# Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is....



## Jpics (Apr 26, 2006)

REVO !!!! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








it made 210WHP and 262 ft/lb with chip and exhaust running on 91 octane
GIAC did 206/248 with chip, intake and exhaust and 93 oct
APR did 212/260 with chip, intake and exhaust and 93 oct

can you image what number REVO could have put out with the same mods as the others?


----------



## gtiBTC (May 1, 2004)

*Re: Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is.... (Jpics)*

Did all 3 use the same exhaust? Were the dynos all done on the same machine and weather condition? Just wondering.


----------



## -KIX- (Nov 25, 2004)

Same car, and let the car adapt?
we did a 4 way test on chips WITH THE SAME CAR just swapped ecu´s we learned the car takes like 30 miles to adapt fully...


----------



## NoMoreHonduh (Apr 24, 2006)

*Re: (-KIX-)*

No, they used a different car for each chip so its not really comparable. It does look like the REVO is a more aggressive tune, however, since it made more power with crappier fuel, but until someone does this test with the same car on the same dyno on the same day, we can't be sure.


----------



## Jeremy-Blitzkrieg (Apr 22, 2006)

Invalid. 
The car makes the numbers. I have seen GIAC v. APR dynos. APR wins by 20 WHP. I want to see the same car, run 3 times, in 4th gear. 
Nice try though. 


_Modified by Jeremy-Blitzkrieg at 1:49 PM 9-21-2006_


----------



## SnowboarderX216 (Jun 8, 2004)

i just dyno'd my car with APR 93 and EVOM's Intake and put out 206 hp / 260 torque so i bet with an exhaust my numbers would beat those revo numbers








but every car is different...
so does revo win though exactly...
apr beat revo by 2 hp 
revo beat apr by 2 torque
seems like a tie... not bashing on revo or apr though by any means...
but you need the horespower to keep your torque going to the wheels... so i would say apr won by those numbers


_Modified by SnowboarderX216 at 2:17 AM 9-21-2006_


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

. . . . looks like the pissfight has already begun . . . 
Dave


----------



## [email protected] (Aug 25, 2001)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_







. . . . looks like the pissfight has already begun . . . 
Dave

Sit back and watch Dave...


----------



## 2PointGoGoGo (Sep 11, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*

I was under the assumption that the GIAC test was done on 91 octane? either way I dynoed my GTi wit the same exact mods (GIAC, TT TBE, and EVOMS intake) and I pulled a 222.81whp... So... what I am saying is... I guess not?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Sit back and watch Dave...









*passes beer to Anand*


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_







. . . . looks like the pissfight has already begun . . . 
Dave

Nah When others are finally coming out with RACE FILE needing expensive 100 oct race fuel . APR's figured away to run 100oct timing and boost with 93 oct in the tank as there stage 2 program







can somene say DUMP FUEL







Bob.G

edit to addd and they do this WITHOUT riding the knock sensor as others do










_Modified by rracerguy717 at 8:00 AM 9-21-2006_


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (rracerguy717)*

So they all make similar power. Good deal. About what i'm sure most of us here expected. Oh, and my car made 350whp on the dyno my brother's former room-mate's uncle's army buddy's nephew twice removed's dyno.
cheers! Mike


----------



## BDP (Sep 13, 2002)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

These numbers are all from eurotuner with different cars and different dynos. I was at a friends house the other day and looked them over. 
They were even different sized exhaust's as well. I belive the REVO car had a 3inch GHL TBE. If I remember correctly one of the comments made in the article was they saw better gains with a 3inch versus a 2.5 inch. 
The GIAC car had a 2.5 inch TT TBE and the APR car I think had the APR exhaust set up. 

I honestly thought it was weird that eruotuner would compare a dyno from a different machine to others. I belive the APR car and GIAC car were done on the same dyno but on different days.
I think the only way to come close to an accurate representation of "chip tuners" power numbers is to have all of them on the same dyno same day and same mods. I think what we will see is they are all pretty much close to one another.




_Modified by BDP at 2:05 PM 9-21-2006_


----------



## D.Passat00 (Feb 29, 2004)

*Re: (BDP)*

ok, so this is basically meaningless then.


----------



## onequickg60 (Dec 3, 2000)

*Re: (D.Passat00)*

the sad part is people keep comparing these chips and not getting accurate data..
they will be no way of getting correct dyno numbers since all cars are diffrent, dynos are diffrent and days are diffrent.. because of the adaptation time the chips need you will never be able to get 1 car to do all the dynoing needed to test all the chips..
this study would be a bit better if the cars tested had all the same mods and fuel.. it would be a more accurate rating of what companys parts could do for a persons car..
i do feel revo wons this 1 since its numbers are within 2hp of apr with 2oct low grade fuel and no intake.. numberw would of been a bit better..
but the test itself is really unfair to all the chip tuners.. and just adds to the confusion..


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: (onequickg60)*

Doesn't matter, in a couple of weeks everyone of those chipped cars will be running 3-4 psi less than what they were there, and they will come back with a thread about a Diverter valve...
THANKS MORGUE WARNER


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (crew217)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew217* »_







. . . . looks like the pissfight has already begun . . . 
Dave


Bwahahahahahah!
Eurotuner must be holy book. Now where's that sarcasm emoticon?
/me gets popcorn and a drink


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_THANKS MORGUE WARNER

My clever meter just pegged ludicrous...


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

Well, since only power has been mentioned, I'll start the drama and say:
APR does it with safe afr's and egt's! Makes more or similar power and won't detiorate the life of your engine and components. The other 2 companies have to deviate from the hardware protection map and run leaner than Bosch/VAG/BW recommend.


----------



## [email protected] (May 13, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Well, since only power has been mentioned, I'll start the drama and say:
APR does it with safe afr's and egt's! Makes more or similar power and won't detiorate the life of your engine and components. The other 2 companies have to deviate from the hardware protection map and run leaner than Bosch/VAG/BW recommend.

keith come on, they don't care about that cuz then they will have no one to bit*ch about when it blows up


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

Someone want to pass me a beer?


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (thread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thread* »_Someone want to pass me a beer?

*passes thread an Guinness" 
Dave


_Modified by thread at 9:46 AM 9-21-2006_


----------



## BDP (Sep 13, 2002)

*Re: (thread)*

You are going to need more then 1 beer.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (BDP)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BDP* »_You are going to need more then 1 beer.









syntrix runs to costco to buy bulk guiness... .then realizes that a keg would be better.
C'mon over y'all, the keg is chillin'
syntrix awaits keiths next post


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Well, since only power has been mentioned, I'll start the drama and say:
APR does it with safe afr's and egt's! Makes more or similar power and won't detiorate the life of your engine and components. The other 2 companies have to deviate from the hardware protection map and run leaner than Bosch/VAG/BW recommend.

Yup, and pig rich is a good thing? LOL


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Yup, and pig rich is a good thing? LOL

Yes, rich is good. What alot of peeps don't understand is that 12.8:1 or therabouts afr was determined by the aftermarket as being the best afr to make power.
OEM's have emissions restrictions that keep that from happening as often as the aftermarket would like. That's the most common misconception about engine calibration.
For oem's, afr is not a constant, its a variable that they adjust based on their needs to accomplish their goals.
There have been several afr logs of oem calibration and they are showing us that VAG wants these guys to run high 10's to mid 11's.
We are in contact with the right people at the right companies who guide us as to the why's and what's of their calibration and it is very important to adhere to these guidelines.
We've all seen the publications from BW about egt's. EGT's are managed by afr and timing. To make power you want timing so you manage egt's by afr and as you can see, power is still made.
ITS JUST ALOT SAFER!





























BTW, this discussion would be alot better if someone from one of the other tuning companies would join in.
Andrew?
George?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Anyone?
Bueller............


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
BTW, this discussion would be alot better if someone from one of the other tuning companies would join in.
Andrew?
George?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Anyone?
Bueller............









No Keith, we all have our feet up on the couch waiting for your responses only, LOL.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
No Keith, we all have our feet up on the couch waiting for your responses only, LOL.

I know, wtf? This is not going to be any fun by myself. I went and got a cup of coffee and everything.
Why can't someone from one of these other companies come and put the smack down? Afterall, I am just a salesguy so it should be easy.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_I know, wtf? This is not going to be any fun by myself. I went and got a cup of coffee and everything.
Why can't someone from one of these other companies come and put the smack down? Afterall, *I am just a salesguy* so it should be easy.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*

hehe, but I know an engineer or 2!


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_hehe, but I know an engineer or 2!

8


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

Can we at least try and keep this on topic?
Keith is a arrogant dick!


_Modified by thread at 10:44 AM 9-21-2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is.... (Jpics)*

did anyone notice *Vivid Racing* in the contact area? Something must be off in the article! (reference: the suby world and mr. mermelstein's prior practices).


----------



## Ghl Motorsports (Sep 13, 2002)

*Re: Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is.... (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_did anyone notice *Vivid Racing* in the contact area? Something must be off in the article! (reference: the suby world and mr. mermelstein's prior practices).

They have exspanded into many other markets.


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*


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

BTW, this discussion would be alot better if someone from one of the other tuning companies would join in.


 
Wait where is the company thats showed that 3" exhaust lost power and 2 1/2" made more , with the same GIAC software too boot LOL







Bob.G


----------



## NS01GTI (Jan 31, 2005)

*Re: (rracerguy717)*

I'll take APR's safe tuning approach along with these numbers, thank you.















http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...35988


----------



## BDP (Sep 13, 2002)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
My suggestion is to *NOT *try and antagonize other tuners on the forums for the purpose of a debate that winds up with no winners. Not too hard to do is it?









I totally agree...However didn't Keith throw the first punch in this thread? Maybe he should be the one getting the public lashing and not just the member?


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

Ok, lets not turn this into a back and forth about who did what. This is about the Eurotuner article and the results.


----------



## BDP (Sep 13, 2002)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Why not just state your case and then show the factual data to back it up?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Perhaps you require some education in regards to tuning philosophies and abilities as well cause I can guarantee you ours is superior and I would love the opportunity to prove this to the public through technical discussion with other tuners.
Perhaps you should worry about moderating something when it comes time to moderate, not prematurely. Not too hard to do is it?









Keith just called out Joe, which is 100% unrelated to the topic at hand. barn?
well, vivid, in the past, and I stated it, had shady business practices. Call it growing pains or other more invasive words if you like. What was their involvement in all of this? does keith work with dan at vivid?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (BDP)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BDP* »_Why not just state your case and then show the factual data to back it up?

Because they can't prove any of their statements about "other tuners". I don't see how that relates to eurotuner?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (BDP)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BDP* »_Why not just state your case and then show the factual data to back it up?


We have on several occasions:
The cliff notes are that
Borg Warner requires egt's below 920 deg cel.
Raising boost levels to the point we like to see in the aftermarket will raise the egt's outside of those specs.
To keep the egt's down, you have run in the hardware protection map that was put in place by the VAG/Bosch engineers specfically to regulate egt's.
Revo and GIAC deviate from the hardware protection map by removing this safety feature and irresponsibly provide products that may hurt the engine or its components.
The reason why they seem to do that is because they either
a) Don't care and have to make power any way they can
b) Don't agree with VAG/Bosch engineers
c) Can't make power without raising the afr to avoid the fueling limitations.
This is where other reps from these other 2 companies are needed to assure the community that their products don't negatively affect the life of the engine.
The spec sheets from Borg Warner have been posted. The hardware protection map is a known fact never refuted by Revo or Giac. EGT's have been logged at the catalyst which is not a direct representation of the pre-turbine egt's Borg Warner refers to.
So what needs to happen is GIAC or Revo needs to post some pre turbine egt readings that show no potential for damage to the turbine. We don't have to show that there is potential because the companies that designed the engine and the turbo and the ems state that there are and we trust them as I assume most enthusiasts do. So to responsibly recalibrate these engines, you either have to follow the manufacturer's recommended specs or PROVE it is not necessary through R&D.


_Modified by [email protected] at 12:36 PM 9-21-2006_


----------



## BDP (Sep 13, 2002)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
I don't see how that relates to eurotuner?

It doesn't but he wants to prove something so let him...maybe in another thread. 
Regardless of who was behind the dyno's they were on totally different machines. That alone makes the comparison inaccurrate. 
I would like to see a comparison with all the tuners involved at a neutral site same day...same dyno.


----------



## NS01GTI (Jan 31, 2005)

*Re: (BDP)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BDP* »_
It doesn't but he wants to prove something so let him...maybe in another thread. 
Regardless of who was behind the dyno's they were on totally different machines. That alone makes the comparison inaccurrate. 
I would like to see a comparison with all the tuners involved at a neutral site same day...same dyno.


I agree with letting Keith bring up these points as well. I think too many of us 'enthusiasts' who purchase the software upgrades from APR, GIAC, etc just assume that our tuner is doing so with some concern as to the long term effect it will have on our cars, and not tuning with 'reckless abandon'.
Also, I completely agree that the numbers posted in that article are useless. If you want to truly compare the results from each software upgrade you need to run it on the same car, on the same dyno, preferably on the same day. Otherwise there's just too many variables, which causes too much uncertainty.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (BDP)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BDP* »_It doesn't but he wants to prove something so let him...maybe in another thread. 
Regardless of who was behind the dyno's they were on totally different machines. That alone makes the comparison inaccurrate. 
I would like to see a comparison with all the tuners involved at a neutral site same day...same dyno.

and I think that all but 1 or 2 people understand the dyno differences. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_We have on several occasions:
The cliff notes are that
Borg Warner requires egt's below 920 deg cel.
Raising boost levels to the point we like to see in the aftermarket will raise the egt's outside of those specs.
To keep the egt's down, you have run in the hardware protection map that was put in place by the VAG/Bosch engineers specfically to regulate egt's.
Revo and GIAC deviate from the hardware protection map by removing this safety feature and irresponsibly provide products that may hurt the engine or its components.
The reason why they seem to do that is because they either
a) Don't care and have to make power any way they can
b) Don't agree with VAG/Bosch engineers
c) Can't make power without raising the afr to avoid the fueling limitations.
This is where other reps from these other 2 companies are needed to assure the community that their products don't negatively affect the life of the engine.
The spec sheets from Borg Warner have been posted. The hardware protection map is a known fact never refuted by Revo or Giac. EGT's have been logged at the catalyst which is not a direct representation of the pre-turbine egt's Borg Warner refers to.
So what needs to happen is GIAC or Revo needs to post some pre turbine egt readings that show no potential for damage to the turbine. We don't have to show that there is potential because the companies that designed the engine and the turbo and the ems state that there are and we trust them as I assume most enthusiasts do. So to responsibly recalibrate these engines, you either have to follow the manufacturer's recommended specs or PROVE it is not necessary through R&D.

_Modified by [email protected] at 12:36 PM 9-21-2006_

I really have to quote this, Keith just called other vendors irresponsible. Once again, I don't see how that pertains to the eurotuner article. maybe I'm missing it on that scan?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Keith just called other vendors irresponsible. 

Yes, please quote that.


----------



## [email protected] (May 13, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*

this is dumb can someone just be the first to realease a big turbo kit already


----------



## csih (Aug 27, 2006)

As fas as my personal experience APR's remap is worthless. I had cut off problems, that after installation and several days of removing "fault" hardware APR admit that they have fueling problems and because their software keeps safeguards i had these problems. Its a clear fraud because i should have been at least informed before the installatiion of the chip. I run Revo now for about 2000klm without problems


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (csih)*


_Quote, originally posted by *csih* »_As fas as my personal experience APR's remap is worthless. I had cut off problems, that after installation and several days of removing "fault" hardware APR admit that they have fueling problems and because their software keeps safeguards i had these problems. Its a clear fraud because i should have been at least informed before the installatiion of the chip. I run Revo now for about 2000klm without problems

Yes, you are correct. The only disagreement I have is what you consider a problem, we consider a safety feature. You don't feel like egt's are important to the life of the car, we do.
Its like nos. It makes you go fast but for how long?


----------



## Jeremy-Blitzkrieg (Apr 22, 2006)

Does anyone realize that APR and Keith are giving a ECU software tune that is safe for your engine?
Or is this a bag on APR thread?


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (Jeremy-Blitzkrieg)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jeremy-Blitzkrieg* »_Does anyone realize that APR and Keith are giving a ECU software tune that is safe for your engine?
Or is this a bag on APR thread? 

I'm sick of everyone bringing up factory safeguards? Who the heck cares? Just make em wicked fast!!!! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Overboost protection is stupid, so is egt protection, and who cares about knock readings? I'm sure the motor can handle it. I hate it when people try and get all technical. Can we just see some more dyno charts please? http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I'd prefer dynopacks versus dyno dynamics too so we can see just how much some program rulz.
cheers! Mike


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (Jeremy-Blitzkrieg)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Jeremy-Blitzkrieg* »_Does anyone realize that APR and Keith are giving a ECU software tune that is safe for your engine?
Or is this a bag on APR thread? 

In reply to you:
Does anyone not realize that raising egt limits on modern day turbo cars is not a secret?
That would be like me selling a chip that raises egt's and timing, but I couldn't figure out boost. I would fall behind, but instead I'd say that people are gonna blow up their turbos because they are raising boost, and since all of my competition is doing it, they are bad and irresponsible! But Let's also say that I couldn't prove a lick of it.
So why does APR even raise boost, fueling, and timing? isn't that dangerously unsafe?
I'm going to put a little tuning guide together and call it something like "time for bed, keith".
Ok, I should stay away from this thread.


----------



## csih (Aug 27, 2006)

No one told thats its not safe. It just dont work flawless. Try to race your car and betting €1000 for win and if you loose from safeguards you wont like it trust me


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_I'm sick of everyone bringing up factory safeguards? Who the heck cares? Just make em wicked fast!!!! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Overboost protection is stupid, so is egt protection, and who cares about knock readings? I'm sure the motor can handle it. I hate it when people try and get all technical. Can we just see some more dyno charts please? http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I'd prefer dynopacks versus dyno dynamics too so we can see just how much some program rulz.
cheers! Mike

you forgot /sarcasm.








To bring up only one safeguard and not address all of them is truly irresponsible. Bhvrdr, you nailed it by mentioning other safeguards, and not just a single one. Us "elders" know it's the whole package that works together, and not just one. I think we can agree that APR bringing up just this one is getting to be a very dead horse.

Go log your egt's everyone!! You have vag-com, go do some runs!


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Yes, you are correct. The only disagreement I have is what you consider a problem, we consider a safety feature. You don't feel like egt's are important to the life of the car, we do.
Its like nos. It makes you go fast but for how long?

It's also my understanding that csih HAS logged egt's and they are just fine http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## csih (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*

kalynixta = goodnight


----------



## ninja_gaiden (Jul 14, 2006)

*Re: Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is.... (Jpics)*

this is the most retarded test ever. diff cars, diff specs...dont people remember learning how to conduct an experiment in liek 4th grade?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is.... (ninja_gaiden)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ninja_gaiden* »_this is the most retarded test ever. diff cars, diff specs...dont people remember learning how to conduct an experiment in liek 4th grade?

Yet the magazine sells... hmmmm.


----------



## Sigfod (May 26, 2006)

*Re: (thread)*


_Quote, originally posted by *thread* »_Someone want to pass me a beer?

You know things have gotten bad when the Mod asks for a Beer


----------



## LeChefJosh (Nov 20, 2002)

*Re: (Sigfod)*

People won't care about how "safe" their tune is until two years from now when their turbo or some other expensive component fails and they're stuck holding the bag.


----------



## Sigfod (May 26, 2006)

*Re: (LeChefJosh)*


_Quote, originally posted by *LeChefJosh* »_People won't care about how "safe" their tune is until two years from now when their turbo or some other expensive component fails and they're stuck holding the bag.

Yes my MKV is my daily driver, I need reliability. I have a Turboed Sentra for craziness.


----------



## kayaker10 (Jan 10, 2006)

*Blown Turbos!!*

Does any have any links to direct evidnence of significant engine damage directly related to any of the chipping companies? I mean Revo and Giac have been around for awile and have chipped many other engines than just the newer 2.0T. I appreciate that APR cares about the protecting the longevity of our engines, but in this world of internet forums, I think we would have heard loud and clear about major engine damage related to the chips.


----------



## jmhart (Dec 28, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_I think we can agree that APR bringing up just this one is getting to be a very dead horse.

/agree


----------



## JFR (Aug 27, 2006)

Funny how bhvrdr could put together a statistically significant chip comparison using the same car and dyno for all 3 tuners but a magazine couldn't? Job well done, Mike!


----------



## Sigfod (May 26, 2006)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (kayaker10)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kayaker10* »_Does any have any links to direct evidnence of significant engine damage directly related to any of the chipping companies? I mean Revo and Giac have been around for awile and have chipped many other engines than just the newer 2.0T. I appreciate that APR cares about the protecting the longevity of our engines, but in this world of internet forums, I think we would have heard loud and clear about major engine damage related to the chips. 

Exactly what I want to know. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif








I want some one to do some serious testing and come up with some numbers before I will ever buy a chip.


_Modified by Sigfod at 7:52 PM 9-21-2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (Sigfod)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Sigfod* »_Exactly what I want to know. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif









You aren't going to find it. I keep asking keith to post his/APR's evidence to back up their claims. It's ironic that he just posts about EGT's only and never answers the question with facts.
BOTTOM LINE. Get vag-com, read EGT's. Or get an EGT gauge and have thermocouple welded in. You know what's safe and not safe. So do GIAC and REVO. One of them have been doing dubs and even other exotic cars for incredibily longer than APR http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## stirfriedx9 (Apr 23, 2005)

*Re: (JFR)*

most pointless post garanteed to start a riot. a riot over a poorly constructed test too. what a waste of time. screw this....i'm going to find dahlback...judging by the flames shooting out of his 1000hp gti...he might not care about egts!!!!





















just kidding...but seriously, buy whatever chip you want...it's your money!!! they are so close in power output, just try them all and pick the one that makes your butt dyno feel best!!!


----------



## JFR (Aug 27, 2006)

*Re: (stirfriedx9)*

Stirfried... My post was pointless?? Or do you mean the thread itself??


----------



## stirfriedx9 (Apr 23, 2005)

*Re: (JFR)*

the thread. no hating here


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (kayaker10)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kayaker10* »_Does any have any links to direct evidnence of significant engine damage directly related to any of the chipping companies? I mean Revo and Giac have been around for awile and have chipped many other engines than just the newer 2.0T. I appreciate that APR cares about the protecting the longevity of our engines, but in this world of internet forums, I think we would have heard loud and clear about major engine damage related to the chips. 

Not surprisingly people will many times not post about these things. This driver waited 2 years to post about it after promising his tuner he would never post about it.
http://forums.audiworld.com/a4...phtml
http://forums.audiworld.com/a4...phtml
Since that time the file was revised many times and logs from subsequent owners showed more fuel.
The PES/GIAC kits had notorious engine failures and it was blamed on hardware....always hardware.
http://forums.audiworld.com/pe...phtml
http://forums.audiworld.com/pe...phtml
Similarly GIAC had a go at it again attempting to build a kit for the B6 Audis this time...
http://www.audizine.com/forum/...33454
Of the two original beta tester cars, one blew its motor. Almost 2 years later the kit is not available for public release. The reason for the blown motor and the hold up of the release....driver error and hardware problems...always the hardware.
Next, it is give a go on the FSI platform and the first two turbos installed blow. EDIT: If they never were on the car that was my mistake. I didnt see the show. I though I read they failed. The last one makes 285whp. 
How about a person who has more experience tuning cars than I could likely ever hope to gain who states the car was eating oil for thousands of miles and the turbo was screaming but he never checks it out and states the reason the turbo blew was because he never noticed it was falling off the car the whole time it was eating oil and screaming for several thousand miles...hardware problem.
http://forums.audiworld.com/a4b7/msgs/52087.phtml
This thread had L-O-C-K written all over it so might as well make it interesting with at least a few examples of real world results.
cheers! Mike

_Modified by bhvrdr at 5:27 PM 9-21-2006_


_Modified by bhvrdr at 5:35 PM 9-21-2006_


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Yes, rich is good. What alot of peeps don't understand is that 12.8:1 or therabouts afr was determined by the aftermarket as being the best afr to make power.
OEM's have emissions restrictions that keep that from happening as often as the aftermarket would like. That's the most common misconception about engine calibration.
For oem's, afr is not a constant, its a variable that they adjust based on their needs to accomplish their goals.
There have been several afr logs of oem calibration and they are showing us that VAG wants these guys to run high 10's to mid 11's.
We are in contact with the right people at the right companies who guide us as to the why's and what's of their calibration and it is very important to adhere to these guidelines.
We've all seen the publications from BW about egt's. EGT's are managed by afr and timing. To make power you want timing so you manage egt's by afr and as you can see, power is still made.
ITS JUST ALOT SAFER!





























BTW, this discussion would be alot better if someone from one of the other tuning companies would join in.
Andrew?
George?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Anyone?
Bueller............









So keith,
Does this responsible AFR only applies to 2.0T or it also covers 1.8T engines?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (bhvrdr)*

And once again, bhvrdr misses the question.
APR can not post facts of any of their factual data on the claims. We could go back and post APR STG III failures, or APR checksum errors, or the fact that they got started by purchasing a programming kit from ____.
Since you took it towards lock, but this is just the tip of the lettuce


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
Of the two original *beta tester cars*, one blew its motor.

That is all you need to know!


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_And once again, bhvrdr misses the question.
APR can not post facts of any of their factual data on the claims. We could go back and post APR STG III failures, or APR checksum errors, or the fact that they got started by purchasing a programming kit from ____.
Since you took it towards lock, but this is just the tip of the lettuce









Well, heck. The man asked a question, lets humor him. I'm all for it. Have at it. It'd be nice to see a post with all the companies failures in a single thread. Even informative. I dont mind if they're APR at all. It's still neat to learn from the failures and what the causes might have been. Nobodys being rude so maybe it even won't get locked.
cheers! Mike


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
Next, it is give a go on the FSI platform and the first two turbos installed blow. The last one makes 285whp. The reason for the blown turbos given...you guessed it, defective hardware.
How
_Modified by bhvrdr at 5:27 PM 9-21-2006_

This one is really false.
This was the street tuner thingy on tv. It was a fact that the first two arrived damaged. Mike, you really just got discredited on this post. That's recent news that everyone knows about. What was it, like an hour of dyno tuning, and that's all?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_Well, heck. The man asked a question, lets humor him. I'm all for it. Have at it. It'd be nice to see a post with all the companies failures in a single thread. Even informative. I dont mind if they're APR at all. It's still neat to learn from the failures and what the causes might have been. Nobodys being rude so maybe it even won't get locked.
cheers! Mike

Actually, you are. So this is why things get locked.
There are so few samplings of any failures, and there's probably more stock failures reported in dealer notes. So 1 out of 10,000 fail, and the software runs just as intended. Let's say it's a VW failure, so don't buy a vw ever again http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (syntrix)*

Any other comments on the eurotuner article, *or is this thread cooked*?


----------



## stirfriedx9 (Apr 23, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (syntrix)*

anyone who thinks their software file will never be in a car that blows a turbo is crazy!!! i garantee if you look hard enough you can find someone who's blown a motor, turbo, or tranny running on each different chip company's file. there are just too many varables, driving conditions, drivers...the odds just add up that no matter how good a file is, somone somewhere will break something. the other percent of the people will be happy as pigs in...well...you know


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
That is all you need to know!

They shouldnt be beta testing on cystomer cars.
BTW does anyone know the phone number to GIAC?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (zemun2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zemun2* »_They shouldnt be beta testing on cystomer cars.
BTW does anyone know the phone number to GIAC?

The customers had the choice.
You have a choice to run window vista in beta. If it crashes, you chose to crash it. Now when it becomes public, the support better be there and it better be stable.
Actually that's a bad analogy, it should be the other chip compared to MS, LOL. They say they don't "patch" but then they release updates and won't say what the fixes are......
So about that eurotuner article????


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
The customers had the choice.
You have a choice to run window vista in beta. If it crashes, you chose to crash it. Now when it becomes public, the support better be there and it better be stable.
Actually that's a bad analogy, it should be the other chip compared to MS, LOL. They say they don't "patch" but then they release updates and won't say what the fixes are......
So about that eurotuner article????

How about that phone number?


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Actually, you are. So this is why things get locked.
There are so few samplings of any failures, and there's probably more stock failures reported in dealer notes. So 1 out of 10,000 fail, and the software runs just as intended. Let's say it's a VW failure, so don't buy a vw ever again http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

My apoligies if I made error on the other one. Edited...
How about some consistent logs then all from drivers across the country running the exact same file....
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2265766
That's right, over a dozen people contacted me with logs of timing way too aggressive with pinging. I spent days talking to a GIAC distributor about it (one that does their testing) and it was claimed that knock corrections should be ignored and voltages should be paid attention to. All customers were told this.
Over a year later this exact file is updated....
http://www.audizine.com/forum/...94691
The question is asked...

_someone posted this on AG and i am wondering myself too....
"Hi, I'm running the older version of the GIACFX (I have to ship my ECU soon to get it upgraded). While logging my timing, I saw that I get a peak CF of 12, which is pretty high. I'm running 91 gas (highest octane available here without adding your own). Am I asking for trouble, does the new version of the GIAC software address that issue. Thanks for the help.

what should one expect with the newer file ?_
The answer from a new user of it...
_"it has much lower correction factors."_
That was no limited sample.
cheers! Mike


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (bhvrdr)*

Once again Mike, ultrasport and FX were on 1.8T's.
How does your post apply to Eurotuner's article?
I see that APR and it's fanboi's are at it again. Trying to spread speculation into the 2.0T world.
The ultimate problem is that people like to chip and forget. They have a problem and blame blame blame. Now the vendors, well a vendor is blaming blaming blaming.
If you chip, log and work with your vendor. GIAC usually will release a special file if you can prove your car is a little strange. 
*APR did not work with csih on a recent issue here, they simply blamed again*


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

Syntrix,
Do you happen to have GIAC's phone number?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (zemun2)*


_Quote, originally posted by *zemun2* »_Syntrix,
Do you happen to have GIAC's phone number?

You need to call one of their authorized dealers.


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
You need to call one of their authorized dealers.

So wait,
I cant talk to GIAC directly..








How about other tuners like REVO and APR, do I also need to call the authorized dealers or can I call them directly?


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Once again Mike, ultrasport and FX were on 1.8T's.
How does your post apply to Eurotuner's article?
I see that APR and it's fanboi's are at it again. Trying to spread speculation into the 2.0T world.
The ultimate problem is that people like to chip and forget. They have a problem and blame blame blame. Now the vendors, well a vendor is blaming blaming blaming.
If you chip, log and work with your vendor. GIAC usually will release a special file if you can prove your car is a little strange. 
*APR did not work with csih on a recent issue here, they simply blamed again*

I was ansering the person who asked about past failures and problems.








Those people whose logs were in the link were not worked with. They were each told the problem was not a problem and to ignore the knock correction. I have the emails that were forwarded to me from the driver's tuner.
It took almost two years to fix the problem. No special files were offered and the cars werent unique. They spanned from California to Maine, some running 93 octane on the program supposedly safe for 91 and some running aftermarket intercoolers with 2 heat range cooler plugs trying to bandaid the problem.
And yes, APR is also evil. But at least I can call APR on the phone to tell them that









cheers! Mike 
PS, i'm getting better at this sarcasm thing wouldnt you say? 


_Modified by bhvrdr at 5:55 PM 9-21-2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
PS, i'm getting better at this sarcasm thing wouldnt you say? 

_Modified by bhvrdr at 5:55 PM 9-21-2006_

I'll give you that








You can probably call GIAC, just hit their website and go through the form. You'll probably start with the local rep as they are usually who you deal with when there's questions, and most of them are very knowledgeable.
I don't work for any chip company, so I can't say. I'm independent, but love a good internet debate http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I have a number somewhere, but my local guy has been uber informative with factual info. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (bhvrdr)*

Hey Mike, 
I wonder what people really think of us on the internet.... they probably think we sit here waiting for posts or something.
Really, I think all this is fun, and there's nothing wrong with some mudslinging.... then again, it's probably bedded into us from the 1.8T days


----------



## Spool'n Turbo (Feb 7, 2002)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
Not surprisingly people will many times not post about these things. This driver waited 2 years to post about it after promising his tuner he would never post about it.
http://forums.audiworld.com/a4...phtml
http://forums.audiworld.com/a4...phtml
Since that time the file was revised many times and logs from subsequent owners showed more fuel.
The PES/GIAC kits had notorious engine failures and it was blamed on hardware....always hardware.
http://forums.audiworld.com/pe...phtml
http://forums.audiworld.com/pe...phtml
Similarly GIAC had a go at it again attempting to build a kit for the B6 Audis this time...
http://www.audizine.com/forum/...33454
Of the two original beta tester cars, one blew its motor. Almost 2 years later the kit is not available for public release. The reason for the blown motor and the hold up of the release....driver error and hardware problems...always the hardware.
Next, it is give a go on the FSI platform and the first two turbos installed blow. EDIT: If they never were on the car that was my mistake. I didnt see the show. I though I read they failed. The last one makes 285whp. 
How about a person who has more experience tuning cars than I could likely ever hope to gain who states the car was eating oil for thousands of miles and the turbo was screaming but he never checks it out and states the reason the turbo blew was because he never noticed it was falling off the car the whole time it was eating oil and screaming for several thousand miles...hardware problem.
http://forums.audiworld.com/a4b7/msgs/52087.phtml
This thread had L-O-C-K written all over it so might as well make it interesting with at least a few examples of real world results.
cheers! Mike

_Modified by bhvrdr at 5:27 PM 9-21-2006_

_Modified by bhvrdr at 5:35 PM 9-21-2006_

From your last posted link...







This would blow the turbo no matter what software you use...
well, it wasn't the GIAC chip. chances are when i was testing how much boost that turbo was capable of and trying to see if the fuel system could keep up down low (saw alot of statements made about the 2.0t fuel system falling short of fuel downlow w/alot of boost)...so, i decided to put an mbc on the car to crank it to 22-23 psi downlow and see if the car had enough fuel/lost fuel pressure...but it worked fine as far as that went(on 94 octane, if that matters)...but then the turbo never sounded the same after that...ah well...in the name of science i guess.
btw, got your email...nope, not on anywhere else man...no time..


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Hey Mike, 
I wonder what people really think of us on the internet.... they probably think we sit here waiting for posts or something.
Really, I think all this is fun, and there's nothing wrong with some mudslinging.... then again, it's probably bedded into us from the 1.8T days









It's really not bad. I dont like it when people bash for the sake of bashing but it is fun looking at problems and bringing them to light. Ive done it with APR in the old 1.8t days too many times. If you search you can probably find some funny posts of me asking them questions too. It's all in fun and the spirit of learning about how these programs tic.
cheers to ya. Mike


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
The ultimate problem is that people like to * chip and forget. * They have a problem and blame blame blame. Now the vendors, well a vendor is blaming blaming blaming.

 
In bold is the way it should be , IF the software is engineered properly * keeping all the factory safeguards in place * you don't have to worry . APR invests alot back into there company with TOP BOSCH software engineers ON STAFF , 2 very bright tuners from Honda R & D that work everyday on the dyno ON STAFF, state of the art prototyping equip for all the hardware they make ,i could go on for hrs LOL . They are the real deal NO SMOKE AND MIRRORS NEEDED







Bob.G


----------



## T62 (Jun 15, 2006)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (rracerguy717)*

No smoke or mirrors.. But do they use Lasers? Eh.. EH?
Guys its pretty apparently to me, and from the limited tuning Ive done ( but have done it ) Ive made scratch files on a couple of cars.
There is obviously a reason why REVO and GIAC make more power. And its not because they don't know WHICH of the three parameters to touch, to make more power....
Boost... A/F... Spark. Those are the only ways to make power.
YES you can fool with other stuff, but that only allows you to run more, Boost... A/F... or Spark.
The fact is,Bosch is friggin lame for giving us a wacked out fuel pump. Borg Warner is lame, for giving us a motorcycle turbo. No joke, when I wen't to go dyno, a guy was using a KO3S on his Huyabusa (spelling?) And Ive seen it done before.
But, all of this underengineering has made me wary of of the 2.0FSI motor. I mean, it should have been built stout enough to handle the new 260 horse version... But the fact was, they cut corners to reduce cost. Its not as though they didn't have the technology to make the motor more reliable. (Im not saying its not reliabile, and Im also happy that VW is building the bottom end stronger for the 260 horse version, but its obvious they needed to upgrade something, otherwise again, they wouldnt have spent the money... Also I'll be willing to bet they drop the compression a bit :})


----------



## Jeremy-Blitzkrieg (Apr 22, 2006)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_
The fact is,Bosch is friggin lame for giving us a wacked out fuel pump. 


Yeah, I know... 1600 PSI is terrible.

_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_
Borg Warner is lame, for giving us a motorcycle turbo.


Because an average consumer needs a GT28RS.









_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_
But, all of this underengineering has made me wary of of the 2.0FSI motor. I mean, it should have been built stout enough to handle the new 260 horse version...


We have no idea what the 2.0 FSI motor can take yet. Turbo kits and higher hp are just starting to make their appearance on this motor. The 1.8 T can push 350 daily to the wheels. That came in a 150 bhp and a 180 bhp version. Does that mean 1.8t is lame too?
All I am saying is that for the people who buy the cars, what is the actual percent who chip and tune them? Maybe 35%?
The cars are built for comfort and performance. 191 WHP is great for someone who needs a luxury sedan. Its also easy to take care of.


----------



## -KIX- (Nov 25, 2004)

Ill post 2 parts:
ON TOPIC........
We did this test 3 years ago on the same dyno, on the same car, just swaping ECU´s the temps only varied 2 to 3 degrres centigrades.
The test car was a 150Hp Jetta 1.8 T with a Engine Code AWP.
It had 17 superleggera Wheels and a forge valve and an APR down pipe and muffler (then a super new product)
I must have the dynos somewhere but GIAC made 214 hp APR 212 Superchips 206 Upsolute 204 and wetterhawer 193, but on the Toruq edepartment GIAC, Wetterahuer and superchips were very peaky and unneven and Upsolute and APR were flat as a table, Giac , upsolute and APR were within 4 or 5 lbs feet of each other.
So basically we saw that Giac and APR and to some extent Upsolute were almost undistinguishable from each other in real world conditions, since the Giac was more abrupt and peaky on the curve I felt more powerfull but afterwards if made leess power than either Upsolute or APR.
Nowadays with REVO and Unitronic I guess the curves would be similar or basically had the same traits.... THE PROOF? if users DO want to squezze the most out of the reprograming then explain WHY GIAC, APR and REVO offer fine tunning od A/F, Boost, tming and such via SPS, V tune and such?
If bad programming is such an engine killer why fiddle with dissaster and give the (ussually stupid user) the ability to move parameters with bad results?
>>>>>>>>>botom line, buy from a good company that gives you service, answers your calls and offers you a good price for the chip.
>>>off topic....
If APR EGT and A/F is so good can someone explain why I destroyed 2 cat converters with APR 93 OCT? or explain why I had the strange memry error on my chip?
No wonder I switched to other software
(Btw if anyone wants 2 dead Downpipes. let me know)


----------



## new 337 (May 22, 2002)

*Re: (-KIX-)*


_Quote, originally posted by *-KIX-* »_.....The test car was a *150Hp *Jetta 1.8 T with a Engine Code *AWP*.


----------



## Jeremy-Blitzkrieg (Apr 22, 2006)

*Re: (new 337)*

my thoughts exactly.


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
You have a choice to run window vista in beta. If it crashes, you chose to crash it. 

Like vista gives you that choice.

_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Now when it becomes public, the support better be there and it better be stable.

Don't hold your breath.

_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Actually that's a bad analogy, it should be the other chip compared to MS, LOL. They say they don't "patch" but then they release updates and won't say what the fixes are......

Improved throttle response.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

How is the 2.0T calculating EGT? Is it doing it purely on calculation or was VW nice and included and EGT sensor like the TT was given for the 1.8T?


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (T62)*


_Quote, originally posted by *T62* »_No smoke or mirrors.. But do they use Lasers? Eh.. EH?
Guys its pretty apparently to me, and from the limited tuning Ive done ( but have done it ) Ive made scratch files on a couple of cars.
There is obviously a reason why REVO and GIAC make more power. And its not because they don't know WHICH of the three parameters to touch, to make more power....
Boost... A/F... Spark. Those are the only ways to make power.
YES you can fool with other stuff, but that only allows you to run more, Boost... A/F... or Spark.
The fact is,Bosch is friggin lame for giving us a wacked out fuel pump. Borg Warner is lame, for giving us a motorcycle turbo. No joke, when I wen't to go dyno, a guy was using a KO3S on his Huyabusa (spelling?) And Ive seen it done before.
But, all of this underengineering has made me wary of of the 2.0FSI motor. I mean, it should have been built stout enough to handle the new 260 horse version... But the fact was, they cut corners to reduce cost. Its not as though they didn't have the technology to make the motor more reliable. (Im not saying its not reliabile, and Im also happy that VW is building the bottom end stronger for the 260 horse version, but its obvious they needed to upgrade something, otherwise again, they wouldnt have spent the money... Also I'll be willing to bet they drop the compression a bit :})

Good god it's obvious you don't think at all like an auto manufacturer.
1. VW made a motor to fit in a BOATLOAD of their cars. It is a cross-platform heavy use engine. With this in mind they needed to not necissarily cut costs but didn't over engineer the car so that they could increase profit per vehicle. That is unarguable the smart thing to do. (go ahead, try and argue against it)
2. The 2.0T FSI will run for a bajillion miles as it came from the factory. It is not VW's responsibility to design for the modders needs. It is necissary for them to design the engine with enough power to haul around a passat, golf, jetta, etc. Which as I understand it they do just fine. There have been few reported problems both in American and in Europe.
3. Bosch and Borg Warner do as they are told. They are a vendor, not the chief designers. How you got it into your head that THEY were telling VW how to design the car is absolute proof to me that you enjoy the blame game more than anything else. VW had a spec and Bosch and Borg Warner met it.
4. So if a turbo is used on anything else than the car it was released in then it automatically becomes a turbo meant for the most diminutive of it's uses? So if I stuck a K03 on a go-kart it's now a go-kart turbo? I think you must be confused. A turbo is most often designed for a certain amount of flow, etc. A certain amount of power. The K03 just so happens to flow fine for 200hp and spools nice and quick in the 2.0T FSI. Sorry if a good design pisses you off.








5. No one knows the capabilities of this car yet. Not you, not any of the tuners on this forum, no one. And yeah, it's gonna take failures of the motor to find out. That's how it works.
6. For all your love of the SIDI motor, it's probably more accurate to compare it to the S3 motor, not the 2.0T FSI we are all dealing with.
7. Chill. Go buy a used GTP and stop whining or start tinkering on your car and contribute positively to the development of the aftermarket on this motor. I swear if I see one more T62 post that ends up, OMGzzzers the 3.8 makes more than 6hp from a down tube replacement omgzzers, 3.8 will nevar loose! It's like you came from the 1.8T threads and you've never even owned one...


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

my contribution to the thread. Stop reading Eurotuner. They sell a magazine, not accurate car information.


----------



## 2PointGoGoGo (Sep 11, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
4. So if a turbo is used on anything else than the car it was released in then it automatically becomes a turbo meant for the most diminutive of it's uses? *So if I stuck a K03 on a go-kart it's now a go-kart turbo?* I think you must be confused. A turbo is most often designed for a certain amount of flow, etc. A certain amount of power. The K03 just so happens to flow fine for 200hp and spools nice and quick in the 2.0T FSI. Sorry if a good design pisses you off.










No, but that would be awesome...
Anyways haven't seen keith post in a while, I wonder where he is?


----------



## rracerguy717 (Apr 8, 2003)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (2PointGoGoGo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *2PointGoGoGo* »_

Anyways haven't seen keith post in a while, I wonder where he is?
 
I know they where getting things ready for the trip up too H20.







Bob.G


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (rracerguy717)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rracerguy717* »_ 
I know they where getting things ready for the trip up too H20.







Bob.G

That's kinda what I was thinking.
Still wanna know if we have an actual EGT sensor.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
That's kinda what I was thinking.
Still wanna know if we have an actual EGT sensor.

no, no egt probe like the 2.7T or 225 1.8T. some people are attempting to log off of the 02 sensor but it is horribly inaccurate. 
Last night I sat back and watched with a couple of


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
no, no egt probe like the 2.7T or 225 1.8T. some people are attempting to log off of the 02 sensor but it is horribly inaccurate.

Good to know. Thanks. So if one were so inclined, where would one put the egt sensor to get the best readings? Right in the exhaust manifold? In other words where did APR put it to test the temps?


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_no, no egt probe like the 2.7T or 225 1.8T. some people are attempting to log off of the 02 sensor but it is horribly inaccurate. 
Last night I sat back and watched with a couple of









Proof?
I've found it to be pretty darn close to a newly installed thermocouple on many dubs. Just remember the position, which is downstream. Not a secret, and definitely not rocket science.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_
Good to know. Thanks. So if one were so inclined, where would one put the egt sensor to get the best readings? Right in the exhaust manifold? In other words where did APR put it to test the temps?

You can tap the mani on one of the far runners and insert the probe across behind the flange area, no flange anymore, but a flange like landing where the gases meet before entry to the turbo like housing part. I hope I don't confuse anyone with this technical jargon, lol.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
Proof?
I've found it to be pretty darn close to a newly installed thermocouple on many dubs. Just remember the position, which is downstream. Not a secret, and definitely not rocket science.

There are extreme differences in preturbine vs. post turbine egt's. alot of energy is lost turning those blades.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
You can tap the mani on one of the far runners and insert the probe across behind the flange area, no flange anymore, but a flange like landing where the gases meet before entry to the turbo like housing part. I hope I don't confuse anyone with this technical jargon, lol.

No I see what you mean. Pretty much where I had figured.


----------



## allcool (Oct 24, 2002)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_Good to know. Thanks. So if one were so inclined, where would one put the egt sensor to get the best readings? Right in the exhaust manifold? In other words where did APR put it to test the temps?

The optimum placement for EGT probes are at the tip of the flame front, that is usually 4-9" from center of piston.
To make a simple analogy one could compare the engines flame front to the flame coming from an oxygen acetylene torch. The ideal position would be for the tip of the egt probe to be centered in the tip of the flame front where the hottest temps reside. What makes egt probe placement more difficult is as tuning occurs the flame tip changes, as does the torch flame change when adjusting oxygen/acetylene mixture.
To get accurate readings for tuning, a probe has to be mounted for each cyl.
To think that any meaningful EGT chip tuning info,could be taken from the post turbo02 sensor shows a lack of understanding of what egts and pre turbine temps are all about, imho. 
When continuously the timing is fully retarded by the knock sensor, the ignition process happens so late that the flame front shoots out the exhaust port when the exhaust valve opens and blows still expanding, really hot gas directly out the exhaust manifold. So internally the pistons are barely warm, but the exhaust manifold and turbo get real hot. This is one reason Bosch does not run EGTs higher than ME9 oem stock ecu map allows. That is the point that timing retard is usually driving the EGTs up. 
Not that immediate damage is being done, it is just that you are no longer making that much additional HP above that temperature so there is no real benefit for a street ride to be running there. Why risk engine/turbo longevity?
allcool
jmho


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (allcool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *allcool* »_The optimum placement for EGT probes are at the tip of the flame front, that is usually 4-9" from center of piston.
To make a simple analogy one could compare the engines flame front to the flame coming from an oxygen acetylene torch. The ideal position would be for the tip of the egt probe to be centered in the tip of the flame front where the hottest temps reside. What makes egt probe placement more difficult is as tuning occurs the flame tip changes, as does the torch flame change when adjusting oxygen/acetylene mixture.
To get accurate readings for tuning, a probe has to be mounted for each cyl.
To think that any meaningful EGT chip tuning info,could be taken from the post turbo02 sensor shows a lack of understanding of what egts and pre turbine temps are all about, imho. 
When continuously the timing is fully retarded by the knock sensor, the ignition process happens so late that the flame front shoots out the exhaust port when the exhaust valve opens and blows still expanding, really hot gas directly out the exhaust manifold. So internally the pistons are barely warm, but the exhaust manifold and turbo get real hot. This is one reason Bosch does not run EGTs higher than ME9 oem stock ecu map allows. That is the point that timing retard is usually driving the EGTs up. 
Not that immediate damage is being done, it is just that you are no longer making that much additional HP above that temperature so there is no real benefit for a street ride to be running there. Why risk engine/turbo longevity?
allcool
jmho

OMG that's awesome! Let's take the lastest turbo trolling terms into play. Something about built in EGT protection that APR doesn't mess with. Where exactly is that EGT value being taken from? definitely NOT pre-turbo!!!


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: Blown Turbos!! (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
OMG that's awesome! Let's take the lastest turbo trolling terms into play. Something about built in EGT protection that APR doesn't mess with. Where exactly is that EGT value being taken from? definitely NOT pre-turbo!!!












































uh, he basically just confirmed what we have been saying and you find it funny? If I were you I'd be running out to my car and flashing it back to stock until I can get to my nearest APR distributor.








Magilson seemed to be asking how he could measure preturbine egt's and I was helping him with probe installation tips. I really don't think he has the resources to follow allcool's suggestions.
allcool stated how Bosch and VAG do it. That is the most correct way.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 22, 2002)

*Re: Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is.... (Jpics)*

Greetings Enthusiasts!
GIAC will not comment in detail about this article. We have not seen it yet. There seems to be a delay between east and west coast distribution of the magazine :-(. What we will say is that the Eurotuner/GIAC car was in California running California's special 91 Octane and a 400 cell cat. We are very pleased with the 29 wheel hp and 57 wheel ft-lbs gain. Here are Eurotuner's results for the GIAC car with California 91 octane and a 400 cell cat.
Stock [email protected] [email protected]
GIAC Software [email protected] [email protected]
GIAC+TT exhaust [email protected] [email protected]
GIAC+TT+Evoms CAI [email protected] [email protected]
http://www.eurotuner.com/techa..._mods/
There are many hardware protection maps and we do not disable anything (including those related to egts) that would create an unsafe situation for the well-maintained vehicle (i.e. sensors functioning accurately). There has been much discussion on the forums about how software is tuned. Anything stated in a single post/paragraph regarding protections and standard safeties in the code and how they must be adjusted is oversimplified. Its an incredibly complex process to tune a chip and GIAC draws upon over 15 years of experience and dedication to making cars fast and safe. We don't believe any tuner worth their salt would intentionally sacrifice the integrity of the engine/vehicle for the sake of a few extra HP.
We have been safely tuning VW® and Audi® cars for 15 years and we have an excellent "track" record. Although we will issue public statements from time to time to clarify slanderous misinformation, in general we avoid tuner wars on the internet. Our time is better spent making the best software in the world. The track is the place for a tuner to prove their ability to make reliable and powerful upgrades. And words are just words. We allocate equal R&D resources to tune stock and nearly stock platforms as we do our higher output programs. The 520 hp GIAC-tuned Audi TT that competed in the 1.8t Challenge several years ago drove to that event from Mexico City, dominated the power portions, and then drove home. Several other tuners competing in the event pushed their cars home with blown motors. Last year, we also partnered with Evolution Motorsports and fielded three cars that dominated the 996 Turbo High Roller shoot out. All three cars excelled in this event without mechanical incident, (one exception: The 950 hp car lost its clutch; but this car would lose traction at all four wheels on the third to fourth gear shift without some finesse from the driver). It is these types of examples that have proven GIAC to be a tuner that can expertly balancing power and reliability.
This year our software-supported race teams have won two first place and five podium finishes at Grand Am Cup events (one of these cars is running third on the season). A GIAC-powered 996 won the One Lap of America (third year in row) and another won the Bull Run Rally. Our software aided the Porsche® New Zealand Endurance Team in their successful effort to set a new 24-hour distance/endurance record, beating the previous record by 188 Km. Furthermore, we just wrapped up filming the Street Tuner Challenge on the Speed Channel with ABD Racing, where the early prototype (stock injectors are not used in the final version of the kit) of the future GIAC/VF-Engineering 2.0tfsi Big Turbo Kit can be seen. Our Bentley Continental GT program holds the fastest lap time for that platform at the MIRA proving grounds in the UK. Last month, Tony Gilham, driving his GIAC software-supported Beetle, won the BRANDS HATCH Volkswagen® Racing Cup event in the UK as well. Now, Stasis Engineering and Mahle Motorsports (formerly known as Cosworth and the original developers of the RS6, the RS4 and the new S3 motors platforms), have chosen to work with GIAC to develop a line of performance packages derived from the Stasis' and Mahle Motorsport's World Challenge racing program.
We are very proud of the fact that many of the biggest tuners and strongest race teams continue to turn to GIAC for reliable and powerful software programming. You don't win if you don't finish. From the Porsche® kits that we have done with Evolution Motorsports, to the Audi® kits we have done with AWE and the VW® ones with VF-Engineering our products have stood the test of time and competition.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is.... ([email protected])*

Thanks for posting the bio. Neat.
Questions?
1. When does the overboost protection begin to work if the ECU requests 16psi from the K03 turbo at redline? Can the stock K03 turbo sustain 16psi at redline without blowing?
2. Since it has been insinuated that leaning the a/f could be less than optimal, how do you test to make sure the EGT models that Bosch has used for the stock cars are now applicable to your new a/f?
3. What is a good number you like to see for knock correction? Is 10-14 degrees of knock correction ok to run all the time?
Thanks in advance.
cheers! Mike


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is.... (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Thanks for posting the bio. Neat.


I thought it was good http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## allcool (Oct 24, 2002)

*Re: Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is.... (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_Thanks for posting the bio. Neat.
Questions?
1. When does the overboost protection begin to work if the ECU requests 16psi from the K03 turbo at redline? Can the stock K03 turbo sustain 16psi at redline without blowing?
2. Since it has been insinuated that leaning the a/f could be less than optimal, how do you test to make sure the EGT models that Bosch has used for the stock cars are now applicable to your new a/f?
3. What is a good number you like to see for knock correction? Is 10-14 degrees of knock correction ok to run all the time?
Thanks in advance.
cheers! Mike

Good questions....
that always seem to get sidestepped
Be awesome to get answers from Andrew!
The bio is cool and impressive
allcool


----------



## kayaker10 (Jan 10, 2006)

*Re: Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is.... (syntrix)*

Thanks Andrew for the informative post.
bhvrd, as much as I'd love to see Andrew jump in the fray, I think he pretty clearly stated that he won't jump into the internet chip war.
So far, Giac has been great to work with. I had Revo for the last 4 months and love thier program. It just turns out that the shop I trust with everyting else with my A3 is a Giac shop. I chose to reflash with Giac so all my mods will be under one roof. After a week of running the Giac, I stopped by the shop and told them I was running a tad slower in my 1/4 mile runs. I felt with the Giac I lost some upper end power. The shop spoke with Giac and today they are working on an upgraded flash for the A3 that will be installed by the time I pick it up after work. This is exactly the type of support and I was looking for. I intend on taking it to the track this Saturday night to see what they came up with. I have no intention many more 1/4 mile track nights. But it is a great place to put the same driver in the same car and see what it can do as I make changes. 


_Modified by kayaker10 at 1:15 PM 9-22-2006_


----------



## BDP (Sep 13, 2002)

*Re: Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is.... ([email protected])*

Nice write up thanks for the clarification http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Also great way to keep it professional and state your point without trying to throw darts at your competitors










_Modified by BDP at 9:25 PM 9-22-2006_


----------



## gtiiiiiiii (Mar 6, 2004)

*Re: Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is.... ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Greetings Enthusiasts!
GIAC will not comment in detail about this article. We have not seen it yet. There seems to be a delay between east and west coast distribution of the magazine :-(. What we will say is that the Eurotuner/GIAC car was in California running California's special 91 Octane and a 400 cell cat. We are very pleased with the 29 wheel hp and 57 wheel ft-lbs gain. Here are Eurotuner's results for the GIAC car with California 91 octane and a 400 cell cat.
Stock [email protected] [email protected]
GIAC Software [email protected] [email protected]
GIAC+TT exhaust [email protected] [email protected]
GIAC+TT+Evoms CAI [email protected] [email protected]
http://www.eurotuner.com/techa..._mods/
There are many hardware protection maps and we do not disable anything (including those related to egts) that would create an unsafe situation for the well-maintained vehicle (i.e. sensors functioning accurately). There has been much discussion on the forums about how software is tuned. Anything stated in a single post/paragraph regarding protections and standard safeties in the code and how they must be adjusted is oversimplified. Its an incredibly complex process to tune a chip and GIAC draws upon over 15 years of experience and dedication to making cars fast and safe. We don't believe any tuner worth their salt would intentionally sacrifice the integrity of the engine/vehicle for the sake of a few extra HP.
We have been safely tuning VW® and Audi® cars for 15 years and we have an excellent "track" record. Although we will issue public statements from time to time to clarify slanderous misinformation, in general we avoid tuner wars on the internet. Our time is better spent making the best software in the world. The track is the place for a tuner to prove their ability to make reliable and powerful upgrades. And words are just words. We allocate equal R&D resources to tune stock and nearly stock platforms as we do our higher output programs. The 520 hp GIAC-tuned Audi TT that competed in the 1.8t Challenge several years ago drove to that event from Mexico City, dominated the power portions, and then drove home. Several other tuners competing in the event pushed their cars home with blown motors. Last year, we also partnered with Evolution Motorsports and fielded three cars that dominated the 996 Turbo High Roller shoot out. All three cars excelled in this event without mechanical incident, (one exception: The 950 hp car lost its clutch; but this car would lose traction at all four wheels on the third to fourth gear shift without some finesse from the driver). It is these types of examples that have proven GIAC to be a tuner that can expertly balancing power and reliability.
This year our software-supported race teams have won two first place and five podium finishes at Grand Am Cup events (one of these cars is running third on the season). A GIAC-powered 996 won the One Lap of America (third year in row) and another won the Bull Run Rally. Our software aided the Porsche® New Zealand Endurance Team in their successful effort to set a new 24-hour distance/endurance record, beating the previous record by 188 Km. Furthermore, we just wrapped up filming the Street Tuner Challenge on the Speed Channel with ABD Racing, where the early prototype (stock injectors are not used in the final version of the kit) of the future GIAC/VF-Engineering 2.0tfsi Big Turbo Kit can be seen. Our Bentley Continental GT program holds the fastest lap time for that platform at the MIRA proving grounds in the UK. Last month, Tony Gilham, driving his GIAC software-supported Beetle, won the BRANDS HATCH Volkswagen® Racing Cup event in the UK as well. Now, Stasis Engineering and Mahle Motorsports (formerly known as Cosworth and the original developers of the RS6, the RS4 and the new S3 motors platforms), have chosen to work with GIAC to develop a line of performance packages derived from the Stasis' and Mahle Motorsport's World Challenge racing program.
We are very proud of the fact that many of the biggest tuners and strongest race teams continue to turn to GIAC for reliable and powerful software programming. You don't win if you don't finish. From the Porsche® kits that we have done with Evolution Motorsports, to the Audi® kits we have done with AWE and the VW® ones with VF-Engineering our products have stood the test of time and competition.


Awesome, can't wait to see the rest of the episodes of STC, even if it is produced kinda poorly lol...


----------



## jmhart (Dec 28, 2005)

*Re: Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is.... ([email protected])*

Well said Andrew, it's comforting to see official GIAC representation in the forums. I appreciate your style, much like Brett @ APR, statement of facts without having to read through a bunch of unnecessarily confrontational finger pointing and other such unprofessional nonsense.















I do share bhvrdr's curiosity about requested boost levels being set higher than both APR and Revo, an example of which is this boost graph from my car running X+ (Hammer 03B):








While I realize turbo overspool on the stock exhaust is more or less impossible (or so I would think), would it be safe to allow the boost to hit these elevated requested levels if it somehow could? My theory is that it's just not possible with the stock exhaust flow rate so I'm not worried about it but definitely curious.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

What I'm starting to wonder about these high boost requests is this:
As said above, all stage one requirements considered, the stock turbo doesn't seem able to spool much beyond what APR claims is the safe limit when looking at GIAC's results.
Does this mean GIAC has some other reason to have such a large request? Could it be that keeping the request high causes other "desireable" attributes, such as the turbo being kept spooled a lot more linear which is what I seem to see from GIAC boost logs.
I dunno, just an observation that I'd like to see other comment on. Could there be other desireable effect a large boost request would have. BE REALISTIC AND RESONABLE (this means you, haters of everything non-APR).


----------



## zemun2 (Sep 2, 2004)

*Re: Eurotuner's GIAC vs REVO vs APR and the winner is.... (allcool)*


_Quote, originally posted by *allcool* »_
Good questions....
that always seem to get sidestepped
Be awesome to get answers from Andrew!
The bio is cool and impressive
allcool

haha


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_What I'm starting to wonder about these high boost requests is this:
As said above, all stage one requirements considered, the stock turbo doesn't seem able to spool much beyond what APR claims is the safe limit when looking at GIAC's results.
Does this mean GIAC has some other reason to have such a large request? Could it be that keeping the request high causes other "desireable" attributes, such as the turbo being kept spooled a lot more linear which is what I seem to see from GIAC boost logs.
I dunno, just an observation that I'd like to see other comment on. Could there be other desireable effect a large boost request would have. BE REALISTIC AND RESONABLE (this means you, haters of everything non-APR).

Its a good question,
It will not have that desired effect. The Bosch MED9 is very intelligent and does not like being told to try and do things it's components can't do. I agree, you would think it would be pretty easy and make sense to just crank things up and see what the turbo can do but what you actually see is less linear and less overall boost up top when you go overboard. For example....
















Note from the above graphs...
GIAC at 4500 rpm is requesting over 19psi but only able to make 16psi.
APR at 4500rpm is requesting 17psi and making 17psi. (requesting less but making more)
GIAC at 5500rpm is requesting an unattainable 17.5psi and actually making 13psi.
APR at 5500rpm is requesting a touch over 14psi and making that 14psi or a bit more. (requesting less but making more)
GIAC at 6000rpm is requesting another unattainable 17psi and only able to make about 11psi in actual boost.
APR at 6000rpm is requesting almost 13psi and making exactly as it requests. (requesting less but making more).
So what you actually see is a more linear and smooth boost curve all the way from the lower mid to redline. GIAC has a larger initial punch at the very low end due to the very high requests that carry throughout but are unobtainable. This will "feel" very quick. It's a great technique to put smiles on customers faces which is not meant in a negative way at all. 
cheers! Mike


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Its a good question,


Now Mike, you know better. You are comparing one data series and ignoring all the others. It's really getting old.
Requested is not actual, and there's still built in protection with GIAC. Just read Andrews post above!
I can request that I jump 88 feet in the air. I'm probably only gonna get 2 feet.
I can request that I fly when I jump off a cliff like a lemming. That request will not be met, no matter how hard I try.
edit: the issue with trying to fly is countered with a bungee cord and a safety net http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Modified by syntrix at 6:27 PM 9-22-2006_


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Now Mike, you know better. You are comparing one data series and ignoring all the others. It's really getting old.
Requested is not actual, and there's still built in protection with GIAC. Just read Andrews post above!
I can request that I jump 88 feet in the air. I'm probably only gonna get 2 feet.
I can request that I fly when I jump off a cliff like a lemming. That request will not be met, no matter how hard I try.

Not many people will dare to post knock correction logs, that's all. One guy posted he is only retarding 10 degrees running 92 on his program that is made to run 91 also.
Requested boost just like accurately timing a car is important as other maps in the car also take it into consideration.
You analogy is an interesting one. Lets look at it...
Let's indeed say I am a trainer and I keep asking you to jump 88 feet in the air and you can realistically jump 2 feet. We have measured your capabilities (efficiency range) and you can consistently jump 2 feet.
So I put up a measuring stick on the wall of a building with 88 feet marked off on it and comand you to continue to jump to meet that 88 foot mark. Continuously...over and over and over.
What will happen? Other parts of your body will begin to recognize you cannot complete this task. You will be continously be straining your body until eventually you collapse.
But if I recognize your efficiency range of 2 feet, you will be able to do this for considerably longer into the rev band...I mean into the day and will become less exerted.
The only problem is that in the turbo if you had a wastegate or other problem such as losing backpressure (S4's overspooled often enough) you could indeed reach the 88 foot mark (i mean 16psi mark) and you would fall down that 88 feet and die (i mean blow the turbo).
I wanst sure about that analogy at first but actually it's pretty neat...like the bio.








cheers! Mike


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
You analogy is an interesting one. Lets look at it...


You missed the safety net in my post. Which GIAC clearly defined.
*Let's also not forget the [email protected] gets special discounts on APR products, as stated by [email protected]*
I'm sure he's motivated and clouded at the same time









-----------
Once again, eurotuner? Some stuff went OT to clear up slander, but you still press the OT, LOL


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_You missed the safety net in my post. Which GIAC clearly defined.
*Let's also not forget the [email protected] gets special discounts on APR products, as stated by [email protected]*
I'm sure he's motivated and clouded at the same time









-----------
Once again, eurotuner? Some stuff went OT to clear up slander, but you still press the OT, LOL

Hey, who brought up high jumping? Not I sir







Please tell me any "clearly defined" description of the safety net? I cant find it anywhere?
I've gotten discounts from every company i've delt with in the past year. Such as from Neuspeed when I posted my results of 0hp gained an 0tq gained, such as 15% off on the HFC in which i posted 0hp gains and 0tq. I have gotten discounts because they know I will post about it and sometimes bad news is still news. I have always put out considerably more in testing (several thousand dollars) than any small (and I mean small) discounts i've gotten. If you dont think I put out well over a few grand for the K04 kit you would be wrong. But we've been nice. No neet to try and attack my credibility. It won't fly and talk about off topic. All you have to look at is the testing ive done on products that have shown no gains that i received discounts on (rather larger ones too). Sure I may never receive discounts from those companies again for posting the honest results (a shame because with the S4 I am looking at their products again) but my philosophy is that if that company is worth a gain of salt they'll realize that with the money and time I put into testing I was still honest enough to post the lack of positive results and I think that results in people trusting them. Trusting the results that myself and my buddies post and that should be worth it to them if they improve their product and want it retested. Let's not go personal though. Lets keep it full of actual data and good debate. The OP is about a comparison of three software companies and I think we've done a great job posting good questions and technical data. Lets keep going that route less it makes some nervous








cheers! Mike


_Modified by bhvrdr at 7:17 PM 9-22-2006_


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Hey, who brought up high jumping? Not I sir







Please tell me any "clearly defined" description of the safety net? I cant find it anywhere?


Go up a few posts to me, it's very clear.
It's in there but don't listen to me, listen to [email protected] in his post!
Really, I coined the new phrase, TURBO TROLLING.
EUROTUNER INFO ANYONE? 
IN!!!!!!!


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_
*the issue with trying to fly is countered with a bungee cord and a safety net *http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


From my post above incase [email protected] missed it


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Go up a few posts to me, it's very clear.
It's in there but don't listen to me, listen to [email protected] in his post!
Really, I coined the new phrase, TURBO TROLLING.
EUROTUNER INFO ANYONE? 
IN!!!!!!!

I still can't find it. I see some vague wording about things being "complex" but no answers at all about the actual "safeties" that are in place. It's true that there may not be so many "safeties" that you go in and disable by clicking the "disable" button. It's easy to say that. But I thought people were trying to speak in more technical terms and realizing that if you put requested boost up to a level that the turbo cant achieve you have effectively disabled "overboost" limp mode no? And if you fail to remodel the EGT models after leaning out the car than you have effectively ignored and bypassed those safeties. I cant find where that is discussed? It would be a good discussion though and I admit I could learn something from it.
cheers! Mike


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_I still can't find it. 

Oh, it's clearly up there, just scroll up. You must have missed it.
Anyway, 15% at neuspeed is nothing. I used to be 40% back with them and IIRC, it was also either 45 or 50 back with bilstein. 
But I hung up my resale cert. ANyone with a resale cert could probably get 15% at neuspeed and not make any money.
The point is that you are in bed with APR deep, and you are TURBO TROLLING, AND people are getting sick of it on vortex with pointing the finger at other people.
EUROTUNER DISCUSSION anyone? LOL


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_Oh, it's clearly up there, just scroll up. You must have missed it.
Anyway, 15% at neuspeed is nothing. I used to be 40% back with them and IIRC, it was also either 45 or 50 back with bilstein. 
But I hung up my resale cert. ANyone with a resale cert could probably get 15% at neuspeed and not make any money.
The point is that you are in bed with APR deep, and you are TURBO TROLLING, AND people are getting sick of it on vortex with pointing the finger at other people.
EUROTUNER DISCUSSION anyone? LOL

Check the post again. It was 15% with milltek. I am agreed not to disclose the NS discount. And again, I have receipts right here for my APR products. Their sales to the public at events on turbo kits are right about what i paid even putting my own money into testing. I have the credit card statements to prove it







It's easy to take this off topic and point fingers at personal attributes of posters rather than discuss technical points that have been brought up. Any discussion at all on the technical points or are you done with the technical discussion? 
EDIT: for the first time this thread really is starting to get off topic with talk about discounts and blah, blah instead of any technical responses at all and it's probably a thinly veiled attempt for some parties to take the thread towards lock when technical points get brought up that there are no responses to at the time so i'll refrain from any responses to personal attacks from now on so we can keep this full of technical data. I'll ignore the bait







There's some good stuff in the thread that could have great responses too from tuners to help us understand more. Would be great to hear http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
EDIT: This whole thread has been about comparing technical aspects of three diffferent companies. It's been great and been right on topic as far as technical questions about each company. It's not about eurotuner. We dont need to discuss a magazine. It's about learning how three different companies that are ALL top shelf are different. My prediction is that some parties really get uncomfrotable when technical questions (not attacks, questions) are brought up and will work towards locking those threads so we can concentrate on mad dynos yo. I'll not take the bait even if it's funny personal attacks when i actually am a big supporter of Revo on other forums (havent had as much of a chance on this forum due to lack of logs and data posted but other forms post lots of great data on them) and many other companies. 
cheers! Mike 


_Modified by bhvrdr at 9:19 PM 9-22-2006_


----------



## new 337 (May 22, 2002)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

[email protected] =


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (new 337)*


_Quote, originally posted by *new 337* »_[email protected] = 









Yeah, you are right. Thank you.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
EDIT: for the first time this thread really is starting to get off topic...
_Modified by bhvrdr at 7:54 PM 9-22-2006_

No kidding? I'm surprised the sarcasm meter wasn't posted in repy on PAGE1.
Again,
Anything to add to the EUROTUNER article? There hasn't been for a long time








edit: I'll just sneak this one in, swankmonkey.com private forums are running slow, I'm dumping about 14 gigs of tech data (those with access understand) to the new home location for the new live and offsite backup. Thanks for your understanding during this move to Little Rock http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 



_Modified by syntrix at 9:05 PM 9-22-2006_


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

c'mon guys, some people (like me) have serious questions.
bhvrdr, i still don't see the problem requesting 8082308235 PSI, if the ECU is basing fuel maps off of requested boost instead of actual, well then it's just retarded and I will be looking into selling my car soon. If there is some other reason it's a big deal I haven't seen a clear reason yet.
if you compare the graphs one data point directly to another (GIAC to APR each at the same RPM) then you would see GIAC is in fact more linear by definition. In fact those graphs show the GIAC controlled turbo (if you will) pumping out less boost at the same RPM, something I have seen you post time and time again is important for this motor setup. Wouldn't that mean that despite the boost level GIAC requests, it is for all practicle purposes asking less of the turbo which by your defenition making it the safer chip?
So, I still don't see where the problem arises...


----------



## jmhart (Dec 28, 2005)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

Actually, if I scale my graph like yours (you are trying to compare apples to apples, no?) then both APR and GIAC look very, very similar as you would expect since this is the same turbo in both cars after all. This is a second run from the same dataset as my first graph:
















GIAC does peak a bit higher earlier on and dies off quicker but the boost decay is actually more linear than your graph. Yours is more parabolic in nature.
Also, if you are trying to compare the two statistically, you can't just pick points that make one look better than the other--you have to look at the area under both graphs. Using very rough, eye-balled values and rectangle area estimation for each 500 RPM interval, I come up with these totals for surface area under each of our graphs in the 3000-6000 range since I didn't rev as high as you did on my run:
APR: 50,900
GIAC: 51,700
So they are both within about 1.5% of each other which is statistically insignificant, so that's a very rough but much more accurate comparison if you want to get down to the mathematical nitty gritty.


_Modified by jmhart at 11:48 PM 9-22-2006_


----------



## jmhart (Dec 28, 2005)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

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?











_Modified by jmhart at 11:44 PM 9-22-2006_


----------



## jmhart (Dec 28, 2005)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*

Ooops, ignore the duplicate!


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

THANK YOU jmhart. Finally I feel like someone else is thinking about it instead of just talking with their ego.
FYI I am chipped but by neither of these companies. I plan to do the same comparisons when I get my VAG-COM.
This still doesn't explain why GIAC would request so much seemingly unattainable boost...
Has anyone taken the same graphs jmhart has with GIAC stage II?


_Modified by magilson at 9:45 AM 9-23-2006_


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (jmhart)*


_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?








_Modified by jmhart at 11:44 PM 9-22-2006_

Nice post jmhart. I think that's a graph a lot of people havent seen. It appears in WOT component protection mode GIAC indeed does run the same 10.5:1 as another tuner. That's cool to see. I think a lot of people even running that software posted it ran leaner and it appears it doesnt always do that at all. Would be cool to see more people log like that to see what it does http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
I agree with you on boost that the overall amount under the curve is similar and that GIAC boosts higher and maintains less in the upper rpm despite requesting much more. That's the interesting part though is that despite requesting more it starts to go lower. Interesting stuff.
cheers! Mike


----------



## rastta (Feb 22, 1999)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
I agree with you on boost that the overall amount under the curve is similar and that GIAC boosts higher and maintains less in the upper rpm despite requesting much more. That's the interesting part though is that despite requesting more it starts to go lower. Interesting stuff.
cheers! Mike

Which might lead you to think there might be a hardware issue or small leak.


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Which might lead you to think there might be a hardware issue or small leak. 

True. I think one might expect to see a graph that shows boost levels dropping rapidly after peak boost is generated rather than a smooth linear decrease if there were a leak though, just the nature of the beast of pressurized air.


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (magilson)*


_Quote, originally posted by *magilson* »_True. I think one might expect to see a graph that shows boost levels dropping rapidly after peak boost is generated rather than a smooth linear decrease if there were a leak though, just the nature of the beast of pressurized air.

Maybe a really big leak? If I have a small leak that max will only let out say 50 cfm, the curve would probably be just a bit less and not a rapid drop off.
Anand is supposed to reveal a fix for cars with pvc leaks that shows up usually with a leaking oil cap. There's a recent thread here, which I'm sure y'all have read http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

could be. I still think it would be a (now don't get goofy about the geek term im about to use) a decreasing exponential shaped curve (concanve up essentially) because the force of the air on the leaking spot would go lower and lower and therefore the leak would become smaller and smaller. Just applying some of my physics classes here.
Yeah, can't wait to see the fix. Hope it won't cost me my other arm considering what the MTM diverter valve costs.


----------



## TBT-Syncro (Apr 28, 2001)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
So I put up a measuring stick on the wall of a building with 88 feet marked off on it and comand you to continue to jump to meet that 88 foot mark. Continuously...over and over and over.
What will happen? Other parts of your body will begin to recognize you cannot complete this task. You will be continously be straining your body until eventually you collapse.
But if I recognize your efficiency range of 2 feet, you will be able to do this for considerably longer into the rev band...I mean into the day and will become less exerted.


lol, this is a terrible analogy, and its wrong.
In both cases your body is performing to its MAX. The preset goal will not determine failure, as in both cases the body is performing to 100%. Fatigue and Failure will happen at the same milestones. By your example, if i did a test of jumping 2 feet, while trying for 44 versus trying for 88 i'd get different results. We all know this is not the case.


----------



## M this 1! (May 17, 2000)

*Re: (TBT-Syncro)*

i find it very humorous that APR and its paid posters need to belittle and create false info on the competition. i have NEVER seen Giac come on here and talk out its corn hole about things it does not know are true are not. it's sad to have to have Andrew come on here to correct false info posted about his product. EVERY shoot out creates this, whether APR is ahead in the test or not. you guys need to chill and realize there is enough of these cars around for all to make money off chipping. now i sell cars, not modify them for a living. and when i sell a customer on an Audi over a BMW, i don't bash BMW.........i only sell the plus's of my product. you do it the other way and you look like a dill hole.


----------



## 2zzge (Aug 16, 2006)

*Re: (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_i find it very humorous that .... posters need to belittle and create false info on the competition. ...... now i sell cars, not modify them for a living. and when i sell a customer on an Audi over a BMW, i don't bash BMW.........i only sell the plus's of my product. you do it the other way and you look like a dill hole.

...or a politician.
i hate politicians


----------



## kayaker10 (Jan 10, 2006)

*Re: (M this 1!)*

Old Chinese Proverb - Some try to make themselves taller by cutting off the head of others...


----------



## prom king (Aug 14, 2004)

*Re: (syntrix)*

If I was getting free stuff from revo, maybe I'd be all revo is the best blah blah blah. But I'm not... All I know is that I have Revo Software, I don't care if it's the fastest, all the chips are pretty much in the same range, give or take about 5 horsepower... So All this debate for about 5 horsepower really bugs me. But one thing I'm very happy about, is I have 13,000 miles on my Revo software, and not a single check engine light. The end.


----------



## jmhart (Dec 28, 2005)

*Re: (M this 1!)*


_Quote, originally posted by *M this 1!* »_i find it very humorous that APR and its paid posters need to belittle and create false info on the competition. i have NEVER seen Giac come on here and talk out its corn hole about things it does not know are true are not. it's sad to have to have Andrew come on here to correct false info posted about his product. EVERY shoot out creates this, whether APR is ahead in the test or not. you guys need to chill and realize there is enough of these cars around for all to make money off chipping. now i sell cars, not modify them for a living. and when i sell a customer on an Audi over a BMW, i don't bash BMW.........i only sell the plus's of my product. you do it the other way and you look like a dill hole.

I think you have to consider that APR representation in these forums has a certain 'personality' in that they do tend to sometimes take the attitude of defending their product by pointing out what their competitors are doing instead of standing behind their own product. This is the primary reason I chose to go with GIAC over APR, because I can't stand that type of attitude and behavior either.
By that token, you must assume that people who do frequent the forums and are aware of how APR is represented here either endorse that kind of attitude or don't have a problem with it--so it stands to reason that this type of atmosphere will always dominate any response from APR, or it's fans.
I do have to say that while I don't always agree with Mike, he really isn't that confrontational and is open to any facts represented that address his questions. I think when you see a thread with a post by APR that is confrontational in nature or contains defamation of a competitor, follow by posts by APR fans, it's often easy to interpret that fans' post and inflammatory as well which isn't always the case.


_Modified by jmhart at 11:54 AM 9-27-2006_


----------



## allcool (Oct 24, 2002)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_I'm sick of everyone bringing up factory safeguards? Who the heck cares? Just make em wicked fast!!!! http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Overboost protection is stupid, so is egt protection, and who cares about knock readings? I'm sure the motor can handle it. I hate it when people try and get all technical. Can we just see some more dyno charts please? http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif I'd prefer dynopacks versus dyno dynamics too so we can see just how much some program rulz.
cheers! Mike

This company thinks their egt setting is safe for long engine/turbo life and swears they didn't touch or change any me9 oem egt limits


















_Modified by allcool at 12:49 AM 9-28-2006_


----------

