mess with the stock A/Fs and that they leave the hardware protection map intact. Heck even [email protected] says that they leave it intact. 
I think that's enough evidence that it exists. 
As the log by jmhart shows, it does exist in GIAC.
As I have shown, it does not exist in REVO. 
From my same data logs of APR, I see no changes in A/F, but then again, the temperatures with APR are significantly less than what they are with REVO.
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*

Then what are the facts of the stock protection map? Where do they kick in, and how can it be reproduced by anyone? Once that is determined, we can talk about it for days.
Those are the questions that nobody can seem to answer, or recreated. Do I have to state the questions over and over again? The fact that some of you aren't seeing results outside of an EGT value and CF's, doesn't prove that any of y'all are hitting this magic number.
So to date, I haven't seen any facts on this. Just people using it as basis for speculation, all without fact.
Are you holding out on us?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Then what are the facts of the stock protection map? Where do they kick in, and how can it be reproduced by anyone? Once that is determined, we can talk about it for days.
Those are the questions that nobody can seem to answer, or recreated. Do I have to state the questions over and over again? The fact that some of you aren't seeing results outside of an EGT value and CF's, doesn't prove that any of y'all are hitting this magic number.
So to date, I haven't seen any facts on this. Just people using it as basis for speculation, all without fact.
Are you holding out on us?









Well, going by what I've read in previous threads the OEM A/F maps do not always stay at 10.5:1. They vary between 10.5:1 to 11.X:1. It seems that OEM stock may also run slightly more aggressive timing than chipped, at the expense of reducing boost. The increased timing should increase the EGTs as well as the slightly leaner mixture. As soon as that critical point is hit, then you'd see a reduction in A/Fs. 
The problem is that in order to test this, you'd need a stock car. Not many of those around . . . that are willing to do this logging at least. Heck, I had a vag-com and didn't feel like logging anything back when my car was stock.
As mentioned, APR doesn't seem to go above a certain level, and it doesn't deviate from OEM 10.5:1, so I can't even be sure if it is kicking in or not. 
I think GIAC would be the best aftermarket software to test it on, and as shown by jmhart, there is a reduction in A/Fs between runs, which IMO is evidence of the software protection map. 
How about I'll ask Keith and you ask GIAC? See what they have to say . . . 
I'd like to know where the cutoff points are myself, but part of me thinks that both companies might have just looked at the code and decided not to mess with it. It's not exactly a part of the tuning that everyone thinks about and may just need to be evaluated and determined by the end user. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*

Exactly Dave!
That's the piece that we are all after. Because it is unaltered, as stated by all big 3 chip manufacturers, it should be at X degrees temperature. Unless, it is affected by other factors such as a/f knock IAT's, etc....
But I think we are all after the same piece of info, and it doesn't really matter what the chip is or if it stock. I don't understand why people get all huffy when asking for some data that can help everyone http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_ <-- I think somone else was writing under PD Performance here, and now Im starting to see what you actually were trying to say...


no one else posts under this username.

_Quote »_
WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST SAY THAT ON PAGE 6!!!










on page 6 and on even page 12 now people are looking at knock still as an on off switch.... 
It still doesn't take knock like how people are referring to it as to pull timing.. as stated stiffer motor mounts can cause an increase in timing pull with no other changes simply due to the fact that the natural vibrations of the engine are now being picked up by the knock sensors.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Here is my proof that REVO disables the factory hardware protection maps. 
http://home.comcast.net/~j.m.hart/AF_chart.JPG[/Img

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

I am really curious how a log of a GIAC chip proves that one REVO has disabled protection maps.. and two as syntrix is also pointing out that there are even the said maps in the program from the factory.. This entire thing about protection maps was started by one person as syntrix also pointed out, whom for the last year when asked by countless people to prove his claims has never been able to prove it.
The information shown in the log above from GIAC proves nothing, you could have the TB shut down due to too high of intake temps and get the exact same change in A/F I have seen it with my own two eyes with GIAC software on my jetta and a dyno with inadequate fans.
oh and since you like to quote people...
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD][I]Quote »[/I][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: quote"]BTW Chris, what does this have to do with REVO 93 logs? Please keep this on topic.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Dave, what does this have to do with REVO 93 logs.. since your proof relies on a graph from another tuner I am really curious why you can bring up those graphs but others can't in this thread?


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Well, going by what I've read in previous threads the OEM A/F maps do not always stay at 10.5:1. They vary between 10.5:1 to 11.X:1. It seems that OEM stock may also run slightly more aggressive timing than chipped, at the expense of reducing boost. The increased timing should increase the EGTs as well as the slightly leaner mixture. As soon as that critical point is hit, then you'd see a reduction in A/Fs. 


Dave as stated several times already, increased advanced does not mean higher EGTs. By running a lower ignition advance, as in closer to TDC your flame is burning later in the cycle which means that your temps can be hotter as they are still burning when the exhaust valves open.
By running a lower total timing you will have HIGHER EGTs not lower, you keep stating this incorrectly.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Dave as stated several times already, increased advanced does not mean higher EGTs. By running a lower ignition advance, as in closer to TDC your flame is burning later in the cycle which means that your temps can be hotter as they are still burning when the exhaust valves open.
By running a lower total timing you will have HIGHER EGTs not lower, you keep stating this incorrectly.

Ironically several people have found that reducing timing on REVO leads to lower EGTs. How do you explain that?
Dave


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Ironically several people have found that reducing timing on REVO leads to lower EGTs. How do you explain that?
Dave


Since you won't believe anyone without data.. where is the data?
think about what happens in an engine during the whole process suck squish bang blow.. think about what lowering he timing is and how that affects those things in the process, then think about it in terms of where the heat will be.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_

Since you won't believe anyone without data.. where is the data?
think about what happens in an engine during the whole process suck squish bang blow.. think about what lowering he timing is and how that affects those things in the process, then think about it in terms of where the heat will be.

Chris, you need to provide data. 
Not me. I have been providing data this entire thread. 
Get with the program. Read the thread if you want to see the reduction in EGTs when lowering timing. I believe both magilson and bassbiker have posted up logs showing this , as well as MK22driver (might have screwed up that screenname)
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Chris, you need to provide data. 
Not me. I have been providing data this entire thread. 
Get with the program. Read the thread if you want to see the reduction in EGTs when lowering timing. I believe both magilson and bassbiker have posted up logs showing this , as well as MK22driver (might have screwed up that screenname)
Dave

Chris is saying that lowering timing advance may not lower EGT's 100% of the time. 
Great Dave, you prove a point with one data set. But depending on which side of the advance curve you are on, what are you gonna do when you are WRONG? It can go either way, really it can.
He doesn't have to "prove" anything. It's tuning 101, and Dave, you should understand that of all people here.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Chris is saying that lowering timing advance may not lower EGT's 100% of the time. 
Great Dave, you prove a point with one data set. But depending on which side of the advance curve you are on, what are you gonna do when you are WRONG? It can go either way, really it can.

I know that

_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
He doesn't have to "prove" anything. It's tuning 101, and Dave, you should understand that of all people here. 

Actually, IMO he does need to prove something. Chris has come into this thread, making several generalizations which may or may not be applicable to the issue at hand. Great, I know that reducing timing can raise EGTs, I also know that overadvancing timing can raise EGTs. There is obviously a sweetspot. 
When chris asks me for proof of people that have lowered EGTs by reducing timing alone, I don't see what the big deal is with me telling him to read the thread. As I stated before, others have tried it, and have posted up logs. While I am the OP of the thread, I don't seem to remember the rule that says I need to function as a human search button








Dave


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_

Actually, IMO he does need to prove something. Chris has come into this thread, making several generalizations which may or may not be applicable to the issue at hand. Great, I know that reducing timing can raise EGTs, I also know that overadvancing timing can raise EGTs. There is obviously a*[ sweetspot*. 



which is why total timing is just as relevant if not more then the CF.
If you are requesting 15 degrees and get 6 degrees pull you have 9 total timing
if you lower the timing and get 12 degrees requested and you pull 3 your total is still 9.
how would EGTs be higher or lower with the same total timing ?and how can we verify this when CF seems to be peoples only concern.
I will check back on the rest of the logs later this evening. I am late for a meeting.


----------



## satch (Aug 3, 2003)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Well, going by what I've read in previous threads the OEM A/F maps do not always stay at 10.5:1. They vary between 10.5:1 to 11.X:1. It seems that OEM stock may also run slightly more aggressive timing than chipped, at the expense of reducing boost. The increased timing should increase the EGTs as well as the slightly leaner mixture. As soon as that critical point is hit, then you'd see a reduction in A/Fs. 
The problem is that in order to test this, you'd need a stock car. Not many of those around . . . that are willing to do this logging at least. Heck, I had a vag-com and didn't feel like logging anything back when my car was stock.
As mentioned, APR doesn't seem to go above a certain level, and it doesn't deviate from OEM 10.5:1, so I can't even be sure if it is kicking in or not. 


I've been watching this thread for awhile (screen name elsewhere is Walkerhound BTW), and I'm not ready to dive in, but here's my toe in the water in this forum. First, there is some stock data here: http://picasaweb.google.com/OO...kBRSM. For me, it cinches the question about whether REVO's performance map timing is more agressive than stock-- it isn't. 
Also, it's clear to me that retarding timing in favor of upping the boost, and leaning the fuel is how REVO "makes power." I'm not sure about the extent to which any one of these factors alone or in tandem affects EGTs. It makes sense to me that retarding timing could raise EGTs, and that leaner AF also could-- but not always-- raise EGTs. Absent any real proof of disabling hardware protections (right now we have a theory), and some pretty strong assertions that they have not been, it's pretty difficult for me to condemn anyone for recklessness at this point. Later guys, hope we get some more data.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_no one else posts under this username.

on page 6 and on even page 12 now people are looking at knock still as an on off switch.... 
It still doesn't take knock like how people are referring to it as to pull timing.. as stated stiffer motor mounts can cause an increase in timing pull with no other changes simply due to the fact that the natural vibrations of the engine are now being picked up by the knock sensors.

That is incorrect. Again, the increased vibration that is background can cause high knock voltage readings but that does not affect timing pull. The timing pull is based on the instantaneous spikes that deviate from background noise or in other words timing pull results from knock. A car with lower knock voltages can actually be seen to knock and retard more than one with overall high voltages for the above stated reason. The IKC sytem that retards timing is picking up on knock not background noise. The knock sensors though can pick up on it all.
cheers! Mike


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_which is why total timing is just as relevant if not more then the CF.
If you are requesting 15 degrees and get 6 degrees pull you have 9 total timing
if you lower the timing and get 12 degrees requested and you pull 3 your total is still 9.
how would EGTs be higher or lower with the same total timing ?and how can we verify this when CF seems to be peoples only concern.
I will check back on the rest of the logs later this evening. I am late for a meeting.

Yikes, I would not pay more attention to overall timing at all. Indeed BTDC readings - timing pull does NOT = total timing. BTDC actually is completely variable per cylinder and relies on not just timing pull but also several complex 3D maps so it is not as easy as A - B = C at all. There were some tuners that had confused this years ago and it resulted in timing pull of up to 14 degrees being ignored. I still agree with you that 6 degrees of retard doest spell eminent danger but it is a warning and consistently high timing pull will cause engine destruction as directly quoted by Bosch.
cheers! Mike


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_It's the thing that you can niether disprove exists nor I can prove exists. That's why we ask someone from one of any of the Tuning companies to respond.
Actually, what the heck. Prove to me it doesn't exist. For that matter, you still haven't responded to my post at the top of this page...

How much more proof do we need? Logs clearly show it exists. Can you drive your car at lower EGT and see 12:1 up top? Sure we can. Can you drive it harder and see 10.5:1? Sure we can. Does one company fail to enrich no matter what the EGT seen? Sure they do. 
Bosch:
"The exhaust gas temperature can be reduced by enriching the air-fuel mixture by manipulating the optimization parameters, for example. Unfortunately the negative side of enriching the mixture is that both fuel consumption and exhaust-gas emissions are raised. This means that the mixture need only be enriched by the absolute minimum amount required."
To help interpret the above, Bosch is stating they use enriching to lower EGT ONLY WHEN NEEDED, because Bosch doest like having cars that get bad mileage and pollute the environment. So when you see the 10.5:1 from Bosch it is because they had to do it to protect components as they state elseware. Indeed they make special reference to protecting turbochargers. 
The reason no specific value is explained is because this computer is not a black and white computer that does everything at a single number. Just like with timing and other variables, there are several maps or datapoints to be taken into consideration. This is also why companies can get away with saying things like, "We dont disable the hardware protection" with a straight face. Sure, that's true in a literal sense in that there is no "check box" for disabling the hardware protection. On the other hand it is very easy to bypass the protections the OEM maps are providing by altering maps. Take for example allowing 12.5:1 regardless of EGT seen when the stock map enrichens to 10.5:1 in those circumstances with the express purpose of protecting components (remember they hate enriching). You could also raise the requested boost to 2540mbar across the entire rev band and claim you didnt disable any boost protection but guess what wouldnt happen if your turbo tried making 20psi at redline and blew to pieces? Correct, no oveboost protection. So in the end it is a fun little wording game but those who are going to the trouble of posting logs seem to have a good idea what is "tuner politician speak" and what is the actual workings of the ECU.
BTW, yes I am not good enough with the internet to quote multiple sources in my post and I just responded to three posts in a row. Sorry











_Modified by bhvrdr at 5:50 PM 10-23-2006_


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (satch)*


_Quote, originally posted by *satch* »_I've been watching this thread for awhile (screen name elsewhere is Walkerhound BTW), and I'm not ready to dive in, but here's my toe in the water in this forum. First, there is some stock data here: http://picasaweb.google.com/OO...kBRSM. For me, it cinches the question about whether REVO's performance map timing is more agressive than stock-- it isn't. 
Also, it's clear to me that retarding timing in favor of upping the boost, and leaning the fuel is how REVO "makes power." I'm not sure about the extent to which any one of these factors alone or in tandem affects EGTs. It makes sense to me that retarding timing could raise EGTs, and that leaner AF also could-- but not always-- raise EGTs. Absent any real proof of disabling hardware protections (right now we have a theory), and some pretty strong assertions that they have not been, it's pretty difficult for me to condemn anyone for recklessness at this point. Later guys, hope we get some more data.

Thanks a lot! This is exactly what this discussion needed!
Looks like, compared to Revo settings I've been playing with, that timing is reduced near max boost to 0 degrees and maxes out at around 15 degrees. Good to know! So like you said. Boost is taken to 20-21PSI and timing is pulled slightly. As said by others, this is by no means a comprehensive peek into the inner-workings, but it's interesting. Really good post, thanks again. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (satch)*


_Quote, originally posted by *satch* »_I've been watching this thread for awhile (screen name elsewhere is Walkerhound BTW), and I'm not ready to dive in, but here's my toe in the water in this forum. First, there is some stock data here: http://picasaweb.google.com/OO...kBRSM. For me, it cinches the question about whether REVO's performance map timing is more agressive than stock-- it isn't. 
Also, it's clear to me that retarding timing in favor of upping the boost, and leaning the fuel is how REVO "makes power." I'm not sure about the extent to which any one of these factors alone or in tandem affects EGTs. It makes sense to me that retarding timing could raise EGTs, and that leaner AF also could-- but not always-- raise EGTs. Absent any real proof of disabling hardware protections (right now we have a theory), and some pretty strong assertions that they have not been, it's pretty difficult for me to condemn anyone for recklessness at this point. Later guys, hope we get some more data.

Your logs look great at first glance! How does she drive?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Your logs look great at first glance! How does she drive?

It's a stock car . . . and it isn't his car.
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_It's a stock car . . . and it isn't his car.
Dave

I realize that, I wondering if he posted for any other reason. Hence asking how it drove.
Dave, tone it down. Seriously.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
I realize that, I wondering if he posted for any other reason. Hence asking how it drove.
Dave, tone it down. Seriously.

wtf?
I just said "it is stock and it is not his car"
What's wrong?
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_It's a stock car . . . and it isn't his car.
Dave

Wait a second... how did you know it wasn't his car. He didn't post that information, at least what I read. What gives?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Wait a second... how did you know it wasn't his car. He didn't post that information, at least what I read. What gives?

Because he is "walkerhound" and the guy's logs are "OOOO-A3's". Plus I was informed that those two + bassbiker would be doing stock and revo loggings.
Yes, I know more than you








Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Because he is "walkerhound" and the guy's logs are "OOOO-A3's". Plus I was informed that those two + bassbiker would be doing stock and revo loggings.
Yes, I know more than you








Dave

Then post the information that you are leaving out.
I read that he goes by another name on another forum. And his log graphs match the car he has.
Again, Dave. If you know more, don't make accusations without sharing that info. This is a public forum, if you have public information keep it that way.
If you have private info, hold back or share that info. What gives with you lately?
Back to the stock A3 driver..... AGAIN... How's she drive?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Then post the information that you are leaving out.
I read that he goes by another name on another forum. And his log graphs match the car he has.
Again, Dave. If you know more, don't make accusations without sharing that info. This is a public forum, if you have public information keep it that way.
If you have private info, hold back or share that info. What gives with you lately?
Back to the stock A3 driver..... AGAIN... How's she drive?

lol you need to chill. Just because I know something, doesn't mean that I need to post up every insignificant detail. Plus, anyone could have seen that he said that he was "walkerhound" and the person's car was "OOOO-A3". 
And honestly, I think he's going to say that it drives like a stock car








Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_lol you need to chill. Just because I know something, doesn't mean that I need to post up every insignificant detail. Plus, anyone could have seen that he said that he was "walkerhound" and the person's car was "OOOO-A3". 
And honestly, I think he's going to say that it drives like a stock car








Dave

Then why split hairs over my simple question?
You can't answer it for him, why did you try to? Let him answer and clarify. I never asked you. Really Dave, tone it down. It's getting sad


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Then why split hairs over my simple question?
You can't answer it for him, why did you try to? Let him answer and clarify. I never asked you. Really Dave, tone it down. It's getting sad









I answered his question because I know he doesn't post here often.
See . . . I know him from http://www.dvagonline.com
On that website is a "forum"
we sometimes "email" each other
we've also seen each other at a "gtg"
geez . . . . go ahead and continue hating on people that have actually had contact with one another outside of vortex








Either way, lighten up. You had no reason to get all bent out of shape when I just answered your simple question.
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (satch)*


_Quote, originally posted by *satch* »_I've been watching this thread for awhile (screen name elsewhere is Walkerhound BTW), and I'm not ready to dive in, but here's my toe in the water in this forum. First, there is some stock data here: http://picasaweb.google.com/OO...kBRSM. For me, it cinches the question about whether REVO's performance map timing is more agressive than stock-- it isn't. 
Also, it's clear to me that retarding timing in favor of upping the boost, and leaning the fuel is how REVO "makes power." I'm not sure about the extent to which any one of these factors alone or in tandem affects EGTs. It makes sense to me that retarding timing could raise EGTs, and that leaner AF also could-- but not always-- raise EGTs. Absent any real proof of disabling hardware protections (right now we have a theory), and some pretty strong assertions that they have not been, it's pretty difficult for me to condemn anyone for recklessness at this point. Later guys, hope we get some more data.

Your logs look great at first glance! How does she drive?


----------



## placenta (Jun 3, 2003)

maybe you guys should take this to PM. Its getting focking annoying at this point.


----------



## FlyingTurtle (Mar 26, 2006)

*Re: (placenta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *placenta* »_maybe you guys should take this to PM. Its getting focking annoying at this point. 

x 2
I always find it very immature from a Vendor to argue with customers, but again, it might be deeper than that


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (placenta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *placenta* »_maybe you guys should take this to PM. Its getting focking annoying at this point. 

I'm not, it was a simple question. I have a bad taste in my mouth now, so I really don't care anymore.
Back on topic the OP did switch programming before doing any other tests that we asked for later with our internet diags. So is this thread cooked or are there other posts/questions that need to be asked to the community?


----------



## satch (Aug 3, 2003)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Wait a second... how did you know it wasn't his car. He didn't post that information, at least what I read. What gives?

Dave knows who I am, and he knows the guy whose car it is. The inside baseball around here can be bewildering, I suppose. Dave has probably already answered...a few of us got interested in this and are doing some logging.

_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
How much more proof do we need? Logs clearly show it exists. Can you drive your car at lower EGT and see 12:1 up top? Sure we can. Can you drive it harder and see 10.5:1? Sure we can. Does one company fail to enrich no matter what the EGT seen? Sure they do. 
Bosch:
"The exhaust gas temperature can be reduced by enriching the air-fuel mixture by manipulating the optimization parameters, for example. Unfortunately the negative side of enriching the mixture is that both fuel consumption and exhaust-gas emissions are raised. This means that the mixture need only be enriched by the absolute minimum amount required."
To help interpret the above, Bosch is stating they use enriching to lower EGT ONLY WHEN NEEDED, because Bosch doest like having cars that get bad mileage and pollute the environment. So when you see the 10.5:1 from Bosch it is because they had to do it to protect components as they state elseware. Indeed they make special reference to protecting turbochargers. 
The reason no specific value is explained is because this computer is not a black and white computer that does everything at a single number. Just like with timing and other variables, there are several maps or datapoints to be taken into consideration. This is also why companies can get away with saying things like, "We dont disable the hardware protection" with a straight face. Sure, that's true in a literal sense in that there is no "check box" for disabling the hardware protection. On the other hand it is very easy to bypass the protections the OEM maps are providing by altering maps. Take for example allowing 12.5:1 regardless of EGT seen when the stock map enrichens to 10.5:1 in those circumstances with the express purpose of protecting components (remember they hate enriching). You could also raise the requested boost to 2540mbar across the entire rev band and claim you didnt disable any boost protection but guess what wouldnt happen if your turbo tried making 20psi at redline and blew to pieces? Correct, no oveboost protection. So in the end it is a fun little wording game but those who are going to the trouble of posting logs seem to have a good idea what is "tuner politician speak" and what is the actual workings of the ECU.

_Modified by bhvrdr at 5:50 PM 10-23-2006_

I think I agree with a lot of what you're saying...at any rate, looking at one variable in isolation from the rest (and the data points we sample are just surface data-- we measure what we can measure) isn't going to resolve these questions. But I think we've gotten beyond that now. Which is good as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_I'm not, it was a simple question. I have a bad taste in my mouth now, so I really don't care anymore.
Back on topic the OP did switch programming before doing any other tests that we asked for later with our internet diags. So is this thread cooked or are there other posts/questions that need to be asked to the community?

No way it's not done. It took 13 pages but we are figuring things out. Granted most of the things we are figuring out contradict what you keep saying, but that's no reason to kill a thread.
No one makes you keep opening it.


----------



## satch (Aug 3, 2003)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Then why split hairs over my simple question?
You can't answer it for him, why did you try to? Let him answer and clarify. I never asked you. Really Dave, tone it down. It's getting sad










I really think he was answering because I don't post a lot, and he's got a quick trigger. I'm trying to watch MNF & do this, too...and I've spent far too much time thinking about this shiz lately. Hang in there, man, don't give up now.


----------



## OOOO-A3 (Jul 20, 2004)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Your logs look great at first glance! How does she drive?

Those are *my* logs.
Thank you. This is my posting on the subject: http://oooo-a3.blogspot.com/20....html The link that was posted earlier is directly to the image gallery, and bypassed my comments, which could be where the confusion about who's logs they are may have come from.
As I said in my blog entry, I'm drawing no conclusions (read: I'm not getting into this pissing match). The logs are *mostly* for my own benefit - when I can afford to do the mods I have planned, I'll be able to have a satisfactory (to me) before-and-after comparison. If anyone else finds them useful, you're welcome.
As for how she drives, well... she drives like a zero-problem, well-broken-in stock 2.0T. I've driven better (and worse) cars, and the A3 is pretty good even without a chip. My last car was a 12V VR6 + GIAC chip, prior to that was an E36 328i Sport + Conforti ("JimC") chip, and before that was a 528e + Conforti chip. Software for the A3 is pretty far down my list, and if/when I get around to it, I'll make what I think is the best choice *for me* at the time. (Edit: the reason I mention those is to show (a) I'm not a complete n00b to chipping, and (b) I have no prior experience or loyalty to APR or REVO)



_Modified by OOOO-A3 at 8:09 AM 10-24-2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (OOOO-A3)*


_Quote, originally posted by *OOOO-A3* »_Those are *my* logs.


well, that certainly ends the confusion here! It also reveals some interesting things about people posting here.
I guess were done! Can I get a....

IN!!!!!!


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
well, that certainly ends the confusion here! It also reveals some interesting things about people posting here.
I guess were done! Can I get a....

IN!!!!!!

lol. Too funny. I think it would be better just to remove your posts from the thread. It would cut down the time it would take a new reader to figure things out, since they have to read page after page until they get to this one to figure out your wrong...


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Crew ive been following this thread through and through! (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_lol. Too funny. I think it would be better just to remove your posts from the thread. It would cut down the time it would take a new reader to figure things out, since they have to read page after page until they get to this one to figure out your wrong...

People are really getting sick of your bleacher remarks.
IN is IN, and it's valid.
I'll ask you again. Do you have a question as related to the thread that needs further discussion, or are you just turbo trolling?
No more questions, then this thread is cooked. If you had a valid question, you would have posted it, instead of taking bleacher jabs all day.

soo....... IN!!!!!!


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

Yes, in fact, I'd still like to compare Giac and Revo 93 timing to APR 93 timing as well as total timing pull. I think it's the last thing we haven't compared.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_Yes, in fact, I'd still like to compare Giac and Revo 93 timing to APR 93 timing as well as total timing pull. I think it's the last thing we haven't compared.

Well gibbles. Show us what you got, or step aside.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

Well so far I can't seem to deviate from this timing map no matter what I do to timing. I was told by Revo it is calculated from many things so it may not be so simple as to change it simply changing the number. It's based off of load and boost levels, etc.
I posted this previously with some logs but I'll dig it up for you again.








and you can see OOOO-A3's stock timing log here.








I guess I'd like to see some timing logs from other chip setups as well as their boost, cf, etc. No one seems to have recorded total timing angle until recently.
I may set my SPS back to Revo 91 for a while but we'll see. I'm kinda working on spark plug stuff right now.
Anyone with total timing data for any of Revo's programs? Or anyone else's programs to compare to what I have?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*

I'll just add the question that I think is the only open question. Dave and I agree that this is the important one that a lot of people should know:
*At what temperature does EGT protection kick in?*

That was brought up by Kiefhy, he mudslinged, and then could not give any evidence of anything that was reproducable.
Nobody has. Not Maggy, Dave, anyone. That is the big question that needs to be answered. No assumptions, no guessing, just facts. Until then, my dog eats rocks. 

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

Well it seems like it might actually not be a set point that I was looking for previously. As bhvdr pointed out, and as the name implies, a protection map may in fact look at quite a few things before modifying the a/f ratio and it may modify it in different ways and at different points.
I still have as yet to see another "chip" maker able to maintain an a/f ratio so lean (in comparison to stock) without at some point dropping the a/f ratio back to 10.5(ish):1.
However, it is not unreasonable to assume there is a protection temperature that the ECU is trying not to attain. Crew showed the clip from Borg-Warner showing a max recommended running temp of 970 celcius.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*

Someone have a dead horse image I can borrow?


----------



## satch (Aug 3, 2003)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_I'll just add the question that I think is the only open question. Dave and I agree that this is the important one that a lot of people should know:
*At what temperature does EGT protection kick in?*

That was brought up by Kiefhy, he mudslinged, and then could not give any evidence of anything that was reproducable.
Nobody has. Not Maggy, Dave, anyone. That is the big question that needs to be answered. No assumptions, no guessing, just facts. Until then, my dog eats rocks. 

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Bingo. The question has been floating around since February, at least.

_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Someone have a dead horse image I can borrow?









They are out there..but this is more pleasant: http://www.pr.state.az.us/Park....html


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

Question for Keith and PD Performance, or any other members for that matter.
Does this 10.5:1 a/f at redline and EGT's in not to exceed 800 Deg C range only applies to 2.0T or this same rule should be used for 1.8T.
Thanks


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (zemun2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zemun2* »_Question for Keith and PD Performance, or any other members for that matter.
Does this 10.5:1 a/f at redline and EGT's in not to exceed 800 Deg C range only applies to 2.0T or this same rule should be used for 1.8T.
Thanks

Only the 2.0T FSI, and the EGT temp thing is currently under dispute.


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*

I am STILL waiting for ANY evidence of ANY turbo/engine damage!
I really want to see this PROOF of "hardware protection".......lol
I thought that was called "Limp mode".........










_Modified by VWAUDITECH at 1:23 AM 10-25-2006_


----------



## satch (Aug 3, 2003)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*

Waiting myself...and trying to keep cool.


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: (zemun2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zemun2* »_Question for Keith and PD Performance, or any other members for that matter.
Does this 10.5:1 a/f at redline and EGT's in not to exceed 800 Deg C range only applies to 2.0T or this same rule should be used for 1.8T.
Thanks

Bump


----------



## 2PointSlowFSI (May 14, 2006)

Just got some loggin done
mods
Revo stg 2 default settings
intake
downpipe stock cat-back
on crappy cali 91oct
was seeing 9degree pull in cylinder 1 and 4
4 was constant 9 from 2k to redline.
this is my first time loggin so if anyone can help me out with some stuff that would be great.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (2PointSlowFSI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *2PointSlowFSI* »_Just got some loggin done
mods
Revo stg 2 default settings
intake
downpipe stock cat-back
on crappy cali 91oct
was seeing 9degree pull in cylinder 1 and 4
4 was constant 9 from 2k to redline.
this is my first time loggin so if anyone can help me out with some stuff that would be great.

Ouch, that is not good. I'm assuming that the weather wasn't that hot either. You can send me the logs if you want and I'll make some graphs for you. 
Dave


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

Figured I'd post this bit of info found in the other thread . . . 
Max. zulässige Abgastemperatur (Turbolader): 1050°C, *920°C vor der Turbine.*
Looks as if the 920C number that Keith was posting is correct. 
Data is obtained from:
http://www.audi-speed.com/faq/f289/faq.html
K04 and K03 use the same exhaust housing, so the numbers should be identical between the two. 
What does this mean? Well, just that the preturbine shouldn't see temperatures higher than 920C. I'm assuming that block 112 would be a fairly accurate estimate of what the preturbine temps are.
Dave


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (2PointSlowFSI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *2PointSlowFSI* »_Just got some loggin done
mods
Revo stg 2 default settings
intake
downpipe stock cat-back
on crappy cali 91oct
was seeing 9degree pull in cylinder 1 and 4
4 was constant 9 from 2k to redline.
this is my first time loggin so if anyone can help me out with some stuff that would be great.


I had similar results with my Revo stg2 set to default 93oct settings.


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Figured I'd post this bit of info found in the other thread . . . 
Max. zulässige Abgastemperatur (Turbolader): 1050°C, *920°C vor der Turbine.*
Looks as if the 920C number that Keith was posting is correct. 
Data is obtained from:
http://www.audi-speed.com/faq/f289/faq.html
K04 and K03 use the same exhaust housing, so the numbers should be identical between the two. 
What does this mean? Well, just that the preturbine shouldn't see temperatures higher than 920C. I'm assuming that block 112 would be a fairly accurate estimate of what the preturbine temps are.
Dave

Awesome find.. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Now all we need is Keith to confirm if this applies just to 2.0T K03/04 or does the same rule applies to 1.8T K03/04.


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Ouch, that is not good. I'm assuming that the weather wasn't that hot either. You can send me the logs if you want and I'll make some graphs for you. 
Dave

The weather was a cool 50 or so ambient. I did the logging. I'll post a post with the csv file attached shortly when I'm in front of the other laptop.


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: (satch)*


_Quote, originally posted by *satch* »_Waiting myself...and trying to keep cool.









Rocky Top?
I do see a lot of volunteer orange


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*

Yay Dave! That's the S3 turbo, which is not the turbo on the stock cars here. Info has been public since earlier this year. It _could_ be the same limits, but everyone should be aware that this is not the stock turbo.
But I just wanted to point out that we are still waiting for someone to prove any sort of "EGT protection" at the "ECU/software" level. We have various data about other limits, but not at this level. I think we would all benefit if there was some sort of logic as to what this "EGT protection" is that people keep on assuming about http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I think time will tell as more and more people log. There's just not enough of a sampling of data out there yet.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Yay Dave! That's the S3 turbo, which is not the turbo on the stock cars here. Info has been public since earlier this year. It _could_ be the same limits, but everyone should be aware that this is not the stock turbo.


Syntrix, they use the same exhaust housing and turbine wheel. Those temperature ratings are the limits of the material of which those components are constructed from. This information has been posted before.
Dave


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*

Here's te CSV file. First pull was in 3rd rom 2k to redline. Second pull was in 4th from 2k to redline. On a closed course.



_Modified by iThread at 9:26 AM 10-28-2006_


----------



## satch (Aug 3, 2003)

*Re: (iThread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *iThread* »_
Rocky Top?
I do see a lot of volunteer orange

That is a UT game sideline picture-- I like coonhounds, so i'm a Smokey fan. 
That's a nice find, Dave.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif for more logging.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Yay Dave! That's the S3 turbo, which is not the turbo on the stock cars here. Info has been public since earlier this year. It _could_ be the same limits, but everyone should be aware that this is not the stock turbo.


If the wheel material is the same then it should be the same for the standard and S3 turbos.
That being said if you look at any borg warner numbers they give a peak and a sustained.
Since it lists two there you can do selective highlighting like dave did and only point out what is probably the sustained or you can point out that it lists a peak (gee same number I've been saying for almost a year now) and what would probably be a sustained.. the number dave choses to select as the maximum.
So since no one is sustaining 1050c looks like things are in the clear.
or well since its the fashion latel there will be more selective quoting and intentional misinterpretation of what people or manufactures are saying..


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
If the wheel material is the same then it should be the same for the standard and S3 turbos.
That being said if you look at any borg warner numbers they give a peak and a sustained.
Since it lists two there you can do selective highlighting like dave did and only point out what is probably the sustained or you can point out that it lists a peak (gee same number I've been saying for almost a year now) and what would probably be a sustained.. the number dave choses to select as the maximum.
So since no one is sustaining 1050c looks like things are in the clear.
or well since its the fashion latel there will be more selective quoting and intentional misinterpretation of what people or manufactures are saying..

Nope, the 1050C number is the rating of the cast exhaust manifold. The turbine is rated at 920C.
As the tech article says . . . 
Max. zulässige Abgastemperatur (Turbolader): 1050°C, 920° C vor der Turbine.
=
*Max. permissible exhaust gas temperature (turbocharger): 1050°C, 920° C before the turbine.*
Makes it very clear. 
Chris, feel free to attack my logs, me, or whatever you want. 
Dave



_Modified by crew217 at 10:31 AM 10-28-2006_


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Nope, the 1050C number is the rating of the cast exhaust manifold. The turbine is rated at 920C.
Dave


Where does it say that anywhere in that statement.
Exact interpretation is:

Max allowable exhaust gast temp: 1050, 920 *BEFORE* the turbine...

vor means before as in from vorn which means in front, or hinten.. behind
If you read vor as for like many do thinking the languages are that close then yes it could be read as for the turbine.. but its not..
3 years of barely passing german and all I can remember is my teacher dancing at the front of the from swinging her arms back and fourth saying vorn hinten, vorn hinten.. that and elbogen for some reason








Go look at any Borg warner turbo specs and they never list a max for the housing and max for the wheel only a max peak and max sustainable.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the facts have been on these forums for a long time now.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (PD Performance)*

you edited before I could post...

how ou are interepretting the data maks absolutely no sense.. If the max the turbine wheel could see was 920 degrees there would be no reason to have a rating 130C higher for the housing.
Go look at ANY borg warner specs they list a peak and sustainable.. They NEVER list a max for the wheel and for the housing.
Its amaxing how much you can twist data around.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_

Where does it say that anywhere in that statement.
Exact interpretation is:

Max allowable exhaust gast temp: 1050, 920 *BEFORE* the turbine...

vor means before as in from vorn which means in front, or hinten.. behind
If you read vor as for like many do thinking the languages are that close then yes it could be read as for the turbine.. but its not..
3 years of barely passing german and all I can remember is my teacher dancing at the front of the from swinging her arms back and fourth saying vorn hinten, vorn hinten.. that and elbogen for some reason








Go look at any Borg warner turbo specs and they never list a max for the housing and max for the wheel only a max peak and max sustainable.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the facts have been on these forums for a long time now.

lol . . . . go argue your german with google.
http://translate.google.com/translate_t
Cut and paste (which is what I did).
"before turbine" is preturbine temps . . . to explain to you, that is after the manifold, before the turbine. 
The manifold can withstand 1050C, the turbine, 920C. The statement makes it pretty clear, unless you don't know what the manifold or turbine are.
Dave


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
lol . . . . go argue your german with google.
http://translate.google.com/translate_t
Cut and paste (which is what I did).
"before turbine" is preturbine temps . . . to explain to you, that is after the manifold, before the turbine. 
The manifold can withstand 1050C, the turbine, 920C. The statement makes it pretty clear, unless you don't know what the manifold or turbine are.
Dave


I am not argueing that it doesn't mean before the turbine.. I typed it before you edited your post just had not posted it.
I am saying that you are interpretting that data to mean manifold which it never states anywhere in that and then a second number of pre turbine.. Well even if you went by how you are saying it, then you are still stretching as it has no number for the actual turbine then only before it. Which in our case would be the same number since the manifold and turbine housing are one piece.
The temperature is also not going to drop between the inlet of the manifold and the inlet of the turbine wheel by 130C that makes absolutely no sense at all.
go check out other borg warner specs and you will see that NEVER are they listed how you are saying they are only peak and sustainable, thats it, thats all its ever listed as. 
http://www.centralturbos.com/p...2.htm
link above is for the 1.8t not the 2.0t and used only to show how borg warner rates things.

And thats all ignoring the fact that you are adding words that doesn't exist in that statement in german or english.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_Where does it say that anywhere in that statement.
Exact interpretation is:

Max allowable exhaust gast temp: 1050, 920 *BEFORE* the turbine...

vor means before as in from vorn which means in front, or hinten.. behind
If you read vor as for like many do thinking the languages are that close then yes it could be read as for the turbine.. but its not..
3 years of barely passing german and all I can remember is my teacher dancing at the front of the from swinging her arms back and fourth saying vorn hinten, vorn hinten.. that and elbogen for some reason








Go look at any Borg warner turbo specs and they never list a max for the housing and max for the wheel only a max peak and max sustainable.
Sorry to burst your bubble but the facts have been on these forums for a long time now.

This is correct. Both the 920 and 1050 are preturbine temps. This is also how Bosch lists it in their manuals. They give a sustained and a peak. What's interesting is that if we are seeing 900 degree cat temps than likely the preturbine temps are very close to the 1050. I would not be surprised if we see the projected temps in these logs max out a their 999 value. Anyone do these logs?
cheers! Mike


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
This is correct. Both the 920 and 1050 are preturbine temps. This is also how Bosch lists it in their manuals. They give a sustained and a peak. What's interesting is that if we are seeing 900 degree cat temps than likely the preturbine temps are very close to the 1050. I would not be surprised if we see the projected temps in these logs max out a their 999 value. Anyone do these logs?
cheers! Mike

Good to know Mike. The BW document I have indicates that they do not have materials that will allow the turbine to withstand 1050C, but then again, things probably have changed in the past few years since the document was put out by them. It mainly highlighted how they were able to make a manifold that would withstand 1050C.
Anyways, these are two snippets from two different REVO logs that I had saved up in a folder. 
As you can see, it maxes out 999C on block 112. One of them was even at around 4-5kprms, not 6krpms.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

mike,
When I had my EGT gauge in my 1.8T and would compare 02 readings and the EGT readings I would see about 150F difference. As Brett pointed out once this will change with boost pressure though since more boost you cram into the engine the more exhaust coming out and the turbo can only flow so much at one time.

So yes I agree it will be possibly coming close to the peak numbers on certain cars but again only peaking at peak.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (iThread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *iThread* »_Here's te CSV file. First pull was in 3rd rom 2k to redline. Second pull was in 4th from 2k to redline. On a closed course.
_Modified by iThread at 9:26 AM 10-28-2006_

Wow, I compiled the timing correction logs from those two runs . . . . talk about horrible . . . .


----------



## 2PointSlowFSI (May 14, 2006)

my boost is acutally at 5
thanks for making the graphs for me though
So how bad is it that ?
anything i can do to make it better or safer ?


_Modified by 2PointSlowFSI at 12:40 PM 10-28-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (2PointSlowFSI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *2PointSlowFSI* »_my boost is acutally at 5
thanks for making the graphs for me though
So how bad is it that ?
anything i can do to make it better or safer ?


Whoops . . . . will make that change right now.
I'd reassess the amount of timing that is being added. Maybe start out at 1 and see how much you can add. Or, take it to your REVO dealer and have them adjust it.
Dave


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

Again guys.
Does this only apply to 2.0T or should these numbers be used on 1.8T.

Can some one please answer the question...


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (zemun2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zemun2* »_Again guys.
Does this only apply to 2.0T or should these numbers be used on 1.8T.

Can some one please answer the question...

my link above is for 1.8ts
http://www.centralturbos.com/p...2.htm


----------



## prom king (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: (PD Performance)*

So... It's okay to assume...
That Revo is pushing the limits of EGT's and no one else is?
How about some GIAC logs? Or maybe some APR logs?
And are these EGT's done on a stock downpipe? Wouldn't it flow more with a bigger downpipe? Keep temp's down, because of more airflow?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (97jazzgti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *97jazzgti* »_So... It's okay to assume...
That Revo is pushing the limits of EGT's and no one else is?
How about some GIAC logs? Or maybe some APR logs?
And are these EGT's done on a stock downpipe? Wouldn't it flow more with a bigger downpipe? Keep temp's down, because of more airflow?

I have APR logs . . . . just look in my sig. 
Those logs are directly comparable to the logs I did in this thread. Same route, conditions & etc.
Dave


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*

OK,now ........"EGT Dave".since you pride yourself on your "methodical" assumptions........and are SO "worried" about EGT (more like your APR agenda)how come you have not installed a TRUE EGT gauge??If the "logged EGT" you are getting info from is te 1st WB sensor,then OFCOURSE it will be hot,the first cat is right AFTER the turbo!!This will heat up ANY cat!IF this is from the secondf narrowband sensor,then that is a joke,since narrowband is only accurate at certain temperature and AFR,and cannot be used to obtain any type of accurate EGT readig IMO. 
IF it is the wideband giving you this info,then it is easy to see why the first cat would heat up,since turbine flow is going right into it........
I just removed a DP from a car running REVO for 16K miles......guess what?Looks and functions perfectly......go figure


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*

Alrighty,just for fun,I had the customer with the TT DP I just installed come over........this is stage 2 with Boost 9,fuel 7,timing 7,on approx 95-97 octane gas(had octane booster),approx 78 deg. temp,and CF was 0,and 1.5-3 being the most,and EGT was MAX 770 deg........WTF?
Maybe it has something to do with the POS downpipe with a cat right after the turbo??Or you guys have highly ethanol laced gas.......








Whatever it is,whether it reads 700or 900 I still see no cats melting or turbos blowing or manifolds cracking


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_OK,now ........"EGT Dave".since you pride yourself on your "methodical" assumptions........and are SO "worried" about EGT (more like your APR agenda)how come you have not installed a TRUE EGT gauge??If the "logged EGT" you are getting info from is te 1st WB sensor,then OFCOURSE it will be hot,the first cat is right AFTER the turbo!!This will heat up ANY cat!IF this is from the secondf narrowband sensor,then that is a joke,since narrowband is only accurate at certain temperature and AFR,and cannot be used to obtain any type of accurate EGT readig IMO. 
IF it is the wideband giving you this info,then it is easy to see why the first cat would heat up,since turbine flow is going right into it........
I just removed a DP from a car running REVO for 16K miles......guess what?Looks and functions perfectly......go figure









Post up some pics..


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_Alrighty,just for fun,I had the customer with the TT DP I just installed come over........this is stage 2 with Boost 9,fuel 7,timing 7,on approx 95-97 octane gas(had octane booster),approx 78 deg. temp,and CF was 0,and 1.5-3 being the most,and EGT was MAX 770 deg........WTF?
Maybe it has something to do with the POS downpipe with a cat right after the turbo??Or you guys have highly ethanol laced gas.......








Whatever it is,whether it reads 700or 900 I still see no cats melting or turbos blowing or manifolds cracking









There is almost nothing I would love more than to see one single pro-Revo fanboi on this thread do than to post logs. Not neat pretty graphs, but actual logs we can at least somewhat verify aren't fabricated out of their extreme love for a tuner. So please, for the love of all that is right in the world, POST LOGS TO PROVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. PD Performance hasn't done it, not one single time since he started spewing back in Dec of 2005. Not once in that whole time, not to back up a single thing said. And I would love for you to post evidence.



_Modified by [email protected] at 8:38 AM 10-30-2006_


----------



## BIGNICKSGTIS420 (Apr 16, 2006)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
There is almost nothing I would love more than to see one single pro-Revo fanboi on this thread do than to post logs. Not neat pretty graphs, but actual logs we can at least somewhat verify aren't fabricated out of their extreme love for a tuner. So please, for the love of all that is right in the world, POST LOGS TO PROVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. PD Performance hasn't done it, not one single time since he started spewing back in Dec of 2005. Not once in that whole time, not to back up a single thing said. And I would love for you to post evidence.

 http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by [email protected] at 8:39 AM 10-30-2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_
Or you guys have highly ethanol laced gas.......









Yes, most states have winter blend of E10 or greater. We could go way off topic and get into high sustained cyl pressures, bad afr's running E, and timing effects and egt's under E. But I think that would stray extremely off topic.
Hmmm, wonder why nobody has posted any proof of this "EGT Correction" that we keep on asking about?


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Yes, most states have winter blend of E10 or greater. We could go way off topic and get into high sustained cyl pressures, bad afr's running E, and timing effects and egt's under E. But I think that would stray extremely off topic.
Hmmm, wonder why nobody has posted any proof of this "EGT Correction" that we keep on asking about?


I wonder why you haven't posted any logs ever?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
I wonder why you haven't posted any logs ever?

I don't have explicit permission from the owners of the revo cars to post their logs. 
Let me restate the question that everyone is asking, and nobody is proving this question with any sort of "logs".

_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
*At what temperature does EGT protection kick in?*


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
I don't have explicit permission from the owners of the revo cars to post their logs. 

lol, you're a joke. Nobody "owns" their logs. It's not intelectual property. It's raw data. Explain to me how that could be protected by law and I'll back off, but I just don't think it applies outside of anything but courtesy... In any case I feel it's a little silly.
I am unable to make any kind of log that would prove or disprove that there are protection maps since Revo's software is in question about that very detail. I think the only definitive way to test that would be to log a completely stock car. Does that make sense? I mean that only because then from there we could compare engine behavior as EGT's rise. I think that's the only way I can think of that makes sense.


_Modified by magilson at 9:49 AM 10-30-2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
lol, you're a joke.

Nice form. Read the rules.
The question is still valid about this supposed "EGT Protection". Nobody has posted any facts about this, and many people have agreed that they would like more information on it. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## placenta (Jun 3, 2003)

you guys have been arguing over the same things for 15 pages!!!
GO EAT A SANDWICH.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (placenta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *placenta* »_
GO EAT A SANDWICH.

http://www.bitchmakemeasandwich.com/








Dave


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
lol, you're a joke. Nobody "owns" their logs. It's not intelectual property. It's raw data. Explain to me how that could be protected by law and I'll back off, but I just don't think it applies outside of anything but courtesy... In any case I feel it's a little silly.
I am unable to make any kind of log that would prove or disprove that there are protection maps since Revo's software is in question about that very detail. I think the only definitive way to test that would be to log a completely stock car. Does that make sense? I mean that only because then from there we could compare engine behavior as EGT's rise. I think that's the only way I can think of that makes sense.


Matt, just ignore syntrix and all of the fanbois. I intended this thread to be technical, but it seems as if quite a few people would rather make unsubstantiated claims and point fingers when asked to show proof. Unfortunately at 15 pages, there's nothing else that can be added to this thread unless someone else decides to perform more datalogging on their REVO cars. Seeing as how I no longer have REVO, I cannot add any more logs of my own. I think it's great that this thread has progressed this far, but all the trash-talking just discourages people with legitimate concerns from posting up their own data. 
Dave


----------



## OOOO-A3 (Jul 20, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_I think the only definitive way to test that would be to log a completely stock car. Does that make sense? I mean that only because then from there we could compare engine behavior as EGT's rise. I think that's the only way I can think of that makes sense.


Two pages ago: http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...96911 Stock, the EGTs never reached the levels that you guys are arguing about. AFR and Timing is also shown. I don't know what you can conclude from them, but the data is there.


----------



## placenta (Jun 3, 2003)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
http://www.bitchmakemeasandwich.com/








Dave

I was quoting Scott Ferrall (SIRIUS Radio) but funny link


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Matt, just ignore syntrix and all of the fanbois. I intended this thread to be technical, but it seems as if quite a few people would rather make unsubstantiated claims and point fingers when asked to show proof. Unfortunately at 15 pages, there's nothing else that can be added to this thread unless someone else decides to perform more datalogging on their REVO cars. Seeing as how I no longer have REVO, I cannot add any more logs of my own. I think it's great that this thread has progressed this far, but all the trash-talking just discourages people with legitimate concerns from posting up their own data. 
Dave

fair enough, let er die. I think there is enough evidence in this thread for anyone to reach their own conclusions.
I'll let 'er die.


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Matt, just ignore syntrix and all of the fanbois. 


Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.









_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Unfortunately at 15 pages, there's nothing else that can be added to this thread unless someone else decides to perform more datalogging on their REVO cars. 

What logs do you want to see? I have a Vag-com, EVOMS intake, Revo Stg2, ATP DP and no cat's. I have asked more than once what SPS settings you self proclaimed "tuners" want to see.
I even started my own thread which nobody posted in, seem everyone wanted to keep this thread going, which is fine. But don't blame your dissatifaction of your own thread on the lack of other people contributions. 

_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Seeing as how I no longer have REVO, I cannot add any more logs of my own. 
Dave

Just curious, did you start this thread before or after you drank the APR flavored koolaid?

/rant

Sorry guys, I really don't mean to come off as a jerk. I am just a novice at understanding turbo engines. I come here to hopefully learn something from my peers about my car. Instead I get a 15 page infomercial.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot.









Fanboi of? 

_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_
What logs do you want to see? I have a Vag-com, EVOMS intake, Revo Stg2, ATP DP and no cat's. I have asked more than once what SPS settings you self proclaimed "tuners" want to see.
I even started my own thread which nobody posted in, seem everyone wanted to keep this thread going, which is fine. But don't blame your dissatifaction of your own thread on the lack of other people contributions. 

Sorry if you thought I was referring to you. I wasn't. I was referring more to the REVO distributors who have added no value to this thread, and have not posted a single log or shred of proof to back up their accusations.
You, magilson, bassbiker, and a few others have made this thread possible. I believe I even have a few of your logs in my folder of REVO logs from numerous people.

_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_
Just curious, did you start this thread before or after you drank the APR flavored koolaid?


Before. It was only after poor responses from [email protected] & other etc did I go to APR. 


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_
Sorry guys, I really don't mean to come off as a jerk. I am just a novice at understanding turbo engines. I come here to hopefully learn something from my peers about my car. Instead I get a 15 page infomercial.









I think that's how a lot of people feel. Several questions were brought up by this thread and it's rather disappointing when representatives of the company in question do nothing but blame everything but the chip, or try to sell you a product so you can "tune" the car yourself.
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_ I wasn't. I was referring more to the REVO distributors who have added no value to this thread, and have not posted a single log or shred of proof to back up their accusations.

You are right, nobody has posted proof of this "EGT Protection" and when it kicks in. You also agreed that you wanted to see it.
Zack, nice comment on the APR koolaid, that about sums up about 3 or 4.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_What logs do you want to see? I have a Vag-com, EVOMS intake, Revo Stg2, ATP DP and no cat's. I have asked more than once what SPS settings you self proclaimed "tuners" want to see.

I personally would like to see you at your stock 91 or 93 or whatever you are running. I would also like to see you run those same timing and boost settings at stock fuel "0". I have a theory I'm working out but I'd like more evidence before I present it. It could just be my car, but it's qwerky.
In any case usefull logs are:
Boost - so we know what you're running
Total Timing Angle - useful when looking at CF
Projected Exhasut temps (Cat temp could be useful too) - To get an idea what the turbo might be experiencing.
Correction Factor - useful in conjunction with total timing angle to determine you overall timing
Fuel Rail Pressure - to make sure it's not the culprit during CF's
Injector Timing - to make sure it's not the culprit during CF's
Intake Air Temps - to make sure it's not the culprit during CF's
Anyone can go in the new vag-com and check out where all these are located in the little help file included in that little link in the top left corner of the screen when looking at engine measuring blocks. I'm to lazy to go find them all right now.
so yeah, 91 or 93, whatever your using now, then switch to stock fuel with the rest the same and give er a day or two to learn and log again on the same stretch.
Thanks.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_You are right, nobody has posted proof of this "EGT Protection" and when it kicks in. You also agreed that you wanted to see it.
Zack, nice comment on the APR koolaid, that about sums up about 3 or 4.

You keep saying no one has posted proof but it is posted several times and quoted from Bosch. I even provided a link to the text. Just go back and look through this thread again...
Bosch:
"The exhaust gas temperature can be reduced by enriching the air-fuel mixture by manipulating the optimization parameters, for example. Unfortunately the negative side of enriching the mixture is that both fuel consumption and exhaust-gas emissions are raised. This means that the mixture need only be enriched by the absolute minimum amount required."
To help interpret the above, Bosch is stating they use enriching to lower EGT ONLY WHEN NEEDED, because Bosch doest like having cars that get bad mileage and pollute the environment. So when you see the 10.5:1 from Bosch it is because they had to do it to protect components as they state elseware. Indeed they make special reference to protecting turbochargers. They also make reference to high performance maps, fuel economizing maps, and EGT protection maps. 10.5:1 is in their component protection range and not what Bosch programs for fuel economy or normal daily driving.
Asking at what exact degree this happens is a poor question and most of the techies know there are few black and white single map numbers. The reason no specific value is explained is because this computer is not a black and white computer that does everything at a single number and single map. Just like with timing and other variables, there are several maps or datapoints to be taken into consideration. This is also why companies can get away with saying things like, "We dont disable the hardware protection" with a straight face. Sure, that's true in a literal sense in that there is no "check box" for disabling the hardware protection. On the other hand it is very easy to bypass the protections the OEM maps are providing by altering maps. Take for example allowing 12.5:1 regardless of EGT seen when the stock map enrichens to 10.5:1 in those circumstances with the express purpose of protecting components (remember they hate enriching). 
cheers! Mike


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

he said, she said. So what temp does this supposedly kick in, or what conditions make it happen, and what is the result.
Please post some .... what's the running word of the TT's.... oh yeah, proof








Honestly, I think that's the last question here, asking for specifics of this. Many people responded that they want to know what's happening with this buzz word being thrown around. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_You keep saying no one has posted proof but it is posted several times and quoted from Bosch. I even provided a link to the text. Just go back and look through this thread again...
Bosch:
"The exhaust gas temperature can be reduced by enriching the air-fuel mixture by manipulating the optimization parameters, for example. Unfortunately the negative side of enriching the mixture is that both fuel consumption and exhaust-gas emissions are raised. This means that the mixture need only be enriched by the absolute minimum amount required."
To help interpret the above, Bosch is stating they use enriching to lower EGT ONLY WHEN NEEDED, because Bosch doest like having cars that get bad mileage and pollute the environment. So when you see the 10.5:1 from Bosch it is because they had to do it to protect components as they state elseware. Indeed they make special reference to protecting turbochargers. They also make reference to high performance maps, fuel economizing maps, and EGT protection maps. 10.5:1 is in their component protection range and not what Bosch programs for fuel economy or normal daily driving.
Asking at what exact degree this happens is a poor question and most of the techies know there are few black and white single map numbers. The reason no specific value is explained is because this computer is not a black and white computer that does everything at a single number and single map. Just like with timing and other variables, there are several maps or datapoints to be taken into consideration. This is also why companies can get away with saying things like, "We dont disable the hardware protection" with a straight face. Sure, that's true in a literal sense in that there is no "check box" for disabling the hardware protection. On the other hand it is very easy to bypass the protections the OEM maps are providing by altering maps. Take for example allowing 12.5:1 regardless of EGT seen when the stock map enrichens to 10.5:1 in those circumstances with the express purpose of protecting components (remember they hate enriching). 
cheers! Mike

Mike,
Your post makes 100% sense, but nowhere in Bosch manual says that they have EGT protection (at least i cant find it), it just states that you can lower EGT's by enriching the mix (it doesnt say that "they use enriching to lower EGT ONLY WHEN NEEDED"). With my research i have also found that by over enriching the mix EGT's will again start to raise.
I was looking over some of the Jet's MTM logs and his EGT's go as high as 930 Deg C and it doesnt seem like EGT protection is kicking in. MTM is know to work hand in hand with Audi, and I hardly believe MTM will disable anything period.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (zemun2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zemun2* »_Mike,
Your post makes 100% sense, but nowhere in Bosch manual says that they have EGT protection (at least i cant find it), it just states that you can lower EGT's by enriching the mix (it doesnt say that "they use enriching to lower EGT ONLY WHEN NEEDED"). With my research i have also found that by over enriching the mix EGT's will again start to raise.
I was looking over some of the Jet's MTM logs and his EGT's go as high as 930 Deg C and it doesnt seem like EGT protection is kicking in. MTM is know to work hand in hand with Audi, and I hardly believe MTM will disable anything period.

I hear ya bud. It does mention in there in several different places their optimum fuel curves and that enrichening is used for component protection only. Funny thing about MTM is that everyone used to always look funny at the logs of them enrichening to 11:1 on the 1.8t. They still do that on that car and to 10.5:1 on the 2.0t now (they got one programmed in Canada successfully). His EGT were still getting up to the limit on the 1.8t depite all that enrichening and one thing noticed on his new setup is that the intake temps are up about 20 or more degrees (keeping in mind there is only one of his setup in the North America). He's working on some new intercooling solutions you may know about. I hear ya though that this thread is both informative and a little panicked. People are focusing on whether or not a company is ignoring factory component protection (enrichening) which the answer is clear from the logs. Sure they are. This isnt the first time in history a company has done this though. My bet is that every company has done a little of this in the history of their chiptuning programs. I think the more important question is what this actually means for the long term and what testing has been done to ensure this is ok. Unfortunately know tuners in question are answering this, but oh well. Only time will tell but we arent seeing a bunch of motors blowing yet so i'm not sure it's panic time at all. Just like 6 degrees retard isnt panic time. It looks like some are more aggressive and some more conservative with regards to motor protection. You know which way i've always gone, but doesnt mean others are terrible. cheers! Mike


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
There is almost nothing I would love more than to see one single pro-Revo fanboi on this thread do than to post logs. Not neat pretty graphs, but actual logs we can at least somewhat verify aren't fabricated out of their extreme love for a tuner. So please, for the love of all that is right in the world, POST LOGS TO PROVE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. PD Performance hasn't done it, not one single time since he started spewing back in Dec of 2005. Not once in that whole time, not to back up a single thing said. And I would love for you to post evidence.

Since you believe the graphs are fabricated why would you believe that the logs are not fabricated? You would have to adjust the numbers in the logs to get the fabricated graph.
The simple fact that you posted this means you would question anything less then something done in your presence.
As for my personal car, its different then anyone elses. Since Dave would question any log that counters what he says if it was not done in his presence there really is no point.
I had intentions to get my EGT gauge in on saturday but the fitting they supplied required a drill bit too large to be able to install without removing the turbo. I ordered new fittings and should have them this afternoon, just don't expect them to be installed today.
I also ordered stuff to read exhaust manifold pressure.
And as for spewing unproven things, one no one was argueing EGTs to my recolection last december REVO software had only been released to the public weeks prior. EGTs were only questioned by APR SPEWING propaganda about a still unproven EGT protection map and also a now proven false max EGT claim... or did you miss the last couple of pages of this thread?


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
lol, you're a joke. Nobody "owns" their logs. It's not intelectual property. It's raw data. Explain to me how that could be protected by law and I'll back off, but I just don't think it applies outside of anything but courtesy... In any case I feel it's a little silly.


Why does something have to be protected by law to not want to post it.. naked pictures of your wife are not protected by law if you took them, you infact would own them, but you still wouldn't post them here because other parties involved would not want them posted.
Great to see you have morals. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Since you believe the graphs are fabricated why would you believe that the logs are not fabricated? You would have to adjust the numbers in the logs to get the fabricated graph.
The simple fact that you posted this means you would question anything less then something done in your presence.
As for my personal car, its different then anyone elses. Since Dave would question any log that counters what he says if it was not done in his presence there really is no point.
I had intentions to get my EGT gauge in on saturday but the fitting they supplied required a drill bit too large to be able to install without removing the turbo. I ordered new fittings and should have them this afternoon, just don't expect them to be installed today.
I also ordered stuff to read exhaust manifold pressure.
And as for spewing unproven things, one no one was argueing EGTs to my recolection last december REVO software had only been released to the public weeks prior. EGTs were only questioned by APR SPEWING propaganda about a still unproven EGT protection map and also a now proven false max EGT claim... or did you miss the last couple of pages of this thread?



Relax. If you provide some graphs or data or whatever, I'll accept it. Just please provide some.
Also, I don't care about who brought up EGT's, just show them. I can't understand your distaste for them considering you feel they don't mean anything, well then show them. Just please provide some kind of data of your setup and list your setup.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
but it seems as if quite a few people would rather make unsubstantiated claims and point fingers when asked to show proof. 

Dave this ENTIRE post is about something that APR claimed just under a year ago and still to this day has not shown proof.
If anyone needs to show proof of claims made it is APR no one else, since they started this whole thing as propaganda to sell software.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Why does something have to be protected by law to not want to post it.. naked pictures of your wife are not protected by law if you took them, you infact would own them, but you still wouldn't post them here because other parties involved would not want them posted.
Great to see you have morals. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 

Wait.... What? Morals about engine data logging? Is this guy serious?


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Before. It was only after poor responses from [email protected] & other etc did I go to APR. 




What dave left out was that the thread was started AFTER he was offered free software from APR, not until then did he post about any problems, and when asking REVO and myself if he could return to REVO if he did not like APR did he ever mention any problems he had with REVO.
Kind of funny that he never had a problem till after he was offered something else to try....


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
Wait.... What? Morals about engine data logging? Is this guy serious?


well one if someone did the logging they would in fact own then and do have control over where they are posted.
Two if they asked syntrix not to post them and he did then he would be in the wrong, why should he do something he is not supposed to just to please you.

and to get back to the point this is all based on UNPROVEN claims made by APR in order to harm the competition...


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Dave this ENTIRE post is about something that APR claimed just under a year ago and still to this day has not shown proof.
If anyone needs to show proof of claims made it is APR no one else, since they started this whole thing as propaganda to sell software.

Yes, that would be nice, but they probably won't. That also doesn't make it real, or unreal for that matter. And so we continue to look for evidence ourselves.
research
- noun 1. diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc.: recent research in medicine.
I am also not seeing evidence of a single EGT protection temp. What I am seeing is that Bosch themselves claims to use enrichening to prevent component damage. As soon as you guys let of the fact that it may not be a cut and dry temp, we can all move on.
argumentum ad absurdum only goes so far before it starts to make the arguer look absurd.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_

well one if someone did the logging they would in fact own then and do have control over where they are posted.
Two if they asked syntrix not to post them and he did then he would be in the wrong, why should he do something he is not supposed to just to please you.

and to get back to the point this is all based on UNPROVEN claims made by APR in order to harm the competition...

Fair enough, but that's not what he illuded to, and there is no tacit ownership. You'll see that when you go back to read it. Please PM me if you have any more concerns about this because it is irrelivent to this topic. Intellectual property is interesting, however.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_

What dave left out was that the thread was started AFTER he was offered free software from APR, not until then did he post about any problems, and when asking REVO and myself if he could return to REVO if he did not like APR did he ever mention any problems he had with REVO.
Kind of funny that he never had a problem till after he was offered something else to try....

I was never offered anything free from any chip manufacturer or any other person or person's associated with anything having to do with my car and I share Dave's concerns. However this is no more interesting than the fact that you sell Revo, Dave now has APR, I still have Revo, Syntrix loves Giac, Keith represents APR, blah blah blah.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
Relax. If you provide some graphs or data or whatever, I'll accept it. Just please provide some.
Also, I don't care about who brought up EGT's, just show them. I can't understand your distaste for them considering you feel they don't mean anything, well then show them. Just please provide some kind of data of your setup and list your setup.


Its more then just taking graphs and posting the.. What you need to understand is that you really are a nobody, doesn't matter if you want the graphs or that you are happy with mediocore methods of taking data. If I had posted the graphs dave posted I would have been shot down by APR staff members that the methods were not reliable enough and prove nothing. Since they benefit APR they have kept their mouth shut on that.
If I post up some graphs taken on the street under uncontrolled conditions that back up what I am saying the first replies will be from Keith and Brett claiming how they are invalid becuase of the testing conditions and things could not be properly repeated.
so sorry I have more on the line then starting a post on the internet since I got free stuff when it comes to be posting grapsh. If I post graphs they are taken much more seriously then Daves graphs and I stand behind the data that I provide. I have not been able to gather the data in a way that I feel will offer the most accurate results and I have not been able to fully get the data logging equipment squared away that I would like to use since that is another factor that APR ALWAYS questions when it hurts then but seems to ignore when it benefits them, like in this case.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
I was never offered anything free from any chip manufacturer or any other person or person's associated with anything having to do with my car and I share Dave's concerns. However this is no more interesting than the fact that you sell Revo, Dave now has APR, I still have Revo, Syntrix loves Giac, Keith represents APR, blah blah blah.

You are still missing the point. This topic is only being debated because APR made a stink about it and then all of a sudden the only person who can prove its a problem did so after being offered free software.
doesn't matter if you were offered free software or not, the person who started this thread was.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
You keep saying no one has posted proof but it is posted several times and quoted from Bosch. I even provided a link to the text. Just go back and look through this thread again...
Bosch:
"The exhaust gas temperature can be reduced by enriching the air-fuel mixture by manipulating the optimization parameters, for example. Unfortunately the negative side of enriching the mixture is that both fuel consumption and exhaust-gas emissions are raised. This means that the mixture need only be enriched by the absolute minimum amount required."
To help interpret the above, Bosch is stating they use enriching to lower EGT ONLY WHEN NEEDED, because Bosch doest like having cars that get bad mileage and pollute the environment. So when you see the 10.5:1 from Bosch it is because they had to do it to protect components as they state elseware. Indeed they make special reference to protecting turbochargers. They also make reference to high performance maps, fuel economizing maps, and EGT protection maps. 10.5:1 is in their component protection range and not what Bosch programs for fuel economy or normal daily driving.
Asking at what exact degree this happens is a poor question and most of the techies know there are few black and white single map numbers. The reason no specific value is explained is because this computer is not a black and white computer that does everything at a single number and single map. Just like with timing and other variables, there are several maps or datapoints to be taken into consideration. This is also why companies can get away with saying things like, "We dont disable the hardware protection" with a straight face. Sure, that's true in a literal sense in that there is no "check box" for disabling the hardware protection. On the other hand it is very easy to bypass the protections the OEM maps are providing by altering maps. Take for example allowing 12.5:1 regardless of EGT seen when the stock map enrichens to 10.5:1 in those circumstances with the express purpose of protecting components (remember they hate enriching). 
cheers! Mike



You are missing one key element. If you look at all the bosch hardware schematics for our cars they show an EGT probe, like the 2.7t engins had, however we do not have one.
Just because Bosch wrote it does not mean its always implemented in every system, the pictures show that its true with the probe.
With that said, I am not necessarily saying there are no protecton maps, neither is syntrix, what he and I are saying is that APR who was the first to make the claims that they were removed have not proven what temperature it was at before.
The logs provided so far by a third tuners software do not even proven that it was related to EGTs when the car went richer.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_

Its more then just taking graphs and posting the.. What you need to understand is that you really are a nobody, doesn't matter if you want the graphs or that you are happy with mediocore methods of taking data. If I had posted the graphs dave posted I would have been shot down by APR staff members that the methods were not reliable enough and prove nothing. Since they benefit APR they have kept their mouth shut on that.
If I post up some graphs taken on the street under uncontrolled conditions that back up what I am saying the first replies will be from Keith and Brett claiming how they are invalid becuase of the testing conditions and things could not be properly repeated.
so sorry I have more on the line then starting a post on the internet since I got free stuff when it comes to be posting grapsh. If I post graphs they are taken much more seriously then Daves graphs and I stand behind the data that I provide. I have not been able to gather the data in a way that I feel will offer the most accurate results and I have not been able to fully get the data logging equipment squared away that I would like to use since that is another factor that APR ALWAYS questions when it hurts then but seems to ignore when it benefits them, like in this case.

Well, maybe we can let the reader decide that for themselves, because that sounded like one gigantic cop-out.
Let the buyer beware, correct?


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
Well, maybe we can let the reader decide that for themselves, because that sounded like one gigantic cop-out.
Let the buyer beware, correct?

How is it a cop out, go look at posts made by Brett in reply to mine on this very subject matter and you will see him saying my data is invalid due to lack of a controlled testing environment.

Yes let the buyer beware, but now that we have shown the real max EGTs what are they to be aware of other then it does not seem to be hitting those temps.
the only way to prove that it is hitting those temps is with a real probe pre turbine, something I am in the process of and so far APR is just talking out of their ass about doing since they have not once shown data to support their claims about it.
And everyone is forgetting one KEY factor. YOU CAN ADJUST FUEL WITH REVO. If you are unhappy about the A/F and you want to run it richer you can run it just as rich as APR does which is the stock fuel map, or 8 other settings in between.
Everyone seems to be ignoring that and is stuck on once setting.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
How is it a cop out, go look at posts made by Brett in reply to mine on this very subject matter and you will see him saying my data is invalid due to lack of a controlled testing environment.

Yes let the buyer beware, but now that we have shown the real max EGTs what are they to be aware of other then it does not seem to be hitting those temps.
the only way to prove that it is hitting those temps is with a real probe pre turbine, something I am in the process of and so far APR is just talking out of their ass about doing since they have not once shown data to support their claims about it.
And everyone is forgetting one KEY factor. YOU CAN ADJUST FUEL WITH REVO. If you are unhappy about the A/F and you want to run it richer you can run it just as rich as APR does which is the stock fuel map, or 8 other settings in between.
Everyone seems to be ignoring that and is stuck on once setting.

I've done that, and I've been doing some testing, and I am talking things over directly with George myself.
In any case you have stated your point about 21323 times in this thread. And if you are unwiling to post data here, I'd say you are done contributing positively, so I'm not sure we need you to keep posting. The rest of us are still working towards a goal, or at least I am, as I continue to log. As I said I'm working with George, who is difficult to get a hold of right now as he is at SEMA, so it may take a while.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_

You are missing one key element. If you look at all the bosch hardware schematics for our cars they show an EGT probe, like the 2.7t engins had, however we do not have one.
Just because Bosch wrote it does not mean its always implemented in every system, the pictures show that its true with the probe.
With that said, I am not necessarily saying there are no protecton maps, neither is syntrix, what he and I are saying is that APR who was the first to make the claims that they were removed have not proven what temperature it was at before.
The logs provided so far by a third tuners software do not even proven that it was related to EGTs when the car went richer.

Not the case for all of the ME and above manuals I have. Bosch does not list an EGT probe with these cars because they dont have them and havent even since prior to ME7 IIRC. Bosch lists the manner in which they obtain EGT as using their complex models based upon testing their test cars with their stock hardware and enrichment profiles under multiple strenuous test regimines and with EGT probes installed. Then they compare their models to the actual numbers. When the models are correct, they do away with the sensors on the production cars. This is why deviating hardware or software can probably also deviate those models so EGT may even be off in our cars without a true EGT guage to measure them. This is all in the latest gas-eng management manual for motronic.
cheers! Mike


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

look chris. What might be a big help for your case is listing your mods and revo settings, installing that EGT, logging the data (not sure if you are using a Fluke with a temp probe hookup or what, but log it, take pictures, whatever) and then also logging your ECU's projected temps and your cat temp. Even if you don't post it here, send it to me, IM me for a way to send it to me.
And no I won't post it, I wouldn't want to violate your intellectual property rights, lol.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

chris now wants to play whatever he can do back peddle out of this, I understand, he's on the ropes with no data.
Here's my thoughts on this scenario:
If you are maxing egt readings way down away from the turbo on the 02 sensor, then what are they preturbine before all of the heat energy is dissipated somewhere inside the turbo?
Proving that the egt's are inline by logging the 02 is hard because you don't know how much heat is lost inside the turbo before it hits the 02. Now we know for certain heat is definitely lost from the time it hits the turbo and passes onto the 02 but we don't know how much.
So, to summarize, if we know that heat is dissipated a certain amount by the time it leaves the turbo then hits o2, then if the 02 is maxed, how much higher are they at the turbine?
If you log egt's on the 02 and they are in line, well, great but how much heat was lost at the turbine? So we don't know if so much heat was dissipated that they look inline at the 02 but can still be high preturbine.
However, if the 02 is maxed and the egt's are out of spec at the 02, you can be quite certain that they are higher preturbine so its even worse than what you are currently logging preturbine. How much? We still don't know but we can all agree that egt's are going to be higher preturbine than 02.
That's what Brett and I were trying to explain to you before. If they are inline at the 02 they could still be high at the turbine. If they are high at the 02, you better believe they are high at the turbine.

_Modified by [email protected] at 9:18 AM 10/31/2006_


_Modified by [email protected] at 9:20 AM 10/31/2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Here's my thoughts on this scenario:
If you are maxing egt readings way down away from the turbo on the 02 sensor, then what are they preturbine before all of the heat energy is dissipated somewhere inside the turbo?
Proving that the egt's are inline by logging the 02 is hard because you don't know how much heat is lost inside the turbo before it hits the 02. Now we know for certain heat is definitely lost from the time it hits the turbo and passes onto the 02 but we don't know how much.
So, to summarize, if we know that heat is dissipated a certain amount by the time it leaves the turbo then hits o2, then if the 02 is maxed, how much higher are they at the turbine?
If you log egt's on the 02 and they are in line, well, great but how much heat was lost at the turbine? So we don't know if so much heat was dissipated that they look inline at the 02 but can still be high preturbine.
However, if the 02 is maxed and the egt's are out of spec at the 02, you can be quite certain that they are higher preturbine so its even worse than what you are currently logging preturbine. How much? We still don't know but we can all agree that egt's are going to be higher preturbine than 02.
That's what Brett and I were trying to explain to you before. If they are inline at the 02 they could still be high at the turbine. If they are high at the 02, you better believe they are high at the turbine.

_Modified by [email protected] at 9:18 AM 10/31/2006_

_Modified by [email protected] at 9:20 AM 10/31/2006_

Right, that's obvious. There's no egt on the turbo like some vag apps, so the question is how the ECU sees a "high" EGT, and what is the safe limit of the data that the ECU sees using all factory equipment.
I think that's what I've been asking over and over; and everyone keeps wondering what data is there to support any of this. I guess since APR isn't answering the question, because they don't know.
If they knew how it worked, they could post it up in a few sentences, log, take pictures, call up an independent auditor to verify results........ NOT!







But some people would demand that info. Maybe they know, but don't want to post it because of the nature of the forum lately.
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Right, that's obvious. There's no egt on the turbo like some vag apps, so the question is how the ECU sees a "high" EGT, and what is the safe limit of the data that the ECU sees using all factory equipment.
I think that's what I've been asking over and over; and everyone keeps wondering what data is there to support any of this. I guess since APR isn't answering the question, because they don't know.
If they knew how it worked, they could post it up in a few sentences, log, take pictures, call up an independent auditor to verify results........ NOT!







But some people would demand that info. Maybe they know, but don't want to post it because of the nature of the forum lately.
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


The funny part about all of this is that answer has been supplied several times by several posters. I just haven't put it all together for you in one nice package and I won't cause its more fun to watch your frustration over nothing when all you have to do is read what bhvrdr and others are telling you to.
Simply, the ecu uses an EGT MODEL that calculates preturbine egt's based on several parameters. The point at which hardware protection kicks in varies based on the model. EGT's alone can enable the map as well as other parameters. To go into everything would take a long time. EGT MODELs are a very real and complicated development/tuning process completed by the oem's during engine and component design.


_Modified by [email protected] at 10:50 AM 10/31/2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
The funny part about all of this is that answer has been supplied several times by several posters. I just haven't put it all together for you in one nice package and I won't cause its more fun to watch your frustration over nothing when all you have to do is read what bhvrdr and others are telling you to.
Simply, the ecu uses an EGT MODEL that calculates preturbine egt's based on several parameters. The point at which hardware protection kicks in varies based on the model. EGT's alone can enable the map as well as other parameters. To go into everything would take a long time. EGT MODELs are a very real and complicated development/tuning process completed by the oem's during engine and component design.

_Modified by [email protected] at 10:50 AM 10/31/2006_

Right, I think we can assume how it works, we are looking for more specifics, such as how the EGT logic works, sample parameters, what is the model after a "condition" is detected, enrichment data, and more specific details.
It's just that people are throwing the terms around like it's gospel without understanding all of the specifics. I'm sure time will tell, but the more info to the community the better. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Right, I think we can assume how it works, we are looking for more specifics, such as how the EGT logic works, sample parameters, what is the model after a "condition" is detected, enrichment data, and more specific details.
It's just that people are throwing the terms around like it's gospel without understanding all of the specifics. I'm sure time will tell, but the more info to the community the better. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


Well, the terms are gospel as they reference proven engineering principles that have been used for a long time. No offense, but if you want to understand the specifics of it, go to school to obtain a Mechanical Engineering degree.
I understand your position that since APR stated that high egt's are bad we have to prove it. I don't agree as alot of documentation has been supplied directly from BW that states what egt range we should be seeing preturbine. We are then able to measure egt's at the o2. So if the egt's are high at the o2, they must be higher preturbine. Argument over.
Now if someone wants to argue that there is no loss of energy or heat dissipation from preturbine readings to o2 readings then that is where the argument can best go to prove that egt readings at the 02 don't mean anything negative. If someone can prove that preturbine egts are going to be consistent with o2 readings, then the logs we have seen aren't completely bad, just hitting up against the safe limits as detemined by BW.
Whether the hardware protection map exists or when it kicks in or for what reason is moot. What these logs show is that egt's are climbing right to or slightly more at the o2 sensor measurement than BW recommends at a preturbine measurement. Therefore the car that these logs were collected from shows that the egt's are very high at the o2 sensor reading and if the 02 reads the same or lower than a preturbine measurement will, the engine components may be damaged according to BW.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Well, the terms are gospel as they reference proven engineering principles that have been used for a long time. No offense, but if you want to understand the specifics of it, go to school to obtain a Mechanical Engineering degree.

eh, more like Materials Engineering. In any case, it generally requires some finite element analysis, as show by a post given by crew about turbine temps previously. A thermodynamics and materials class would help, but I avoided those electives like the plague. I'll stick to my sparks and wires.
In any case, we don't need any degree as Borg Waner has already done the hard work for us.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
eh, more like Materials Engineering. In any case, it generally requires some finite element analysis, as show by a post given by crew about turbine temps previously. A thermodynamics and materials class would help, but I avoided those electives like the plague. I'll stick to my sparks and wires.
In any case, we don't need any degree as Borg Waner has already done the hard work for us.

http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
Not the case for all of the ME and above manuals I have. Bosch does not list an EGT probe with these cars because they dont have them and havent even since prior to ME7 IIRC. Bosch lists the manner in which they obtain EGT as using their complex models based upon testing their test cars with their stock hardware and enrichment profiles under multiple strenuous test regimines and with EGT probes installed. Then they compare their models to the actual numbers. When the models are correct, they do away with the sensors on the production cars. This is why deviating hardware or software can probably also deviate those models so EGT may even be off in our cars without a true EGT guage to measure them. This is all in the latest gas-eng management manual for motronic.
cheers! Mike

Sorry Audi lists it in all the sections on the inputs and outputs of the ECM and I thought I had seen similar in one of the Bosch models, I will check again.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Sorry Audi lists it in all the sections on the inputs and outputs of the ECM and I thought I had seen similar in one of the Bosch models, I will check again.

Now we are moving in the right direction.
Stating a hard spec on a turbo (keith) doesn't answer the question about how the software behaves!


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_

Stating a hard spec on a turbo (keith) doesn't answer the question about how the software behaves! 

Correct, the question is, does the software behave in a manner that raises egt's outside of the spec. According to these logs the software does behave that way due to the modifications made to it. Does the oem software behave in a manner that sends the egt readings at the o2 above bw's spec? No logs have shown that to date. Does APR's software behave in a manner that raises the o2 sensor egt readings above the preturbine specs dictated by BW? No logs have shown that to date. Good point, I agree!


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_chris now wants to play whatever he can do back peddle out of this, I understand, he's on the ropes with no data.


How is stating fact about posts made by your employeer questioning my testing methods on this very subject in the past back peddling?

_Quote »_
If you are maxing egt readings way down away from the turbo on the 02 sensor, then what are they preturbine before all of the heat energy is dissipated somewhere inside the turbo?

Way down away from the turbo? The primary 02 sensor is inches from the turbine and the backside of the main cat is no more then 12 inches away.

Not to mention the calcuated pre turbine temps shown by the ECM while maxing out are still well below the limits found from BW that are posted in this thread.
The only back peddling going on here is from yourself who was previously stating that REVO had removed hardware limits and are now working around them. While still the same outcome in theory that is not the same thing. Blanket statements were stated by yourself and your company solely for the intent of harming another companies sales without anything to back it up.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Correct, the question is, does the software behave in a manner that raises egt's outside of the spec. According to these logs the software does behave that way due to the modifications made to it. Does the oem software behave in a manner that sends the egt readings at the o2 above bw's spec? No logs have shown that to date. Does APR's software behave in a manner that raises the o2 sensor egt readings above the preturbine specs dictated by BW? No logs have shown that to date. Good point, I agree!


and you say I am back peddling?
no one so far has proven that it takes the car out of BW specs.
Why is the 02 sensor a legit means of testing to prove that its not in spec but its not a legit means of testing to show that it is still in spec?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_

What dave left out was that the thread was started AFTER he was offered free software from APR, not until then did he post about any problems, and when asking REVO and myself if he could return to REVO if he did not like APR did he ever mention any problems he had with REVO.
Kind of funny that he never had a problem till after he was offered something else to try....

Nope. You and George have been spreading this lie trying to discredit me. 
I could really care less though as the people who know me, know exactly what happened and don't doubt me for a second.
Either way, this seems to be the only defense REVO has been able to come up with during this whole thing. Attack the posters and forget about the information being discussed.
Dave


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Nope. You and George have been spreading this lie trying to discredit me. 


Dave I was asked a week before this thread started if I would be able to flash you back to stock if you tried APR since they contacted you about trying some new software, not really sure how that is a lie.
You also have stated numerous times in this thread that half the reason you are so pissed off is because the answer was no.
How can it be a lie if you've said it over and over again in this thread.


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_H
The only back peddling going on here is from yourself who was previously stating that REVO had removed hardware limits and are now working around them. While still the same outcome in theory that is not the same thing. Blanket statements were stated by yourself and your company solely for the intent of harming another companies sales without anything to back it up.

Amen.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
The only back peddling going on here is from yourself who was previously stating that REVO had removed hardware limits and are now working around them. While still the same outcome in theory that is not the same thing. Blanket statements were stated by yourself and your company solely for the intent of harming another companies sales without anything to back it up.

Amen
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
Dave I was asked a week before this thread started if I would be able to flash you back to stock if you tried APR since they contacted you about trying some new software, not really sure how that is a lie.
You also have stated numerous times in this thread that half the reason you are so pissed off is because the answer was no.
How can it be a lie if you've said it over and over again in this thread.

No, I was never contacted by APR. I outlined the fact that I wanted to try out APR a long time ago. I've tried out OCT, APR is 1.75 hrs away, and REVO opened up 30 mins away. Since I have several friends that run APR and have said good things about it, I opted to try it. This was before i knew that REVO's policy was BS and that they won't reflash you for software that you already paid for.
Get your facts straight. 
Dave


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
no one so far has proven that it takes the car out of BW specs.

I've posted logs that show my projected temps at 972 deg C with my cat reading a temp of 846 deg C. I'd say that's pretty hot, and my A/F didn't waver. Now even if that ECU estimate is conservative, it's really freakin hot. That and Crew has posted logs showing that the O2 Sensor was maxed out; i'd say that's a little hot too, wouldn't you?


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
This was before i knew that REVO's policy was BS and that they won't reflash you for software that you already paid for.


I have reflashed numerous ECUs that were replaced or overwritten.
The reason that REVO needs to be careful is becuase there is nothing stopping you from swapping ECUs with a friend then coming in and saying you wanted to get flashed again. As a dealer in order for me to be reimbursed by REVO I need to be able to provide proof. Getting a free flash really doesn't provide any proof as to what happened to the REVO software. Getting your ECM replaced by the dealer you have an invoice stating all the repairs done to your car. That was my reply when asked through friends about your situation and I told them that I would have to ask George, not knowing you already spoke to George.
I highly doubt APR or GIAC would continue to reflash someone for free if they wanted to keep trying other software. 
If you got your car painted by one shop andyou didn't like it would Audi or VW be expected to repaint your car back to the first color for free?


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
I've posted logs that show my projected temps at 972 deg C with my cat reading a temp of 846 deg C. I'd say that's pretty hot, and my A/F didn't waver. Now even if that ECU estimate is conservative, it's really freakin hot. That and Crew has posted logs showing that the O2 Sensor was maxed out; i'd say that's a little hot too, wouldn't you?

Is it hot, sure its hot.. but I also think 85 degrees outside is way to hot.
But its not what I think is too hot or what you think is too hot, if that was the case then this could never end. The arguement is what is physically too hot for the materials to handle that will cause a failure. According to the numbers provided here for the closest piece of hardware is 920 sustained, that would been holding it for an extended period of time, and 1050 peak which would mean you can hit for a bit but don't hold it..
so according to that then no your numbers are not hot.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_The reason that REVO needs to be careful is becuase there is nothing stopping you from swapping ECUs with a friend then coming in and saying you wanted to get flashed again.

I thought this wasn't possible in modern VW's...


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_
I have reflashed numerous ECUs that were replaced or overwritten.
The reason that REVO needs to be careful is becuase there is nothing stopping you from swapping ECUs with a friend then coming in and saying you wanted to get flashed again. As a dealer in order for me to be reimbursed by REVO I need to be able to provide proof. Getting a free flash really doesn't provide any proof as to what happened to the REVO software. Getting your ECM replaced by the dealer you have an invoice stating all the repairs done to your car. That was my reply when asked through friends about your situation and I told them that I would have to ask George, not knowing you already spoke to George.
I highly doubt APR or GIAC would continue to reflash someone for free if they wanted to keep trying other software. 
If you got your car painted by one shop andyou didn't like it would Audi or VW be expected to repaint your car back to the first color for free?

ME9 ecu's aren't very easily swappable from car to car. The ecu's are coded with vin and they have to match on the car the ecu is in. Its not like me7 days, which the same is a concern for us as well but we implemented changes in our software to be able to identify an apr ecu in the correct car that it originated from.
We didn't have to do that with me9 cause bosch/vw/audi did for us.
GIAC uses a similar system that incorporates vin. maybe Revo should look into this as well so they can better meet the demands of their customers.


----------



## PD Performance (Jul 1, 2004)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
I thought this wasn't possible in modern VW's...

There are certain parts that cannot be swapped. I have not gotten any definitive information from Audi saying that the ECM could not be swapped from car to car.
The vin and other information has been encoded in ECMs for years from VW/Audi.
The statement was more based on general reasons as to why. With an immo II car for example you can swap an ECM without even a dealer visit, while immo III which as found from 02 one had the vin and other information stored in the ECM. When they used to giveo ut the pins you could do it with a VAG-com. Now you can still swap them only the system is locked and can only be done at the dealer.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (PD Performance)*


_Quote, originally posted by *PD Performance* »_Is it hot, sure its hot.. but I also think 85 degrees outside is way to hot.
But its not what I think is too hot or what you think is too hot, if that was the case then this could never end. The arguement is what is physically too hot for the materials to handle that will cause a failure. According to the numbers provided here for the closest piece of hardware is 920 sustained, that would been holding it for an extended period of time, and 1050 peak which would mean you can hit for a bit but don't hold it..
so according to that then no your numbers are not hot.

If I were doing more than logging runs, such as sustained track use or "spirited driving" it very well could sustain temps over 920 deg C. So again, I think that's a clear indication.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_I've posted logs that show my projected temps at 972 deg C with my cat reading a temp of 846 deg C. I'd say that's pretty hot, and my A/F didn't waver. Now even if that ECU estimate is conservative, it's really freakin hot. That and Crew has posted logs showing that the O2 Sensor was maxed out; i'd say that's a little hot too, wouldn't you?

Your logs look pretty good. Should see close to that on a stock car (around 800C). Crews look pretty hot if his were the ones showing projected maxed at 999C. I'd try and keep the o2 EGT readings at or below 900C under hard conditions. Keep in mind the o2 readings for EGT may be a bit off also so they could be reading high or low if the models no longer apply.
cheers! mike


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
Your logs look pretty good. Should see close to that on a stock car (around 800C). Crews look pretty hot if his were the ones showing projected maxed at 999C. I'd try and keep the o2 EGT readings at or below 900C under hard conditions. Keep in mind the o2 readings for EGT may be a bit off also so they could be reading high or low if the models no longer apply.
cheers! mike

Mike, those were actually off of another car. I just had his logs . . . . however, given that i maxed out at 900C several times on the primary O2 sensor, I have no doubt that I maxed out at 999C estimated.
Dave


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Mike, those were actually off of another car. I just had his logs . . . . however, given that i maxed out at 900C several times on the primary O2 sensor, I have no doubt that I maxed out at 999C estimated.
Dave

Wait a minunte, you mean the high EGT logs weren't even yours?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Mike, those were actually off of another car. I just had his logs . . . . however, given that i maxed out at 900C several times on the primary O2 sensor, I have no doubt that I maxed out at 999C estimated.
Dave

Wait, I know the topic of "some revo logs", but these logs weren't yours?
I'll have to go back to page one. You also told me 920 over the IM here, not 900.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_Since everyone loves to tear apart logs









































There are a few things I'll comment on later . . . 
Dave

Just for reference. He didn't say it was his car, unless he's being misleading again, and he says it down low. Hmmmmm.
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (mk4driver22)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mk4driver22* »_Wait a minunte, you mean the high EGT logs weren't even yours?









Woah, I just posted that too. Weird








http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Just for reference. He didn't say it was his car, unless he's being misleading again, and he says it down low. Hmmmmm.
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif

I think you are reading Dave and my interaction wrong. I'm not talking about those you posted that are his but the actual data logs from the other car showing the projected at 999 with similar EGT readings at the o2. He did mention the difference it's just such a long thread i didnt realize there were two sets.
cheers! Mike


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
I think you are reading Dave and my interaction wrong. I'm not talking about those you posted that are his but the actual data logs from the other car showing the projected at 999 with similar EGT readings at the o2. He did mention the difference it's just such a long thread i didnt realize there were two sets.
cheers! Mike

Mike is right. I only logged block 034. I never logged block 112. The block 112 logs I posted (exhibiting 999C) were from two separate REVO cars (not mine)
These are the block 112 logs I posted.
















My block 034 logs maxed out at 900C.
Syntrix, please grow up.
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (crew217)*

Ok, I'm glad you clarified that those weren't your logs. The more the merrier.
Oh, BTW< I was not the first to ask the question, so grow up applies to more than me. Actually the statement isn't technical from you, it's down right childish.
Thanks for the clarification http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


----------



## prom king (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (syntrix)*

Chicken limbo's the one, big fun.
This thread turned into a waste of reading with a lot of misinformation as usual.
If I learned one thing from this thread, it's who's on who's side


----------



## ZWStewart (Mar 27, 2002)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (97jazzgti)*


_Quote, originally posted by *97jazzgti* »_Chicken limbo's the one, big fun.
This thread turned into a waste of reading with a lot of misinformation as usual.
If I learned one thing from this thread, it's who's on who's side









Yup. I'm on the Truth's side. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## VWAUDITECH (Jul 29, 2005)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (mk4driver22)*

Yep,I am still waiting for any cracked manifolds/blown turbos/melted pistons/valves,etc.........all I get is phone calls saying how stoked people are with their car now that they have REVO........Go Play!
It was my understanding that cat converters actually create heat in the exhaust,whether it is because of backpressure,or the chemical reaction,but catalyst has known to always run hot.......if the reading is taken right after the cat,then possibly the exhaust is hotter than when it left the turbine?
They have heat shields on cats for a reason,they get hot enough to catch tall grass on fire,one reason for the heatshields......
FWIW I do have logs for REVO stage 2,fuel at 7,with TT 2.5"downpipe and hottest temp was 770...TT DP has no cat after the turbine.
Either way,cat can melt from too much EGT and too rich AFR as well,and we have seen no EVIDENCE of melted ANYTHING from ANY companies SW.....is that a fair statement?




_Modified by VWAUDITECH at 11:58 PM 11-1-2006_


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (VWAUDITECH)*


_Quote, originally posted by *VWAUDITECH* »_Yep,I am still waiting for any cracked manifolds/blown turbos/melted pistons/valves,etc.........all I get is phone calls saying how stoked people are with their car now that they have REVO........Go Play!
It was my understanding that cat converters actually create heat in the exhaust,whether it is because of backpressure,or the chemical reaction,but catalyst has known to always run hot.......if the reading is taken right after the cat,then possibly the exhaust is hotter than when it left the turbine?
They have heat shields on cats for a reason,they get hot enough to catch tall grass on fire,one reason for the heatshields......
FWIW I do have logs for REVO stage 2,fuel at 7,with TT 2.5"downpipe and hottest temp was 770...TT DP has no cat after the turbine.
Either way,cat can melt from too much EGT and too rich AFR as well,and we have seen no EVIDENCE of melted ANYTHING from ANY companies SW.....is that a fair statement?
_Modified by VWAUDITECH at 11:58 PM 11-1-2006_

cool! I didn't know you had logs. Post them up!
Yes, I think it is fair for you to say you don't know what you don't know. Which is why waiting for damaged anything is a bulljive excuse. If VAG had the attitude," well let's just release the car and see how it does" would you buy it? A rational person wouldn't. We all rely on the assumption that VAG tested the cars fully, in all situations and that we can rely on them to have solved most issues and to take responsibility for any subsequent failures (untill 4 years is up







). And chip customers make that same assumption (incorrectly in my opinion). I'm not talking about any chip company over another. That is why I want to see these logs. I still have Revo so I'm still interested in seeing Revo logs.
Now why when coilpacks were failing on MkIV's and VAG balked on it did everyone get mad at them, but then when their are motor failures (FROM ALL CHIP PRODUCERS) are their extreme fans who defend them to the last. Alanis Morrisette keeps poping in my head.
Here is how Catalytic Converter's work (in a simple explanation)
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/...r.htm
Will the reaction in the cat create more heat than the explosion in your cumbustion chamber? No. So your hypothesis is false and you will not see hotter temperatures at the cat than those leaving the turbine, unless of course you are somehow cooling your turbo, and cooling it a lot. The turbo does work on the removal of heat from the exhaust as part of it's energy, but nothing like what you are suggesting. This can be proven again by the fact that the ECU is always guessing the EGT's are around 125-175 degrees Celcius hotter than the cat. But of course you would know that since you've logged your engine's behavior.
And once again, "stoked" Revo owners are not proof (or disproof) that Revo is a good (or bad) chip. Only that it increases power over stock levels.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (magilson)*

Blah blah blah. I don't know why you demand logs from everyone here. Logs are only as good as the sensors themselves, as well as the conditions logged under. Once again, only a narrow understanding of that data, but so quick to jump down people's throats here. I don't know why this behaviour is tolerated here. 
I say that if you watch Weather Channel, the radar and forcast are not good enough, you would demand more logs, even if it was visibly raining outside.
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_ This can be proven again by the fact that the ECU is always guessing the EGT's are around 125-175 degrees Celcius hotter than the cat. 
\

ORLY?







Do you have any logs of this with a thermocouple AND vag-com logging? Please provide logs before making assumptions.
:start:


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_\

ORLY?







Do you have any logs of this with a thermocouple AND vag-com logging? Please provide logs before making assumptions.
:start:


I already have provided logs showing the ECU recorded Cat temps and Projected temps, which is what I said. They show a consistent 125-175 deg C temperature difference. This was on Revo 91 program running 93 octane fuel. I wasn't talking about temp probe measurements. I was talking about the number the actual ECU uses which in the end, since we aren't equiped with an EGT probe from the factory, remains a useful number.
I am sorry you incorrectly read my post.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Blah blah blah. I don't know why you demand logs from everyone here. Logs are only as good as the sensors themselves, as well as the conditions logged under. Once again, only a narrow understanding of that data, but so quick to jump down people's throats here. I don't know why this behaviour is tolerated here. 
I say that if you watch Weather Channel, the radar and forcast are not good enough, you would demand more logs, even if it was visibly raining outside.
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


That is an incorrect and ignorant generalization. Go figure.
In any case they are useful, considering that the ECU, which is what is controlling the motor, is using these sensors that we are logging. And the variability of the conditions is also a reasonable variable, since I will in fact be driving my car in varaible conditions.
The only time I "jumped down anyone's throat" was when asking for data to back up their claims. I understand that you are asking for the same with regards to a protection map, and I am still taking data. However there are several others here, including yourself syntrix, who have participated in the exact same behavior you call me on now. So relax about it.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (magilson)*

I'm more than relaxed, and you have been told to tone it down and keep it technical, not personal. I'm really laughing at you, but that's not helping the community, since you are not posting any logs with proof of these pre and post turbine numbers.
It's important for the community to understand that your claims are assumptions, and unsubstantiated.
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_I'm more than relaxed, and you have been told to tone it down and keep it technical, not personal. I'm really laughing at you, but that's not helping the community, since you are not posting any logs with proof of these pre and post turbine numbers.
It's important for the community to understand that your claims are assumptions, and unsubstantiated.
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


The same goes for you. On all of that actually...


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (magilson)*

So what applications actually have the mentioned: Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) Sensor 1 G235 Which is separate from the two mentioned O2 sensors. 
Since everyone is saying there isn't one, but there's documentation that states there is. Maybe just transverse?
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_So what applications actually have the mentioned: Exhaust Gas Temperature (EGT) Sensor 1 G235 Which is separate from the two mentioned O2 sensors. 
Since everyone is saying there isn't one, but there's documentation that states there is. Maybe just transverse?
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


If you look through this thread I posted on this. None of ours use the actual EGT sensor. All of them were tested with it by Bosch however. That is how they develop their EGT models. Once the models are correct, they can do away with the sensor on production ME cars. 
cheers! mike


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Some REVO 93 logs . . . (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
If you look through this thread I posted on this. None of ours use the actual EGT sensor. All of them were tested with it by Bosch however. That is how they develop their EGT models. Once the models are correct, they can do away with the sensor on production ME cars. 
cheers! mike

That's exactly what I'm not talking about. Thanks though http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

What are you talking about then?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (iThread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *iThread* »_What are you talking about then?

Audi documentation. Not Bosch. I've never seen a separate EGT on these cars, but most references are to EM and two O2 sensors and a separate EGT for 2.0T FSI.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Audi documentation. Not Bosch. I've never seen a separate EGT on these cars, but most references are to EM and two O2 sensors and a separate EGT for 2.0T FSI.

Mike is right. The same "documentation" you got the EGT sensor from indicates that it isn't used on our cars.
Dave


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Audi documentation. Not Bosch. I've never seen a separate EGT on these cars, but most references are to EM and two O2 sensors and a separate EGT for 2.0T FSI.

So you want to see Audi documentation on the thermal limits? Because I'm really trying to figure out what can put this to rest.
The last several pages have been essentially worthless.
And as far as I know there is not a EGT sensor on the production 2.0T FSI motors.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_
Mike is right. The same "documentation" you got the EGT sensor from indicates that it isn't used on our cars.
Dave

You are right, captain obvious. But why is it all over Audi tech docs (G235)? Mike was talking about Bosch and their "testing", which is not what I was asking about.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
You are right, captain obvious. But why is it all over Audi tech docs (G235)? Mike was talking about Bosch and their "testing", which is not what I was asking about.

Because they used an EGT sensor when designing and programming this motor . . . .
I don't understand why you find this to be relevant when it does not exist on our cars.
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (iThread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *iThread* »_
So you want to see Audi documentation on the thermal limits? Because I'm really trying to figure out what can put this to rest.
The last several pages have been essentially worthless.
And as far as I know there is not a EGT sensor on the production 2.0T FSI motors.

No thread, I'm talking about Audi technical references all over the place to G235, a separate EGT probe. Hmmm, knowing the mysterious powers of Audi/VW, the docs were produced, and then later they when to the value of the first O2 sensor. I'm askin' cause this thread is slowing down.
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif
Some TT's keep punching the Bosch theory, which is irrelevant to why it's in Audi technical info listed as G235 (like your N75, etc....).


_Modified by syntrix at 11:09 AM 11-3-2006_


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Audi documentation. Not Bosch. I've never seen a separate EGT on these cars, but most references are to EM and two O2 sensors and a separate EGT for 2.0T FSI.


Sorry, I was unclear what documentation you are working from. I havent seen any reference of an EGT sensor including the Audi self study that has info from Bosch. ETKA 6 does not list such a part for any of our cars. It was also not on our ME7 Audi longitunal 1.8t cars but was on prior to that.
cheers! Mike


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
No thread, I'm talking about Audi technical references all over the place to G235, a separate EGT probe. Hmmm, knowing the mysterious powers of Audi/VW, the docs were produced, and then later they when to the value of the first O2 sensor. I'm askin' cause this thread is slowing down.
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif
B

Syntrix, please post a screenshot of these "technical references" you're talking about. 
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
Sorry, I was unclear what documentation you are working from. I havent seen any reference of an EGT sensor including the Audi self study that has info from Bosch. ETKA 6 does not list such a part for any of our cars. It was also not on our ME7 Audi longitunal 1.8t cars but was on prior to that.
cheers! Mike

Mike, you should have a lot of Audi tech info. Just search for G235. It's all over the place!


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Mike, you should have a lot of Audi tech info. Just search for G235. It's all over the place!

I dont dispute it exists in some platform. I'm at the hospital now, but i'll take another look to see if I can find where it is used. Not on our FSI platforms though. Do you see it referenced as used with ME7 and above anywhere? Last time I saw one on the Audi 1.8t cars was I believe back in 1999 or 2000. cheers! Mike


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
I dont dispute it exists in some platform. I'm at the hospital now, but i'll take another look to see if I can find where it is used. Not on our FSI platforms though. Do you see it referenced as used with ME7 and above anywhere? Last time I saw one on the Audi 1.8t cars was I believe back in 1999 or 2000. cheers! Mike 

Mike, check your PM.








Dave


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Mike, you should have a lot of Audi tech info. Just search for G235. It's all over the place!

Except on our cars.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (iThread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *iThread* »_
Except on our cars.

That is correct! It is physically not there!


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
That is correct! It is physically not there!

Ok, so why do we care about it?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
That is correct! It is physically not there!

So what are you posting about?
Guess someone decided to flip the page








Dave


----------



## placenta (Jun 3, 2003)

This is the longest worthless 18 page thread ever.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

this thread is moving so fast I want to participate too but I am confused as to what the hell we are talking about, lol.
TT 225's and S4 both have an egt probe. Our Audi development fsi engine had one but I've never seen any production motors with them.
Why is this important?


_Modified by [email protected] at 11:22 AM 11-3-2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (placenta)*


_Quote, originally posted by *placenta* »_This is the longest worthless 18 page thread ever.

I would agree!
One simple question and everyone tries to jump in with their "argument renditions".


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
I would agree!
One simple question and everyone tries to jump in with their "argument renditions".

what question, jeez, I can't even figure that part out.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_this thread is moving so fast I want to participate too but I am confused as to what the hell we are talking about, lol.
TT 225's and S4 both have an egt probe. Our Audi development fsi engine had one but I've never seen any production motors with them.
Why is this important?

_Modified by [email protected] at 11:22 AM 11-3-2006_


I think you just answered the question Keith! Thanks man http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

So the last several pages have been about you (Syntrix) just making the point that a EGT probe exists on paper and not on the engines? Ok then what bearing does that have on the EGT temps posted in here which is what I thought the topic was about.
Make a point quickly please.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Because it's documented









Lol. 
OK, if anyone wants to know what went on for the past 10 posts, here it is. 
Syntrix was probably wondering what I was referring to when I mentioned "tumble flaps" in the ATP manifold thread. That brought him to the VW 2.0t PDF that has been circulating around for awhile.








Tumble flaps (yes, I did spell it wrong in the other thread)








Anyways, he looked through it a little bit more and saw that there is a g235 sensor listed








As mike posted, that sensor existed only for development purposes and was removed from the production version. In all of syntrix's excitement, he didn't bother flipping the page to see that it indeed *does NOT exist* on our cars. 
















LOL . . . all that fuss for nothing. I especially liked how he cited "multiple audi references"








Either way, I feel that this thread has gone off course from what I originally intended it to be (objective and technical). Therefore, I have asked the mods to lock it, and any further REVO logs done by other members should be posted in their own new threads. Thanks everyone for participating in this thread. At 18 pages, I am confident to say that it is finished.
Dave


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

wow, so basically a typo in the documentation. if it was intentional there would be reference in the ecu pin outs as well since it would have to interface with the ecu. I didn't see any reference in the pin outs, but Iquickly scanned them as my eyes hurt.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_wow, so basically a typo in the documentation. if it was intentional there would be reference in the ecu pin outs as well since it would have to interface with the ecu. I didn't see any reference in the pin outs, but Iquickly scanned them as my eyes hurt.

Too many parties late night at the shop








I have no idea what crew is saying, he never makes any sense.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Too many parties late night at the shop








I have no idea what crew is saying, he never makes any sense. 

Lol nice, I see you deleted/replaced the picture you posted up above eariler
















http://www.swankmonkey.com/egt.gif
Dave


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*

You need help Dave. Plus you are violating the DMCA by hosting that picture.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_You need help Dave. Plus you are violating the DMCA by hosting that picture.

Please be sure to include your name on the complaint you decide to file with them
















PWN3D
Time for this thread to die . . . 
Dave


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

Ok now it's just bickering.
http://****************.com/default/zero2/lock5.gif
Way to trash what was a good topic for awhile there.


----------

