# Weighing my chip options.



## KyleLaughs (Mar 23, 2010)

Im looking at two different brand ECU chips and i want to know whats right for me! Right now i have a short ram and (as some may know) will soon be doing a catback. I want the ability to switch between 87 and whichever higher octane file i want whenever i want and i want a lean/rich mode. Im looking at either APR or C2.


----------



## TylerO28 (Jul 7, 2008)

Switching via cc stock = apr
C2 is only one octane, however I do believe it can assess the fuel similar to the factory and re calibrate things accordingly (I may be wrong)

If you want ease of use and selectable programs you'll have to get apr

Giac make a flash loader you can buy but honestly who wants to carry a box around?

I dunno I think you answered your question in your question... 

As far as rich/lean options...why? Will you be logging fuel maps and deciding what you need correctly?
Leaving it to the tuning gods is imo the best option!


----------



## elf911 (Jul 27, 2007)

Funny Kyle that you posted this I was up for like 2 hours last night looking at different tuners and trying to find someone local or at least close to the NYC area. Found an APR dealer very close to my house, I was very interested in C2 but the closest place to me is in PA which makes it a $100 road trip easily lol :banghead: 

With NYC being so big I dont understand why I can't find anymore authorized dealers around here :screwy: 

P.S. started with GIAC back in like 06 when they first released software for this motor and I currently have Revo with the little box that lets you tweak the fueling on the tune....I'll sell you the Revo box if you want to go with them because I'm 99% gonna switch


----------



## LampyB (Apr 2, 2007)

i've had GIAC before in my Audi's but I wouldn't recommend going with them for your 2.5. They don't seem to provide any updates or developments on this platform. Go with C2, Unitronic, or United Motorsports. I just got a UM tune for flex fuel, so my ecu map automatically switches over from 91/93 octane when being used to e85 for more power. so far the gains are great, and the powerband is very smooth. if you want to go with the flex fuel tune you'll get a lot more power out of the engine than simply a 10-12hp APR or C2 flash. 

i've been touting the UM flex fuel tune here a lot recently, but i'm extremely impressed with the tune and it offers more power than other tunes when running ethanol. when running 91/93 you'll have an additional 12hp, but it goes up significantly when running e85. if you don't have an e85 station nearby you just use whatever octane your normal station has until you decide to fill her up with the e85. if you've already got an SRI + exhaust you'll be at about 190whp! 

Clicky Click


----------



## KyleLaughs (Mar 23, 2010)

the lean/rich thing is because i travel alot, so i can run lean on 87 like driving from DC to florida and make great milage, and then run like 93 rich around town in case a honda or scion wants to get $hitty. 

Can you run e85 with just a simple program? i thought you need like internal mods and all. my work actually has a gas station on site w/o e85 or diesel... so i guess it doesnt matter


----------



## TylerO28 (Jul 7, 2008)

It requires fuel injectors if I remember correctly and the tune. 

E85 requires much more fuel. The lean rich adjustment is really unnecessary I think because the car has the ability to adjust timing and in turn saves fuel... Apr does offer improved economy when cruising but opens up to make power at wot I believe.

In all honesty that e85 tune seems awesome!


----------



## cracKness (Feb 20, 2007)

TylerO28 said:


> It requires fuel injectors if I remember correctly and the tune.
> 
> E85 requires much more fuel. The lean rich adjustment is really unnecessary I think because the car has the ability to adjust timing and in turn saves fuel... Apr does offer improved economy when cruising but opens up to make power at wot I believe.
> 
> In all honesty that e85 tune seems awesome!


 The United Motorsport (no s ) tune also offers economy at partial throttle, with max performance at WOT. It's funny, because I hardly ever put the pedal all the way down, but I always feel the performance. What I did notice though, was that I used to be able to hear my intake througout the powerband, while now it's pretty quiet unless i'm at or close to full throttle. 

I can't wait to hear what it sounds like after exhaust


----------



## elf911 (Jul 27, 2007)

Yeah I'd be interested in a E85 tune but no gas stations over here in NYC have it lol! Its hard enough to find a station with deisel unless you are in a commercial/industrial area  

I'm back and forth between C2 and APR because I can't even search for UM dealers in NYC


----------



## cracKness (Feb 20, 2007)

elf911 said:


> Yeah I'd be interested in a E85 tune but no gas stations over here in NYC have it lol! Its hard enough to find a station with deisel unless you are in a commercial/industrial area
> 
> I'm back and forth between C2 and APR because I can't even search for UM dealers in NYC


 LIES! 

Lol check this out: 
http://e85vehicles.com/e85-stations.html 

Apparently, most of the e85 stations are in long island...


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

we are both C2 and apr dealer here. 
theres good things about both. 
APR has switching programs IF you pay extra. 
C2 has better rev hang delete. 
both at good prices 
both have good customer service 
i personally like C2 better for the 2.5L


----------



## elf911 (Jul 27, 2007)

Crack why would you say lies??? :screwy: I'm in brooklyn so to get to LI from here its a good trip out thats why I said NYC area..... btw NLS thats why I mentioned you I don't know that area too well but it might become a roadtrip for me and my girl to get that car tuned


----------



## LampyB (Apr 2, 2007)

cracKness said:


> The United Motorsport (no s ) tune also offers economy at partial throttle, with max performance at WOT. It's funny, because I hardly ever put the pedal all the way down, but I always feel the performance. What I did notice though, was that I used to be able to hear my intake througout the powerband, while now it's pretty quiet unless i'm at or close to full throttle.
> 
> I can't wait to hear what it sounds like after exhaust


 this is really interesting. i did just notice that as soon as i hit WOT the car adds a significant amount of additional power. i just figured it was the car, but being programmed into the tune for gas efficiency makes sense. pretty cool! my intake may sound a bit quieter while not on WOT, but it's hard to tell. it doesn't sound as raspy any more unless i'm at WOT.


----------



## LampyB (Apr 2, 2007)

KyleLaughs said:


> Can you run e85 with just a simple program? i thought you need like internal mods and all. my work actually has a gas station on site w/o e85 or diesel... so i guess it doesnt matter


 all you need is the tune, and new injectors to run the flex fuel software. injectors come with the price of the tune though. it's $650 for Stage 1 Flex Fuel from United Motorsports, and comes out to $700 after taxes. i already had the intake on my car before the tune, but it isn't required.


----------



## cracKness (Feb 20, 2007)

elf911 said:


> Crack why would you say lies??? :screwy: I'm in brooklyn so to get to LI from here its a good trip out thats why I said NYC area..... btw NLS thats why I mentioned you I don't know that area too well but it might become a roadtrip for me and my girl to get that car tuned


 Just meant it as a joke :laugh: 

Just saying, I've never seen e85 where I live, but apparently there's quite a few stations that have it. They're just stations I wouldn't fill at lol (valero, marathon, etc). 

I wonder if he offers an update to his software at a reduced cost since I already have his 91/93 program...


----------



## elf911 (Jul 27, 2007)

Ahh ok my bad :laugh: Yeah E85 is really rare around here unless you have a city job because the police and some other city agencies have E85 pumps in their fueling areas :banghead: Its a shame they won't spread out a little more or in your case have a good company that is providing the fuel. I wonder if it really matters with E85 as to what brand you bought?


----------



## kungfoojesus (Jan 10, 2005)

I'm waiting for the e85 dyno and reviews. Everyone I've talked to with a flexfuel vehicle complains that e85 is worse than gasoline. My father worked in air quality management for 30 years too for the city, and the information listed for the e85 conversion is only the good... none of the bad. For example, it doesn't just outright burn cleaner. It actually pumps a lot of bad things into the air that gasoline doesn't, so its a trade off. Do your own research before going down this path. I for one will keep my cat and my gas burner until I see some evidence of the claims made by the companies selling the conversion. 

I'm 09+ so I only have one upgraded tuning option anyway. From what I've seen running 93 octane on stock tuning gets the same gains as a chip for siemens engines, so now I wait for a turbo. I'm going to dyno my car on the 2nd and see where I'm at with just 93 octane and a filter on the stick then go from there. 

I really liked the GIAC tune on my vr6 but that's because it was only $300. Paying $500 for a tune on these NA motors really hurts my wallet and I refuse to spend that for another 5hp. My harley made +10hp +12ftlb torque for an actual dyno tune and cost $500 with the upgraded race tuner... These $500 chips on NA vw's are a rip off when all they do is flashload. 90% of what a flash loaded tune is should be free community knowledge around here, but instead we pay out the nose for basic vag com knowledge. The other 10% they can keep as far as spark and fuel maps we don't need them.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

if its that easy.... make files and sell them, your time, skills and knowledge is free right? 

its not that easy or everyone would be doing it.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

kungfoojesus said:


> ... From what I've seen running 93 octane on stock tuning gets the same gains as a chip for siemens engines... *not true. there are better gains with an aftermarket mapping. Althou, the stock management does have some good compensation, but it has amazing limitations to what it can do.. lol. *
> 
> ... Paying $500 for a tune on these NA motors really hurts my wallet and I refuse to spend that for another 5hp. *the number 1 reason for the flash is not the HP (which is more than 5) is the torque curve change and the driveability improvement.*


 huh? 

and as for the engine tuning, yes, if you had an older ECU you could download protuner and have fun in a dyno. but tunning Siemens ECUs isnt as easy, nor can you use any simple downloaded software to tune them, unless you make the protunner code yourself...


----------



## LampyB (Apr 2, 2007)

did you just say that using 93 octane on a stock motor results in the same power as a tuned NA car?? And if e85 doesn't pump certain toxins into the air, but does pump others that regular gasoline doesn't it's a wash as to the difference. And where did you get your information on 93 power gains being the same as a chipped car on siemens engines? Come on now, everything you've just said sounds like regurgitated information that you've 'heard' someone talking about. If you did just a tiny bit of research, you'd see that nearly every tune out there for the 2.5L engine offers a minimum gain of 10hp. C2, Unitronic, APR, United Motorsports, everyone of these tunes offers more than 10hp. The tuning community isn't 'open source' buddy, people want to get paid for the work they put in. 

This may be the most ridiculous post I've read all month. :screwy: 





kungfoojesus said:


> I'm waiting for the e85 dyno and reviews. Everyone I've talked to with a flexfuel vehicle complains that e85 is worse than gasoline. My father worked in air quality management for 30 years too for the city, and the information listed for the e85 conversion is only the good... none of the bad. For example, it doesn't just outright burn cleaner. It actually pumps a lot of bad things into the air that gasoline doesn't, so its a trade off. Do your own research before going down this path. I for one will keep my cat and my gas burner until I see some evidence of the claims made by the companies selling the conversion.
> 
> I'm 09+ so I only have one upgraded tuning option anyway. From what I've seen running 93 octane on stock tuning gets the same gains as a chip for siemens engines, so now I wait for a turbo. I'm going to dyno my car on the 2nd and see where I'm at with just 93 octane and a filter on the stick then go from there.
> 
> I really liked the GIAC tune on my vr6 but that's because it was only $300. Paying $500 for a tune on these NA motors really hurts my wallet and I refuse to spend that for another 5hp. My harley made +10hp +12ftlb torque for an actual dyno tune and cost $500 with the upgraded race tuner... These $500 chips on NA vw's are a rip off when all they do is flashload. 90% of what a flash loaded tune is should be free community knowledge around here, but instead we pay out the nose for basic vag com knowledge. The other 10% they can keep as far as spark and fuel maps we don't need them.


----------



## H3LVTCA (Oct 27, 2004)

Unitronic or BUST! I have a scheduled appointment with a local shop to get their Stage 2 software upgrade on 4/21. I plan to document everything very well and create a thread so others know what to expect. I'm also having them install my Eurojet header + downpipe and a Magnaflow exhaust simultaneously.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

wow. so you are going from stock to stage 2 in 1 day?? 
you'll discover a WHOLE new car. i loved it when i got each part separately, cant imagine them all together in one day


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

im actually switching from unitronic 2+ to the um e85 tune. out here in cleveland every gas station in the suburbs are now carrying e85. just look at the benefiets this fuel gives the mk4r! i know its gonna give me better performance than the uni tune, with cheaper fill ups too. this morning shell had 93 at $3.80gallon; e85 $2.79gallon. sure its only a dollar and i may lose 2-3 mpg but still cheaper than running 93, with some added performance. you really cant go wrong :beer:


----------



## elf911 (Jul 27, 2007)

Phhh $3.80 a gallon you're lucky!!!! 93 at the Shell near me is $4.09 Best of luck with the E85 tune and I might just be paying NLS a visit in July to tune my car


----------



## LampyB (Apr 2, 2007)

kevin FaKiN spLits said:


> im actually switching from unitronic 2+ to the um e85 tune. out here in cleveland every gas station in the suburbs are now carrying e85. just look at the benefiets this fuel gives the mk4r! i know its gonna give me better performance than the uni tune, with cheaper fill ups too. this morning shell had 93 at $3.80gallon; e85 $2.79gallon. sure its only a dollar and i may lose 2-3 mpg but still cheaper than running 93, with some added performance. you really cant go wrong :beer:


 i don't know man, once you lose 2-3 mpg's AND add power with the ethanol tune you might end up spending more $$$ on gas! haha, after i got the tune my foot turned to lead and all reasonable hopes of saving gas money went out the door :laugh: 

it's such a blast to drive though, i'm basically stock with a CAI and the gains were huge after the tune. i can't wait to see the results after adding an exhaust and an SRI later on this year!!!


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

LampyB said:


> i don't know man, once you lose 2-3 mpg's AND add power with the ethanol tune you might end up spending more $$$ on gas! haha, after i got the tune my foot turned to lead and all reasonable hopes of saving gas money went out the door :laugh:
> 
> it's such a blast to drive though, i'm basically stock with a CAI and the gains were huge after the tune. i can't wait to see the results after adding an exhaust and an SRI later on this year!!!


 well i dont really drive the car hard, just want it to perform when i do. if i drive the way i do now, ill save 8-9$ every fill up, and have more power when i need it. so in my eyes. win/win situation:beer: 

you gotta teach yourself self-control.lol i did the same thing when i got my uni stg2, ull chill out soon and see the savings eace:


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

While e85 seems to be the most amazing thig ever, I don't really mind staying gas until uni makes a file for e85 and, then. I alsop have to wait till florida starts using e85. The closes pump here, is +100 miles away


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

thygreyt said:


> While e85 seems to be the most amazing thig ever, I don't really mind staying gas until uni makes a file for e85 and, then. I alsop have to wait till florida starts using e85. The closes pump here, is +100 miles away


 would love to wait till uni makes a e85 file, but a buddy of mine who deals uni wanted a e85 file for his own 2.5t and he told me they didnt seem interested really.may be because canada doesnt have e85(they do but only 3 fill spots, where we have 2335 fill spots selling to gas stations) . u may have to ask for a one off file  dont get me wrong unitronic is great but i thnk its time to move on for me. ive been happy with the stg2, but i have access to e85 and somebody by me who can flash the um file, so im thinkin why not? 

maybe ill buy a used ecu and have the um flash put on that so ill still have my uni flash incase i ever wanna go back.


----------



## kungfoojesus (Jan 10, 2005)

Just like all the flexfuel vehicles on the road, you'll lose a lot more than 2-3mpg (relative to your gasoline economy). You have to burn something like 25% more fuel, at 2-3mpg loss per gallon of e85. Not the same amount of e85 per mile at 2-3 less mpg. Hence the bigger injectors required. 

So if you burn 25% more fuel on e85 than straight gasoline, in addition to getting getting 2-3mpg less than you do per gallon of gasoline, you will understand why it is so much cheaper at the pump and actually more expensive to get point A to B. Not to mention the emissions problems with e85 that nobody here has even brought up yet. 

This is my understanding and experience with e85. I would love to see our cars get a simple 2-3mpg loss relative to running straight gasoline and make the power claims that I've heard. I just don't see it being that realistic at this point so I'll wait for the test results. I'm not saying anyone isn't putting a lot of work into it or its not worth it, to each his own. 

Also, to answer the earlier question. Yes you get about the same hp/tq gain running 93 octane in an 09+ 2.5 chipped or not. The torque curve of course is a little bit meatier and smoother but that is definitely not on the scale of noticeable in the real world. What people are experiencing with a chip is better throttle response, worse emissions (no rev hang), and cel's eliminated from running junk like test pipes that move o2 sensors way out of the exhaust stream keeping them cold and fouled out 10k miles at a max to the point that the car is broken. The tune just eliminates your ability to know the pipe has broken your emissions system, not fixes it. etc. etc. 

If a motor is moved well outside its stock parameters then yes a tune is worth $$$ because it actually requires the skills and time mentioned above to get results.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

kungfoojesus said:


> Just like all the flexfuel vehicles on the road, you'll lose a lot more than 2-3mpg (relative to your gasoline economy). You have to burn something like 25% more fuel, at 2-3mpg loss per gallon of e85. Not the same amount of e85 per mile at 2-3 less mpg. Hence the bigger injectors required.
> 
> So if you burn 25% more fuel on e85 than straight gasoline, in addition to getting getting 2-3mpg less than you do per gallon of gasoline, you will understand why it is so much cheaper at the pump and actually more expensive to get point A to B. Not to mention the emissions problems with e85 that nobody here has even brought up yet.
> 
> ...


 your wrong. those tests u read on wikipedia were done years ago, and on top of that done on trucks, not cars. and on top o THAT the test vehicles were not tuned for e85. e85 has no engine problems as cars are built to account for the water that is in gasoline as well. as far as the rest u posted i didnt read it, only the first paragraph. tuned for e85 and driving how i already do i may lose 3-5 mpg. dont care.


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

internet is truth!eace:


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> internet is truth!eace:


 wikipedia has no truth  its weird that my mom gets better fuel economy in her suburban on e85 than if she had the same suburban that uses gasoline :screwy: idk, i guess kungfu if u dont like it dont get the flash


----------



## elf911 (Jul 27, 2007)

So sad that a thread I was interested in turn out to become a bomb :banghead: 

Seriously so if I run my test pipe for 500 more miles to hit 10K on it my engine will fall apart and I'll melt an iceberg in the artic circle? Dude seriously talk to anyone who has studied geology and understand that 1 volcano does what we can do to this planet in a century in a hour :facepalm:


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

:facepalm:


----------



## cracKness (Feb 20, 2007)

kungfoojesus said:


> Just like all the flexfuel vehicles on the road, you'll lose a lot more than 2-3mpg (relative to your gasoline economy). You have to burn something like 25% more fuel, at 2-3mpg loss per gallon of e85. Not the same amount of e85 per mile at 2-3 less mpg. Hence the bigger injectors required.
> 
> So if you burn 25% more fuel on e85 than straight gasoline, in addition to getting getting 2-3mpg less than you do per gallon of gasoline, you will understand why it is so much cheaper at the pump and actually more expensive to get point A to B. Not to mention the emissions problems with e85 that nobody here has even brought up yet.
> 
> ...


 I'm not exactly sure if you're actually thinking this stuff through before you post, or if you're trolling. 

What kind of kungfoo mathematics class do you have to take to learn the "logic" you just spewed? You can either describe the loss of fuel economy in terms of percentage of fuel burned over standard (gasoline), or you can describe it as a lower amount of miles per gallon - You can't do both at the same time. 

Example: 
If I have $10, and I "lose" 25% of that, I end up with $7.50. 
If I have $10, and I "lose" $2 of that, I end up with $8. 

I can't "lose" 25% of my $10, AND $2 at the same time. That would make the first statement (I lost 25%) false; if I "lose" the additional $2, I actually "lose" 45%, of my $10. 

Based on that aspect of your reasoning being completely incorrect, I'm throwing out the rest of your post. Nothing personal. I would go point by point, but your troll-fu is weak and it's not worth it.


----------



## kungfoojesus (Jan 10, 2005)

cracKness said:


> I'm not exactly sure if you're actually thinking this stuff through before you post, or if you're trolling.
> 
> What kind of kungfoo mathematics class do you have to take to learn the "logic" you just spewed? You can either describe the loss of fuel economy in terms of percentage of fuel burned over standard (gasoline), or you can describe it as a lower amount of miles per gallon - You can't do both at the same time.
> 
> ...


 
Vehicles travel in the real world which equates to work over time. They're not just spinning in space doing nothing. Work over time = distance. Mpg is a statement of efficiency, not volume. Thus, you have efficiency of burning e85 and efficiency of burning gasoline, these are not the same. 

I'm not sure you're thinking it through. You are doing work over time traveling a set distance in the real world. It requires 1.25 gallons of e85 to do the same work/time (distance) as 1.00 gallons of straight gasoline. In addition to this increase in required volume (gallons), you will get 2-3mpg (efficiency) less per gallon of e85 you burn versus gasoline. So you're burning 25% more volume (gallons) at 2-3 less mpg (efficiency) per unit of volume (gallons). This is why an e85 tune on a stock motor requires larger injectors, larger injectors = more volume (gallons) over time. The stock injectors running at maximum volume can't pump enough e85 to a stock motor for it to work. This is because they are designed for gasoline only. 

Understand? If I burn 1.25 gallons of e85 I get 10mpg, if I burn 1 gallon of gasoline to go the same distance i get 12-13mpg. I understand where your confusion comes from, just remember that e85 mpg is based on burning e85, not based on burning gasoline. The statement that e85 gets 2-3mpg less is misleading because most people, like yourself, assume this means relative to gasoline but it actually means relative to e85. 

I can break it down in algebra terms if that helps but I like to let people do their own thinking. The reason I mentioned this is I've noticed how people are being mislead by manufacturers comparing e85 directly to gasoline in mpg, while leaving out the fact that burning e85 requires more volume in addition to getting less mpg. They are not lying, just not telling the whole truth. 

Perhaps the manufacturers should make this distinction by changing mpg (assumed to be gasoline) to mpge, rather than tricking people into thinking they will be getting a loss of only 2-3mpg. Because the fact remains, people like yourself are being tricked into thinking e85 is cheaper, cleaner, incredible magic fuel. 

They use the same fallacies to promote the "cleaner" burning fuel by comparing only to the emissions of gasoline, leaving out all the emissions of e85 that are not even present in gasoline. There by claiming it cleaner burning when in reality its just polluting differently. Again, relative to gasoline it burns clean but relative to what it really is, e85, it pollutes plenty. 

e85 and gasoline is apples and oranges. for once, comparing apples to oranges is a good thing. because e85 and gasoline ain't apples to apples, that's for sure. If you fill up with e85 you will get ~200 miles between fill ups, if you fill with gasoline you will get ~300 miles between fill ups. Thank god the size of our gas tanks remains undisputed or we would be truly lost. 



I did my best to be clear on this matter. If you truly don't understand why I don't like tunes on 09+ vehicles or burning e85 please just try, don't insult me or call me names since I'm merely teaching and learning here, like everyone else. This thread is about aftermarket tunes, not name calling, unfounded allegations, and sarcastic comments or anything other than information about different tunes or relating to tunes.


----------



## cracKness (Feb 20, 2007)

kungfoojesus said:


> Understand? If I burn 1.25 gallons of e85 I get 10mpg, if I burn 1 gallon of gasoline to go the same distance i get 12-13mpg. I understand where your confusion comes from, just remember that e85 mpg is based on burning e85, not based on burning gasoline. The statement that e85 gets 2-3mpg less is misleading because most people, like yourself, assume this means relative to gasoline but it actually means relative to e85.


 Please re-read what you typed out, and find other sources of information, because you're just really not understanding it. 

If you burn 1.25 gallons of e85 and you get 10 MILES PER GALLON, then you can also burn 1 gallon of e85 and get 10 MILES PER GALLON. A gallon is a gallon, no matter how you slice it. Think about it. 

:facepalm: 

EDIT: Back to the topic at hand... I installed my AWE Cat-back yesterday, and it sounds GLORIOUS. I'm pretty sure the tune has something to do with it. :laugh: 

Which ever company you decide to go with OP, I'm pretty certain you won't be disappointed. Rabbits may not be even close to the fastest cars on the Earth, but hot damn are they fun to drive...


----------



## kungfoojesus (Jan 10, 2005)

cracKness said:


> Please re-read what you typed out, and find other sources of information, because you're just really not understanding it.
> 
> If you burn 1.25 gallons of e85 and you get 10 MILES PER GALLON, then you can also burn 1 gallon of e85 and get 10 MILES PER GALLON. A gallon is a gallon, no matter how you slice it. Think about it.
> 
> ...


 You are correct in your statement, a gallon is in fact a gallon. However, I never stated it was not. Please reread my post very carefully and attempt to understand it is a comparison between e85 and gasoline fuel economy that addresses the misconceptions I'm seeing in the discussion within this thread about e85 conversion tune fuel economy. If necessary I'll just break it down in algebraic format for you. Are you well versed in pre algebra? If not I won't waste my time and this thread with further explanations. 




Anyway, given the two choices, APR or c2 I would pick c2. They are doing a very good job of supporting the 2.5 and you will not be disappointed with their service, from what I have seen. APR is another issue and quite the contrary, from my experience, to good customer service. c2 is also doing a lot to help tune this motor where other companies are merely interested in turning a quick buck. Go c2 you won't regret it. 

I just run 93 octane tier 1 gasoline in my near stock siemens motor and it fixed the flat spots and low end torque up nice. No point in a tune for me until someone charges a fair price for the 09+ 2.5's.


----------



## cracKness (Feb 20, 2007)

kungfoojesus said:


> You are correct in your statement, a gallon is in fact a gallon. However, I never stated it was not. Please reread my post very carefully and attempt to understand it is a comparison between e85 and gasoline fuel economy that addresses the misconceptions I'm seeing in the discussion within this thread about e85 conversion tune fuel economy. If necessary I'll just break it down in algebraic format for you. Are you well versed in pre algebra? If not I won't waste my time and this thread with further explanations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 You're trying to say that 10 mpg with gasoline in the engine goes farther than 10 mpg with e85 in the engine. 

Please post a link to whatever it is you're reading that you're getting this "information" from. I'm intrigued.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

just leave it at the fact of e85 will give u a few mpg's less than gasoline, but better performance. i will be having the tune done here shortly. i will do a very detailed review of the benefiets and negatives of the conversion. its a great deal as it can also run gasoline. so the tune will give me the greater performance on e85, and give me the same performance as my unitronic stg2 program on 93 octane. its a win win for me as i have many places to fill up the e85. eace:


----------



## kungfoojesus (Jan 10, 2005)

You will see shortly that you actually get about 200 miles out of a full tank of gas, running e85 due to the 30% or so total increased fuel consumption. Not merely 2-3 less mpg than gasoline. I tried to explain it and I'm done. There is also no "greater" performance unless you're bumping compression or adding a turbo...


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

spend $XXX.xx on e85 tune....drive all around to find E85 fuel and how long will it take to save money on it? too long  





sorry, just wanted to jump in on thw interwebz banter to raise hell...morning! its monday! :beer:opcorn::wave:


----------



## cracKness (Feb 20, 2007)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> spend $XXX.xx on e85 tune....drive all around to find E85 fuel and how long will it take to save money on it? too long





kevin FaKiN spLits said:


> just leave it at the fact of e85 will give u a few mpg's less than gasoline, but better performance.[...] the tune will give me the greater performance on e85, and give me the same performance as my unitronic stg2 program on 93 octane. its a win win for me as i have many places to fill up the e85. eace:


 I'm quoting kFs's post not too far above yours since apparently you missed it. 

The e85 isn't about saving money (though it is a little cheaper at the pump), it's about getting better performance than a normal flash with 93 octane gasoline. Not to mention kFs also stated he's got e85 readily available to him. 

U mad bro? :laugh:


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

mad? me? no way. haha just raising hell on a monday morning, need more coffee:beer: 
near us, the closest E85 is over an hour away in philly.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> mad? me? no way. haha just raising hell on a monday morning, need more coffee:beer:
> near us, the closest E85 is over an hour away in philly.


 ive got one at the corner of the street i live on, and a few out were i work. if i dont drive the car like an a**hole 100% of the time honestly i prob wont even notice the loss in driving range. with my setup now, i average 32 mpg cruising on the highway, as my commute is all highway. if it drops to 25-26 i say ok.... and.... i dont see what everyone is arguing about? 

and kungfoo, i never said i didnt raise the compression  i gaurantee i will get more than 200 mile range, ur basis for argument is based on made up ranges, mpg's, all from a test u dont understand. just wait, ill have the write up and will surely prove 90% of your statements wrong. eace:


----------



## LampyB (Apr 2, 2007)

i'm now on my fifth tank of e85. filled up tonight and i got 224 miles from full to completely empty on ethanol. at 5,280' altitude my mileage suffers in an NA car though, so i'd expect it to be in the 250-270 range at sea level. i only got 24-26 mpg's highway before i was tuned, and maybe 27 if i took it really easy...

EDIT: the best i'd ever had while stock was about 335 miles to the tank, and that was taking it very easy.


----------



## kungfoojesus (Jan 10, 2005)

LampyB said:


> i'm now on my fifth tank of e85. filled up tonight and i got 224 miles from full to completely empty on ethanol. at 5,280' altitude my mileage suffers in an NA car though, so i'd expect it to be in the 250-270 range at sea level. i only got 24-26 mpg's highway before i was tuned, and maybe 27 if i took it really easy...
> 
> EDIT: the best i'd ever had while stock was about 335 miles to the tank, and that was taking it very easy.


THANK YOU. I said you would use about 30% more e85 than gasoline to go the same distance. This person finally understands what I am talking about. We get a few less MPG with e85 per gallon of e85 you burn. Not a few less mpg with e85 per gallon of gas you burn. I keep trying to explain this but nobody seems to understand what I am saying.

The power gains are also non existent unless running advanced timing, increased compression, or some other form of true power. A stock NA motor is not going to magically make more power on e85. If it were then we'd all be burning it. It merely lowers intake temps just like water/meth or an intercooler on forced induction vehicles so that the motor can effectively run more boost w/out pulling timing to keep itself from going BOOM.

Chip the car and leave it at that. Not point in maxing out a stock fuel pump just to run e85 on bigger injectors. The savings are non existent and the power is minimal unless you're going all out on a motor build/turbo kit. The fuel pump won't like working over time either on a daily driven vehicle this equals repair costs.

If you want to blow $$$ to run a ****ty fuel that drives the cost of food up, fine chip your car and enjoy running to the gas station miles away from where you are every time the car has traveled 200 miles. Don't come back and complain about the fuel pump burning up either.

I still say go with a high octane c2 tune over the e85 tune. Much more worth while if you just have to chip a stock NA motor with a few bolt ons. All the e85 tune does is sell people bigger injectors imo.


----------



## H3LVTCA (Oct 27, 2004)




----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

kungfoojesus said:


> THANK YOU. I said you would use about 30% more e85 than gasoline to go the same distance. This person finally understands what I am talking about. YOU GET a few less MPG with e85 per gallon of e85 you burn. Not a few less mpg with e85 per gallon of gas you burn. I keep trying to explain this but nobody seems to understand what I am saying.
> QUOTE]
> 
> a gallon is a gallon.... mpg is the same all around, e85 doesnt have its own standard for calculating tank life between fillups. i understand i will FLOW more fuel due to the bigger injectors, but it all comes back to how u drive, the biggest point u leave out in your argument. lampy doesnt really count in validating your argument... hes 5k above sea level, his car overhauls itself all the time anyways, hence his sluggish mpg averages before the flash. we understand its not magic fuel  and i know and understand i will see a loss in range, but its whatever to me. eace:


----------



## LampyB (Apr 2, 2007)

you're either crazy, misinformed, or simply don't have the facts straight here buddy. the United Motorsports Flex Fuel tune is the SAME THING as the higher octane C2 tune...WITH the added power of tuning the car to run e85. Do you think that I'm just putting e85 into my car for ****s and giggles???

I've personally run BOTH FUELS and compared the difference with the Flex Fuel tune. The power I receive while running e85 on this tune is significantly stronger than the simple C2 higher octane tune (which is what I have, just updated with Jeff's most current work). 

So you have two options:

1. Go with a standard 91/93 octane tune from C2, or from UM which is Jeff's current work. You'll get about a 10-12hp gain plus the other benefits such as rev hang delete, etc.

2. Go with UM Flex Fuel tune. This comes with 91/93 octane tune, PLUS the ability to run e85 and automatically switch fuel mappings. Running 91/93 adds the 10-12hp. Running e85 adds anywhere from 15-20hp. You choose what gas you want to run, but this tune offers more power than a simple C2 91/93 octane tune.
______________________________________________

Also, no one here tunes their car to save money. It simply won't happen. No one is arguing this, so drop the subject. 

If you truly believe the fuel pump is going to die sooner on e85 than it would otherwise...it's a $200 part that is a piece of cake to replace. I did it on my Audi A4 without any prior experience and had no issues whatsoever. Whenever you add power to a car, you have to anticipate higher maintenance costs over time, it's a given. 

The only point you've been able to make is that it is pointless to fill up on e85 without the flex fuel tune. Great, tell us something we don't already know.....





kungfoojesus said:


> THANK YOU. I said you would use about 30% more e85 than gasoline to go the same distance. This person finally understands what I am talking about. We get a few less MPG with e85 per gallon of e85 you burn. Not a few less mpg with e85 per gallon of gas you burn. I keep trying to explain this but nobody seems to understand what I am saying.
> 
> The power gains are also non existent unless running advanced timing, increased compression, or some other form of true power. A stock NA motor is not going to magically make more power on e85. If it were then we'd all be burning it. It merely lowers intake temps just like water/meth or an intercooler on forced induction vehicles so that the motor can effectively run more boost w/out pulling timing to keep itself from going BOOM.
> 
> ...


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

^^^:thumbup: to u lampy.lol im getting my e85 flash as soon as i work something out with jeff:beer: cant wait


----------



## darkk (Jun 22, 2006)

alright kids....keep it up and no desert tonight!


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

darkk said:


> alright kids....keep it up and no desert tonight!


----------



## kungfoojesus (Jan 10, 2005)

Wow... you guys are right. All of you. Enjoy.

As for the 15-20hp gain, post the dyno results or give it up cuz it ain't there. This motor pulls virtually no timing at 93 octane so please tell me where this magic power comes from?

Octane is basically how much something resists detonation. This means in increased compression, forced induction, or any other method that increases IAT's you will lose less timing before the motor goes BOOM. How does a stock motor benefit from this?

This "tune" is the dumbest idea i've seen in the tex since test pipes with o2 spacers. /end i'm done with the explanations i tried and failed. enjoy the"tune"


----------



## nothing-leaves-stock (Mar 1, 2005)

well. i don't do E85 yet. but a "tune" does make power, does change timing. in fact we did it yesterday 
a "tune" can make 1-25+ more tq and hp by playing with specs. and its not a vag-com easy change thing either. the octane doesn't pull the timing, the tune does IN turn of octane and what specs the "tune" is set at with certain octane its made for.

if a tune wasn't a power maker...why is there a bunch of companies and each tune does differnt things and gains power differntly? and when you get a custom tune it gains more? and yes we can change timing. watch it and kick it up or down when you need.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

well its a good thing jef made the e85 tune able to run gasoline as well so my motor doesnt go "Boom"


----------



## LampyB (Apr 2, 2007)

kungfoojesus said:


> As for the 15-20hp gain, post the dyno results or give it up cuz it ain't there. This motor pulls virtually no timing at 93 octane so please tell me where this magic power comes from?
> 
> This "tune" is the dumbest idea i've seen in the tex since test pipes with o2 spacers. /end i'm done with the explanations i tried and failed. enjoy the"tune"


haha you have no clue what you're talking about. yes, i just paid to have my car tuned and the added power is imaginary. it's a placebo effect right? i pay a lot of money, and "think" that the power is now there. it's called changing ecu mappings buddy, that's what software engineers do when they develop aftermarket tunes. 

I'll get the dyno results for my tune from Gabe over at Blue Water Performance. Do you really think a tuner will release software that hasn't been tested and dyno'd??? but yes, you've tried to explain yourself, and you've failed miserably. you seem to think that we just put different gas into the car and expect magical results. :banghead:


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

the tune is what gives those"magical" results :laugh:


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

kungfoojesus said:


> This "tune" is the dumbest idea i've seen in the tex since test pipes with o2 spacers. /end i'm done with the explanations i tried and failed. enjoy the"tune"


whats wrong with a test pipe + spacers?


----------



## KyleLaughs (Mar 23, 2010)

Way. Off. Topic.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

lol


----------



## kungfoojesus (Jan 10, 2005)

lampy, software engineers actually write the software from scratch. "tuning" is not software engineering. :banghead: Just because you can understand physics it doesn't make you a physicist does it? lol

lampy, you proved my point about e85 mileage. /end

lampy, you still haven't posted a real dyno of your results. and i don't just mean an arbitrary dyno plot. i mean before and after 93 versus e85 back to back, same day, same ambient temp, etc etc... not some arbitrary BS.

I give up on the rest.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

kungfoojesus said:


> lampy, software engineers actually write the software from scratch. "tuning" is not software engineering. :banghead: Just because you can understand physics it doesn't make you a physicist does it? lol
> 
> lampy, you proved my point about e85 mileage. /end
> 
> ...


nah dont worry much. 
it does make sense...


----------



## cracKness (Feb 20, 2007)

kungfoojesus said:


> lampy, software engineers actually write the software from scratch. "tuning" is not software engineering. :banghead: Just because you can understand physics it doesn't make you a physicist does it? lol


Are you trying to say that because someone is a programmer/software engineer, they cannot be a tuner? Because at least with these latest iterations of ecu's, you cannot tune these cars without a programmer/software engineer.

Also - test pipes have been used in cars because of their benefits in gaining power for a LOOOOONG time. But yes, it's a stupid thing to do with absolutely no results.

Troll.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

kungfoojesus said:


> lampy, software engineers actually write the software from scratch. "tuning" is not software engineering. :banghead: Just because you can understand physics it doesn't make you a physicist does it? lol
> 
> lampy, you proved my point about e85 mileage. /end
> 
> ...





cracKness said:


> Are you trying to say that because someone is a programmer/software engineer, they cannot be a tuner? Because at least with these latest iterations of ecu's, you cannot tune these cars without a programmer/software engineer.
> 
> Also - test pipes have been used in cars because of their benefits in gaining power for a LOOOOONG time. But yes, it's a stupid thing to do with absolutely no results.
> 
> Troll.


 you both need to chill!!! seriously. and dont interpret things.

what kunfoo is saying, literally is: software engineers write software from scratch. he never said that they cant be tunners.

then, "tunning is not software engineering" meaning, i may be able to tune a car, but that doesnt make me an engineer, nor i have to be an engineer to tune cars. and for that matters, i have friends on standalone who do their own tunning, and they are accountants!  lol.

and crackness, yes, it seems likely that with the new ECU management and "security protections" you may NEED an engineer to "open" the ecu so that the tunner can do his work. in some cases, say C2, their tunner IS also a software engineer.

no, he is no troll. and you need to simply read without interpretations nor prejudice whats he's writing.

not defending, simply stating that the argument has gone long enough, and that you BOTH need to chill, read, and breath.


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

um e85 tune+intake mani= FTW


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

kevin FaKiN spLits said:


> um e85 tune+intake mani= FTW


finally some sense. 

lol yep


----------



## kevin splits (Aug 23, 2010)

SLiMeX said:


>


whats with eddy murphy yelling at that troll


----------



## pennsydubbin (Mar 3, 2010)

nothing-leaves-stock said:


> mad? me? no way. haha just raising hell on a monday morning, need more coffee:beer:
> near us, the closest E85 is over an hour away in philly.


There's a gas station that sells it here in kutztown! About 30 mins away from you guys.


----------



## LampyB (Apr 2, 2007)

kungfoojesus said:


> lampy, you still haven't posted a real dyno of your results. and i don't just mean an arbitrary dyno plot. i mean before and after 93 versus e85 back to back, same day, same ambient temp, etc etc... not some arbitrary BS.


I don't personally have a dyno, and realistically I don't have any intentions of taking the car to the dyno until maybe the end of this year if I end up getting an SRI. I'm about to relocate to the other side of the country on Sunday, so the dyno isn't even in my mind at this point.

Gabe over at Blue Water said to check back in about a week regarding dyno results. 

If you took the time to run a quick forum search you would have found the following thread...around page 12/13 is where he finally gets to the dyno but runs into a number of issues with the AWD haldex on his car.

Clicky Click


----------



## tay272 (Aug 22, 2007)

pennsydubbin said:


> There's a gas station that sells it here in kutztown! About 30 mins away from you guys.


W W WHATTT!?  hahaha Which station has it in KU? Havent been around that area in awhile but its about 20 mins away.


----------

