# CEL with APR downpipe?



## ShutItDown (Jun 14, 2007)

2 days ago while i was just cruising on the highway my CEL came on for no reason. while at work today i had one of our techs scan it to see what the cause was thinking maybe DV, PCV, Cam. it turns out it was for my Cat.. any reason why? i even have APR software so im just confused. maybe Keith or someone can chime in? thank you.


----------



## majid (Sep 29, 2006)

*Re: CEL with APR downpipe? (ShutItDown)*

You have to upgrade your software to stage 2. If you run the down pipe with stage 1 it will kick a catalyst code. This upgrade is free since you have already purchase the stage 1 software http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## ShutItDown (Jun 14, 2007)

*Re: CEL with APR downpipe? (majid)*

i did just add the pipe and intake 2 weeks ago. i thought i remembered them saying when i got chipped a year ago that they would just give me the stage 2 chip so i wouldnt have to come back once i get my supporting mods.. i guess i assumed i did have stage 2 because with just a chip i hit 232whp and 280 trq and since exhaust and intake im spiking at 23psi. i guess i will call the shop tomorrow and get flashed on my lunch break.


----------



## majid (Sep 29, 2006)

*Re: CEL with APR downpipe? (ShutItDown)*

I think they mis led you. I don't believe it is possible to have both files at once


----------



## ShutItDown (Jun 14, 2007)

*Re: CEL with APR downpipe? (majid)*

i meant that i thought they put the stage 2 program on the stock engine. thats what i thought he said.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 30, 2007)

*Re: CEL with APR downpipe? (ShutItDown)*

ShutItDown:
Any car that is flashed with APR software is recorded in our database. So, you can call our tech support department at 1-800-680-7921 and provide them with your name, VIN#, etc and they can look up your car to see exactly what software was flashed on your vehicle. 
Either way, APR does not charge for an upgrade to Stage 2 software once the exhaust has been purchased. So if you require Stage 2 now that you have an exhaust, you can easily be upgraded by any of our dealers. 
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Mike


----------



## ShutItDown (Jun 14, 2007)

*Re: CEL with APR downpipe? ([email protected])*

thanks mike. i guess i just needed to get the newest flash. Went to BHR and it has been fine since. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 19, 2006)

*Re: CEL with APR downpipe? (ShutItDown)*


_Quote, originally posted by *ShutItDown* »_thanks mike. i guess i just needed to get the newest flash. Went to BHR and it has been fine since. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Glad you got it worked out!!!


----------



## kwiksilver99 (Jul 12, 2001)

i've got a couple questions
sorry if this has been covered already, i've got bad reading comprehension skills, i think i got smacked in the head to many times as a kid








but i was gonna buy an apr downpipe first then save up for the evo intake, then get the apr stage2 chip, so my question is, am i gonna throw codes if i don't get a chip first?


----------



## teriba (Dec 4, 1999)

*Re: CEL with APR downpipe? (kwiksilver99)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kwiksilver99* »_am i gonna throw codes if i don't get a chip first?


Yes.


----------



## kwiksilver99 (Jul 12, 2001)

*Re: CEL with APR downpipe? (teriba)*

ok then, chip first then


----------



## ShutItDown (Jun 14, 2007)

*Re: CEL with APR downpipe? (kwiksilver99)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kwiksilver99* »_ok then, chip first then

always


----------



## Josein06GLI (Jun 29, 2008)

so if i add an intake and downpipe im gonna get CEL? i dont really wanna flash ecu cuz i hear goods and bads about it more bads though. anyone???


----------



## ShutItDown (Jun 14, 2007)

*Re: (Josein06GLI)*

do whatever you want.


----------



## Blown Dub (Apr 10, 2006)

*Re: (ShutItDown)*

one quick question, so stage 2 I can go cat-less? I am trying to figure all this apr stage 1 and stage 2 out.


----------



## brekdown29 (Jun 26, 2007)

a.w.e. downpipes won't throw a cel even without software


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: (gliplatinum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gliplatinum* »_a.w.e. downpipes won't throw a cel even without software

Ours throws a code because it flows more air, which is the whole purpose behind buying an upgraded exhaust system.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## runnin9z (Dec 30, 2003)

So let me get this straight.
If i get the intake and a downpipe (or TBE) before i get chipped i will throw a CEL. If i do the chip before then do the Downpipe and upgrade to stage 2 i wont see a CEL.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: (runnin9z)*

Basically the CEL is just saying "This guys exhaust system appears to be doing something we did not expect. Lets warn him with a CEL light." The CEL does not hurt performance or the car. It just indicates something unexpected has happened. In order to correct this problem, we correctly calibrate the ECU to expect what it's seeing so the light is not illuminated. 
After you upgrade your downpipe, you'll want to reflash your ECU with stage 2 software. The software upgrade from us is free if you already have stage 1.


----------



## runnin9z (Dec 30, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Basically the CEL is just saying "This guys exhaust system appears to be doing something we did not expect. Lets warn him with a CEL light." The CEL does not hurt performance or the car. It just indicates something unexpected has happened. In order to correct this problem, we correctly calibrate the ECU to expect what it's seeing so the light is not illuminated. 
After you upgrade your downpipe, you'll want to reflash your ECU with stage 2 software. The software upgrade from us is free if you already have stage 1.


Well i guess i need to make a trip up to NGP and get chipped instead of getting a DP now. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## coolname1 (Dec 14, 2007)

I went to a local apr dealer last week to get flashed to stage 2. I only had the apr downpipe at the time. According to them, I shouldn't get the newer software yet since there won't be much performace again with justa downpipe to stock catback. They advised me to get a 3 in catback and come back after for the stage 2 flash.
Needless to say, I did not get flashed that day. Despite what they said, I went ahead and order a 2.5 magnaflow setup. My question is would I have any problem getting flash to stage 2 with my current setup? Which is 3in dp to 2.5 catback.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*FV-QR*

You would be fine with the stage 2 program. I ran the same setup, APR DP + stock cat back + stage 2 for several months.


----------



## coolname1 (Dec 14, 2007)

thanx, just got flashed to stage 2 today.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 5, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *gliplatinum* »_a.w.e. downpipes won't throw a cel even without software


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Ours throws a code because it flows more air, which is the whole purpose behind buying an upgraded exhaust system.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

Is that really your justification for a CEL, you flow more air and that makes it ok?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Is that really your justification for a CEL, you flow more air and that makes it ok? 


Is cranking up your dyno to read higher '_like a dynojet_' and using an outrageous 1.15 wheel to crank multiplier justification for your outlandish power figures?
Seriously though, the APR advantage is being able to properly recalibrate the engine management system to take advantage of a larger freer flowing exhaust system rather than bending a couple tubes and welding on a restrictive catalyst system so it doesn't throw a code. We don't just make parts, we engineer a total package and offer software to make every advantage possible. This is something competitors can't offer. http://****************.com/smile/emlips.gif


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 5, 2005)

*Re: (runnin9z)*


_Quote, originally posted by *runnin9z* »_So let me get this straight.
If i get the intake and a downpipe (or TBE) before i get chipped i will throw a CEL. If i do the chip before then do the Downpipe and upgrade to stage 2 i wont see a CEL.

That is incorrect. You should not throw a CEL with a proper sized exhaust or DP for a stock sized turbo. 3" is too big and will create over boosting on a stock turbo and honestly from all of our testing it will do so on a KO4 also. The 2.5 vs 3 inch debate has tons of threads on here so I don't want to start another debate, I am just saying you DO NOT need to be chipped to put an exhaust, DP, and/or intake on your car and not throw a CEL. Anyone who tells you differently is just trying to sell you a chip







If you do throw a CEL, obviously there is something incorrect in the design.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Is cranking up your dyno to read higher '_like a dynojet_' and using an outrageous 1.15 wheel to crank multiplier justification for your outlandish power figures?
Seriously though, the APR advantage is being able to properly recalibrate the engine management system to take advantage of a larger freer flowing exhaust system rather than bending a couple tubes and welding on a restrictive catalyst system so it doesn't throw a code. We don't just make parts, we engineer a total package and offer software to make every advantage possible. This is something competitors can't offer. http://****************.com/smile/emlips.gif 


LOL. You've really immersed yourself quickly into your new company's culture down there, Arin. 
For the record, a CEL that is catalyst related is because you're using a low quality cat. Not because you're flowing "more air". IMO, you're insulting your target market feeding them a line like that.
Yes, HJS cats are expensive and I can see why a company tries to avoid using them. Fact is, you can't use the cheap domestic 200 cell cats on these cars. Been there, done that. Doesn't work. 
If you put a "band aid" on it to cover it with "special chip tuning", I suppose you can call that total package engineering, but I'd say you're insulting your target market again and assuming they have low intelligence.
How about you just say: we are trying to save you money by using a cheaper high flow cat which in turn can throw a check engine light. But we have a chip file that can turn that light off for you. 
Sounds more honest and truthful to me.

Regarding our dyno readings, perhaps you want to start a new thread about that to keep this thread on topic? Or do you want to confuse the issue.
The CEL that Rich referred to is overboost related. He asked me to jump in here to clarify our testing.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
That is incorrect. You should not throw a CEL with a proper sized exhaust or DP for a stock sized turbo. 3" is too big and will create over boosting on a stock turbo and honestly from all of our testing it will do so on a KO4 also. The 2.5 vs 3 inch debate has tons of threads on here so I don't want to start another debate, I am just saying you DO NOT need to be chipped to put an exhaust, DP, and/or intake on your car and not throw a CEL. Anyone who tells you differently is just trying to sell you a chip







If you do throw a CEL, obviously there is something incorrect in the design. 

Actually, you are incorrect. Adding a larger turbocharger will throw multiple cel's as well. Therefore, following your "logic" you should never upgrade anything on a car that the oem ecu calibration isn't suited to.
As Arin stated, we are able to to do more with exhaust systems than alot of companies because we control both the calibration and hardware design simultaneously.
Yes, we use a higher flow catalyst and larger tubing diameter than the oem calibration is set to work with.
Our Stage 2 programming allows you to equip your car with parts that the oem calibration isn't designed to incorporate such as a downpipe with a higher flow catalyst and larger tubing diameter than what other's are able to use.
When your development says a 100 cell count catalyst throws a cel guess we need more restriction, APR is able to say, a 100 cell count catalyst requires us to adjust the calibration to be able to take advantage of the higher flow without throwing a cel.
When your development says 3" tubing diameter is too big because we can't spool the turbo as fast, APR is able to say, a 3" tubing diameter is too big with the way the oem calibration is set so let's adjust the wastegate duty control stategy to accomodate the larger diameter and spool even faster.
You are limited in your development by what your partner company is able to do with their given resources and time available.
We are able to completely control the resources and time available to us on both the hardware and software side and thus are able to make advancements you apparently aren't able to.
Its just a difference in business models but one that allows us to do more with our products. 



_Modified by [email protected] at 11:23 AM 8-15-2008_


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
LOL. You've really immersed yourself quickly into your new company's culture down there, Arin. 
For the record, a CEL that is catalyst related is because you're using a low quality cat. Not because you're flowing "more air". IMO, you're insulting your target market feeding them a line like that.
Yes, HJS cats are expensive and I can see why a company tries to avoid using them. Fact is, you can't use the cheap domestic 200 cell cats on these cars. Been there, done that. Doesn't work. 
If you put a "band aid" on it to cover it with "special chip tuning", I suppose you can call that total package engineering, but I'd say you're insulting your target market again and assuming they have low intelligence.
How about you just say: we are trying to save you money by using a cheaper high flow cat which in turn can throw a check engine light. But we have a chip file that can turn that light off for you. 
Sounds more honest and truthful to me.

Regarding our dyno readings, perhaps you want to start a new thread about that to keep this thread on topic? Or do you want to confuse the issue.
The CEL that Rich referred to is overboost related. He asked me to jump in here to clarify our testing.

Would you like to begin a discussion on how catalysts work?
For example, you call a 200 cell count cat cheap. yes they are less expensive because 200 cell requires less material than 400 cells.
You say cheap like they are manufactured with inferior equipment. In fact, they are not, they simply require less material.
You are required to gauge the quality of a catalyst based on its ability to keep the oem calibration from throwing cel's and nothing more.
Therefore, since you can't ajdust the calibration, if it throws a cel, to you its cheap because you can't get it to do what you want and it doesn't do it right out of the box for you.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Kieth, you're consistent with Arin and his "double talk" delivery.
I directly corrected your "chip tuning" approach to turbo overspool with a 3" dp in this thread:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3655770 
Just like Arin, you tried to pawn of turbo/exhaust sizing mismatch as "flowing more air".
Just like the CEL light from a inferior cat, you're masking a problem with your DP specific software and trying to pawn it off as "superior engineering".
Instead of trying to make inferior hardware work by chip band aids, we choose to supply superior hardware that does not need a specific chip to cover up its defects.


----------



## a3slvrchrgd (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*

I heart vendor fighting in threads...
turns into a MACHO D ICK competition every time








ding ding lets get it on


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Instead of trying to make inferior hardware work by chip band aids, we choose to supply superior hardware that does not need a specific chip to cover up its defects.

So why do you offer a recalibration for your k04? Shouldn't you be able to bolt right up and work w/o 'software band-aids' if it was high quality?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Would you like to begin a discussion on how catalysts work?
For example, you call a 200 cell count cat cheap. yes they are less expensive because 200 cell requires less material than 400 cells.
You say cheap like they are manufactured with inferior equipment. In fact, they are not, they simply require less material.

No, I am calling *your* 200 cell cats cheap. B&B is sourcing them from a US company and they cost less than $100 each. Like I said, been there, done that.
*Our* 200 cell cats are HJS brand, using an Emitec core (OEM supplier). From Germany, they cost us ~$400 landed.
Same cell count, much different quality in wash coat and core construction.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
You are required to gauge the quality of a catalyst based on its ability to keep the oem calibration from throwing cel's and nothing more.
Therefore, since you can't ajdust the calibration, if it throws a cel, to you its cheap because you can't get it to do what you want and it doesn't do it right out of the box for you.

Yes, you can cover up inferior hardware with your "superior" chip tuning and we can't. 
I'm quite sure we would not want to do that, either.


----------



## a3slvrchrgd (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
So why do you offer a recalibration for your k04? Shouldn't you be able to bolt right up and work w/o 'software band-aids' if it was high quality?


It was Arins birthday yesterday...apparently they gave him the company as a present





























Jk


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 5, 2005)

*Re: (a3slvrchrgd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *a3slvrchrgd* »_I heart vendor fighting in threads...
turns into a MACHO D ICK competition every time








ding ding lets get it on
 
No we don't need to swing it around we are secure with our manhood







, we would rather try to educate the consumer on what kind of quick ones and shady marketing mumbo jumbo are being pulled on them...


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
So why do you offer a recalibration for your k04? Shouldn't you be able to bolt right up and work w/o 'software band-aids' if it was high quality?


C'mon, Arin. You can do better than that. Give me something that requires a little more thought. Apples to oranges.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
No, I am calling *your* 200 cell cats cheap. B&B is sourcing them from a US company and they cost less than $100 each. Like I said, been there, done that.
*Our* 200 cell cats are HJS brand, using an Emitec core (OEM supplier). From Germany, they cost us ~$400 landed.
Same cell count, much different quality in wash coat and core construction.

Yes, you can cover up inferior hardware with your "superior" chip tuning and we can't. 
I'm quite sure we would not want to do that, either.

Now you are simply speaking of something you know absolutely nothing about, sorry.
You have no idea where our cats come from nor do you know the price, unless your statement above is an intential lie, you are severely confused.
Our catalyst is used by several oem's as well but not as a 200 cell count. Most oem cats are 400+.
The HJS you use is not a oem cat either. HJS may make a different cat for use in oem's like our cat manufacturer does.
You saying our superior chip tuning, glad you recognize that, covers up our inferior hardware is like saying you have to use more expensive hardware to work with your partner companies' inability to calibrate ecu's.
Yes, our mastery of Motronic gives us a great advantage in the development of hardware. Apparently your Motronic inabilities results in higher prices for your hardware to accomplish almost the same results as our's.


----------



## a3slvrchrgd (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*

I think we need to settle this biaaatch with a chip and DP race only on a MK5. I will host the event. Bring it on down to Orlando.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Todd, it isn't. The CEL caused by a high flow cat is attributed to the secondary oxygen sensor not warming up in the amount of time the ECU expects to see it from the factory. Slower moving air heats it up faster. A smaller diameter exhaust and more restrictive catalytic converter will slow down the exhaust gasses and cause it to heat up quicker. Everyone out there wants a less restrictive exhaust because recalibrating the ECU with one will yield more power. Lower exhaust temperatures will allow more power to be made with out worrying about the turbo becoming too hot from excessive EGT's. We even offer calibrations for those who want to run their vehicle with no catalytic converter, which for people going to the track a great way for people to push their vehicle further. I'm not sure how you can attribute being stuck with operating around factory parameters as an advantage or of higher quality. That simply doesn't make sense.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_ 
No we don't need to swing it around we are secure with our manhood







, we would rather try to educate the consumer on what kind of quick ones and shady marketing mumbo jumbo are being pulled on them...

Then all you have to is simply quit posting your lies and misinfo. Why don't you get busy making more power with your products by turning up your dyno some more?


----------



## nectar13 (Aug 22, 2007)

/grabs the popcorn and a beer
round 88....


----------



## a3slvrchrgd (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Then all you have to is simply quit posting your lies and misinfo. Why don't you get busy making more power with your products by turning up your dyno some more?










Ohhhhhhh Boy!


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Todd, it isn't. The CEL caused by a high flow cat is attributed to the secondary oxygen sensor not warming up in the amount of time the ECU expects to see it from the factory. Slower moving air heats it up faster. A smaller diameter exhaust and more restrictive catalytic converter will slow down the exhaust gasses and cause it to heat up quicker. Everyone out there wants a less restrictive exhaust because recalibrating the ECU with one will yield more power. Lower exhaust temperatures will allow more power to be made with out worrying about the turbo becoming too hot from excessive EGT's. We even offer calibrations for those who want to run their vehicle with no catalytic converter, which for people going to the track a great way for people to push their vehicle further. I'm not sure how you can attribute being stuck with operating around factory parameters as an advantage or of higher quality. That simply doesn't make sense. 

Here's the reason it does not make sense:
you don't sell your turbo back or downpipe ONLY WITH CHIP TUNING.
If you did sell the hardware only with the software, your "engineered package approach" comments would hold water.
We're not trying to pull one over on the market and sell them a piece of hardware KNOWING that it will set a CEL unless they are running our software that can turn it off. 
But you are! 
And if your EGTs are too high on the track with a cat in place, you're also doing your clients a great dis-service! Do you tell your clients not to use your cats at the track? 
You speak like "software tuning" is the solution to all hardware issues.
It's not, and just saying that it is does not make it true.

_Modified by [email protected] at 11:57 AM 8-15-2008_


_Modified by [email protected] at 1:26 PM 8-15-2008_


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Then all you have to is simply quit posting your lies and misinfo. Why don't you get busy making more power with your products by turning up your dyno some more?

Hehe. Like I said to Arin: start a new thread about this and we'll discuss it til the cows come home (wait, I don't live in Alabama







).
Until then, let's talk cats!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
..til the cows come home (wait, I don't live in Alabama







).
Until then, let's talk cats!

Todd, I lived right down the road from you in Paoli around this time last year and in Harrisburg before moving down here to Bama. I've seen more cows up north.
http://****************.com/smile/emlips.gif


----------



## a3slvrchrgd (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Until then, let's talk cats!










We gots cats bubba!


----------



## prodigymb (Mar 9, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Here's he reason it does not make sense:
you don't sell your turbo back or downpipe ONLY WITH CHIP TUNING.
If you only did sell the hardware only with the software, your "engineered package approach" comments would hold water.
We're not trying to pull one over on the market and sell them a piece of hardware KNOWING that it will set a CEL unless they are running our software that can turn it off. 
But you are! 
And if your EGTs are too high on the track with a cat in place, you're also doing your client's a great dis-service! Do you tell your clients not to use your cats at the track? 
You speak like "software tuning" is the solution to all hardware issues.
It's not, and just saying that it is does not make it true.

_Modified by [email protected] at 11:57 AM 8-15-2008_


OR NOT








There were several occasions on just vortex where people bought apr TBE systems and did not want to chip their car and Keith extended FREE stock calibration software to them that will not set off a CEL


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (prodigymb)*


_Quote, originally posted by *prodigymb* »_

OR NOT








There were several occasions on just vortex where people bought apr TBE systems and did not want to chip their car and Keith extended FREE stock calibration software to them that will not set off a CEL










Ok, now I am thoroughly confused.
If APR says this:


_Quote »_
Ours throws a code because it flows more air, which is the whole purpose behind buying an upgraded exhaust system.


Then how can a specific version of stock US software fix the CEL?
I think I already know the answer about how "stock" that stock flash in question is.


----------



## jeff2.0t (Dec 6, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Todd
If you use stock software, the boost is at max 12psi. At 12 psi a 2.5 inch system may be ok and you wont probably have any gains by adding a 3'' systems..
But what happen if I push 20 psi? I may not trow a cell with a 2.5 system But will I maximize the power output of the car? I have doubt about it and I think I would have more gains with a 3'' systems with a "band aid" to prevent cell.
For someone that keep stock boost I agree the APR system is a scam because you need unecessary software upgrade. But who will invest 1000$ in a system that doesn't maximize the power output and who will invest 1000$ to save a "band aid"? 




_Modified by jeff2.0t at 12:25 PM 8-15-2008_


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (jeff2.0t)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jeff2.0t* »_Todd
If you use stock software, the boost is at max 12psi. At 12 psi a 2.5 inch system may be ok and you wont probably have any gains by adding a 3'' systems..
But what happen if I push 20 psi? I may not trow a cell with a 2.5 system But will I maximize the power output of the car? I have doubt about it and I think I would have more gains with a 3'' systems with a "band aid" to prevent cell.
For someone that keep stock boost I agree the APR system is a scam because you need unecessary software upgrade. But who will invest 1000$ in a system that doesn't maximize the power output and who will invest 1000$ to save a "band aid"? 

_Modified by jeff2.0t at 12:25 PM 8-15-2008_

Our system has been tested in excess of 20psi. GIAC's BT GTI demonstrator uses our components and it has run over 30psi in various stages of tune.
When we design parts, we really try to take into account the majority of intended uses for them and make an overall balanced design. It was very common to do BT kits on the 1.8T, and even though we designed our 2.0T TBE early after the 2.0T release, we had no illusions about what the future would hold for tuning these cars.
Don't forget the we are very used to making big power at big boost on other Audi and Porsche platforms and have our own turbo kits for those cars, so we are no strangers to big power tuning and the hardware required to make it work.
Ultimately, this is a thread about APR and CELs with their DP. The only reason we stepped in was because of some very dubious comments they made when a forum member pointed out that our DP does not set a CEL no matter the software used. I don't want to get off point too much here.


----------



## brekdown29 (Jun 26, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_ The only reason we stepped in was because of some very dubious comments they made when a forum member pointed out that our DP does not set a CEL no matter the software used. 

You mean lil' old me started this??? Yay me!








FWIW, I've been boosting +20psi for a while with my ceramic cat dp that never gave me a cel before I even had stage 2 software.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Until then, let's talk cats!


Did you happen to catch us flashing a CCTA 2.0TSI with our stage 2 software over the OBD II port? Another industry first. No big deal ;-)
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3983341


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 8, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


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

Ok, now I am thoroughly confused.
If APR says this:
Then how can a specific version of stock US software fix the CEL?
I think I already know the answer about how "stock" that stock flash in question is.









Well, if I told you, then GIAC would be doing it too.
Think about what a cat's job is and then think about what the secondary o2 reports to the ecu. Now think about what the parameters are for the ecu in regards to catalyst warming.
A restrictive cat will heat up more quickly than a higher flowing cat.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Here's the reason it does not make sense:
you don't sell your turbo back or downpipe ONLY WITH CHIP TUNING.
If you did sell the hardware only with the software, your "engineered package approach" comments would hold water.
We're not trying to pull one over on the market and sell them a piece of hardware KNOWING that it will set a CEL unless they are running our software that can turn it off. 
But you are! 
And if your EGTs are too high on the track with a cat in place, you're also doing your clients a great dis-service! Do you tell your clients not to use your cats at the track? 
You speak like "software tuning" is the solution to all hardware issues.
It's not, and just saying that it is does not make it true.

_Modified by [email protected] at 11:57 AM 8-15-2008_

_Modified by [email protected] at 1:26 PM 8-15-2008_

A. You don't make software.
B. Our Sales and Tech Support Staff are well trained in regards to what other parts are necessary to complement each part we sell. Our distribution network is also and if someone who doesn't use a tuner, there are several others that have recognized the need to calibrate the secondary o2 sensor besides APR, that calibrates the secondary o2 ends up with our downpipe or full exhaust by accident, we take care them in what ever method is most acceptable to the client.
How does a higher flowing cat create higher egt's in a track setting? As you've seen from several logs on the v-tex, secondary o2 temperature logging and reporting is still in place in our Stage 2 cals. If the egt's rise out of spec with our calibration or the oem, fueling enrichment strategies correct the approaching egt creep.
You speak like you have no idea how to calibrate the Motronic engine management system.


_Modified by [email protected] at 7:12 PM 8-15-2008_


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Typical that you would respond after business hours to "get the last word", but I figured you would do that so I checked in myself.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
A. You don't make software.

A. correct. we do not make software because we chose instead to partner with the best software manuafcturer in the world, GIAC, and instead concentrate on making the best hardware in the world. Two different business models that does not by definition make yours better.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
B. Our Sales and Tech Support Staff are well trained in regards to what other parts are necessary to complement each part we sell. Our distribution network is also and if someone who doesn't use a tuner, there are several others that have recognized the need to calibrate the secondary o2 sensor besides APR, that calibrates the secondary o2 ends up with our downpipe or full exhaust by accident, we take care them in what ever method is most acceptable to the client.


B: You previously bragged about your "packaged engineered approach", yet no where on your site or anywhere that I can see do you warn your client of a CEL or poor turbo response if they use your TBE without your software. 
If you were so concerned about your clients' operating experience with your hardware, why not disclose in writing the fact that it will cause such side effects? 
Surely a client who orders online would not be aware of such caveats to your hardware. Prove me wrong and disclose it on your site and I will make a formal public apology. 
Perhaps this was an innocent oversight that now will be corrected.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
How does a higher flowing cat create higher egt's in a track setting? As you've seen from several logs on the v-tex, secondary o2 temperature logging and reporting is still in place in our Stage 2 cals. If the egt's rise out of spec with our calibration or the oem, fueling enrichment strategies correct the approaching egt creep.
You speak like you have no idea how to calibrate the Motronic engine management system.
_Modified by [email protected] at 7:12 PM 8-15-2008_


Let me dumb it down for you: 

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Everyone out there wants a less restrictive exhaust because recalibrating the ECU with one will yield more power. Lower exhaust temperatures will allow more power to be made with out worrying about the turbo becoming too hot from excessive EGT's. We even offer calibrations for those who want to run their vehicle with no catalytic converter, *which for people going to the track a great way for people to push their vehicle further*.

Either your new employee has not been well versed on the technical aspects of your tuning approach before being let loose on the forums, or he is quoting the APR party line.
Now who is speaking like they have no idea how to calibrate the Motronic engine management system?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*


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

Did you happen to catch us flashing a CCTA 2.0TSI with our stage 2 software over the OBD II port? Another industry first. No big deal ;-)
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3983341

Seriously? And this "coming soon" product is relevant to current 2.0T VW downpipes and cats how?
Should I now pound my chest and rub in the fact that your company has not developed a 750hp bolt on tubo kit for the Porsche 997TT and ours has? 
Such bragging is totally irrelevant and curiously off topic.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Well, if I told you, then GIAC would be doing it too.
Think about what a cat's job is and then think about what the secondary o2 reports to the ecu. Now think about what the parameters are for the ecu in regards to catalyst warming.
A restrictive cat will heat up more quickly than a higher flowing cat. 

Kieth, you do know that your cat and our cat have the same cell count and cross section area, right? Perhaps you assumed ours was more "restrictive" than yours, and in that case your comments would be understandable.
In fact, the only difference between your cat and ours is the quality of the washcoat and how our core is brazed instead of wound. 
Which is why ours performs with no CEL regardless of software. However it also unfortunately costs 4 times as much as yours.
Hey, I can understand B&B's (who makes your exhaust) attempt to keep your costs down, but just like GHL and the other economy metal cat downpipes out there, cheaper means CEL in this case. 
I see you are trying your best in another thread to convince people that the GHL CEL is a "desired" side effect of a high flow cat.
Spend a little time on 6speedonline.com and Caymanclub.net and you'll see that this argument has long ago been settled over there, and all the current exhaust manufacturers have admitted thier error and have started using the HJS/Emitec cats.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Todd, 
9 months before I started working for APR I had the option to chose AWE, for my k04.
I chose quality over convenience:








It's a long drive I'm glad I made. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## FlyingTurtle (Mar 26, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*

this is very sad


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Todd, 
9 months before I started working for APR I had the option to chose AWE, for my k04.
I chose quality over convenience:
It's a long drive I'm glad I made. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


Before you started working there, you'd actually participate in a technical discussion instead of just claiming God Given Superiority to make your case.
I think I liked you better 9 months ago.


----------



## 08 passat turbo (Mar 29, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*


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

Before you started working there, you'd actually participate in a technical discussion instead of just claiming God Given Superiority to make your case.
I think I liked you better 9 months ago.









OUCH!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: (08 passat turbo)*

Todd,
*Q*: What is the main point of an aftermarket exhaust system? 
*A*: Increased flow...
*Q*: Why would someone want this?
*A*: Lower exhaust temperatures & software modifications can allow for more power to be safely made.
*Q*: How does ECU check to see if the restrictive factory catalytic converter is working properly?
*A*:








*Q*: Why would a non defective catalyst throw a CEL?
*A*: A cooler freer flowing exhaust will take longer to heat up the secondary o2 sensor as seen in the time > limit step of the flow chart.
*Q*: What can we do to avoid this CEL since it's not a problem?
*A*: Since hardware modifications were made, appropriate software adjustments are made.
*Q*: Is this a band aid?
*A*: No. When you make major hardware changes, software changes must be made. A good example of this would be replacing your turbocharger with a larger unit.
I honestly don't know why you are continuing to argue. The OP's question was answer by all of us long ago.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Todd,
*Q*: What is the main point of an aftermarket exhaust system? 
*A*: Increased flow...
*Q*: Why would someone want this?
*A*: Lower exhaust temperatures & software modifications can allow for more power to be safely made.
*Q*: How does ECU check to see if the restrictive factory catalytic converter is working properly?
*A*:
*Q*: Why would a non defective catalyst throw a CEL?
*A*: A cooler freer flowing exhaust will take longer to heat up the secondary o2 sensor as seen in the time > limit step of the flow chart.
*Q*: What can we do to avoid this CEL since it's not a problem?
*A*: Since hardware modifications were made, appropriate software adjustments are made.
*Q*: Is this a band aid?
*A*: No. When you make major hardware changes, software changes must be made. A good example of this would be replacing your turbocharger with a larger unit.
I honestly don't know why you are continuing to argue. The OP's question was answer by all of us long ago.










Here's my last response.
Your "explanation" above demonstrates either your company's lack of experience with exhaust design on a modern vehicle, or a terrific spin job attempt.
Despite the ECU's check routine regarding the cat, a high flow cat *can* be used that still keeps the ECU liking what it sees without software band-aids.
However, it must be a high quality cat to do this. 
Here is proof:
When brand new, your systems do not throw CELs with stock or compeitor sofware.
If that was because of the flow chart you post above, then it would not matter how many miles it takes for your cat to trip a CEL.
The fact is, your cat cannot go the distance and it deteriorates rapidly due to the low quality construction. If the CEL was simply from being so "high flow", the CEL would be there from day one.

Here's further proof: B&B makes your exhausts for you. On their late model Porsche systems, they now use HJS cats. They used to use the cheapie domestic ones that you guys still spec for your systems, but they deteriorate too quickly, and a CEL on a Porsche dash is the kiss of death in that market.
For the record, I find it absolutely *absurd* that you guys are actively trying to get the forum to now believe that a CEL from a downpipe is a DESIROUS condition because it demonstrates how high flow it is.
Without a company like ours to call you to task for such statements, you might even get some Vortex members to believe that crap.
And if your company TRULY believed what you are trying to pitch here, they'd put a warning on their site about how your high flow DP will trigger a CEL by design, unless APR software is used to hide it.

I know and you know that you guys don't really believe what you are trying to pull here, and if it were a Porsche forum, you'd never even attempt to spin it like this. The Porsche forum members KNOW everything I am stating above as fact due to admissions in writing from multiple exhaust manufacturers.
Have a great weekend, and try not to believe your own hype too much.


----------



## brandon0221 (Mar 7, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*








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


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Typical that you would respond after business hours to "get the last word", but I figured you would do that so I checked in myself.

No, we just work harder than you do. I thought that would be obvious to you from the results of our work in comparison to your's. I was in my office until 11pm working a proposal for another commissioned build for an oem. I'm back today to finish it up and check in on this thread. Dedication, find some, you'll be surprised by the results.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_A. correct. we do not make software because we chose instead to partner with the best software manuafcturer in the world, GIAC, and instead concentrate on making the best hardware in the world. Two different business models that does not by definition make yours better.

No, you don't make software because you don't have the funding, equipment, experience or education to do so. That's a pretty weak argument as OEM's follow the same philosophy as APR as well as all the best tuner's in their respective markets. Lingenfelter, RUF, AMG, NISMO, TRD, VWMS, Quattro GmbH, MOPAR, on and on. You know as well as I that you are severely limited in your relationship with GIAC by not having complete control over the ems. For you to even try to argue different is preposterous and if you step back for a bit and quit postering for the Vortex community you know its true as well. How long before AWE jumps ship on Garrett like EVOMS and begins developing their own software too?


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_B: You previously bragged about your "packaged engineered approach", yet no where on your site or anywhere that I can see do you warn your client of a CEL or poor turbo response if they use your TBE without your software. 
If you were so concerned about your clients' operating experience with your hardware, why not disclose in writing the fact that it will cause such side effects? 
Surely a client who orders online would not be aware of such caveats to your hardware. Prove me wrong and disclose it on your site and I will make a formal public apology. 
Perhaps this was an innocent oversight that now will be corrected.

Firstly, we need to clarify which version of our exhaust system you are debating. The previous version that used a 100 cell count catalyst or our current RSC system that incorporates a 200 cell count catalyst? Pick one and then I can address your questions.
Poor turbo response is not exactly a correct description of what occurs with a 3" system on a 2.0T FSI. Increased turbo response with properly recalibrated ems is a more correct statement. The turbo response does not suffer from significant lag on an oem software car, it just gets better with a Stage 2 ecu upgrade.










_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Let me dumb it down for you:

No need for you to warn me. I know the conversation is getting dumber as soon as I see that you've replied.









_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Either your new employee has not been well versed on the technical aspects of your tuning approach before being let loose on the forums, or he is quoting the APR party line.
Now who is speaking like they have no idea how to calibrate the Motronic engine management system?

I think Arin is doing a pretty good job for someone in their second or third week, no? He has a lot to learn as would any new employee so any blame for any mistakes can placed directly on me. However, in my defense, I have to manage more people in my 2 departments than you do in your entire company.
Again, its still only you that speaks without education, experience or knowledge in regards to the Motronic ems. Arin simply references we offer a calibration for those that wish to participate in off road racing events where removal of the catalyst is often the extent the specs of the racing league or class will allow. In cases where performance exhaust systems are allowed to be fitted, many still remove the catalyst completely as an opportunity to free up additional power. We support these guys and gals as well as street clients. We also are able to allow left foot braking without throttle cut and other beneficial programming features best suited to race environments.
By the way, we got our first top ten finish in the Koni Challenge today at 3 Rivers! Go APR Motorsport! Alot of long time teams are saying its a great testament to our abilities to be performing so well in only our first season. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
p.s. Sorry if my posting on a Saturday requires you to work harder than you would like so you can try to keep up with me.


_Modified by [email protected] at 4:20 PM 8-16-2008_


----------



## csullivan (Jun 1, 2008)

I'd be more impressed by a company that was above petty forum bickering than I am by point for point internet fights.
just saying.


----------



## prodigymb (Mar 9, 2004)

*Re: ([email protected])*


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

Here is proof:
When brand new, your systems do not throw CELs with stock or compeitor sofware.


now that is 100% BS. CEL for the cat inefficiency comes on almost right away.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: (csullivan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *csullivan* »_I'd be more impressed by a company that was above petty forum bickering than I am by point for point internet fights.
just saying.

I agree but I think we are getting to some pretty good technical points as well, no? Looks to me like alot of information is being shared that typically wouldn't.
Its just so hard to resist those jibes. Plus, it seems to keep the replies coming as their blood starts to boil as motivation.








and, it offers a level of entertainment mixed in with the technical talk.
I've always hated as an enthusiast that whenever technical debates would begin between two companies, out would come the direct personal attacks and insults and the threads would get locked and their goes any further technical understanding I stood to gain.
I think Todd and I are doing a good job with minor jabs at eachother as opposed to no holds barred e-fighting. This has actually been kinda of enjoyable as well as an opportunity for us to give insight into our respective methods of product development and internal philosophies.


----------



## Edwin T. (Oct 9, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Let me dumb it down for you, Todd.
1) I know there are a lot of people here who run REVO and still use APR's exhaust, so your "only APR's software corrects the problem" argument is worthless.
2) You can't throw CEL's in Forza 2 so of course your exhaust wouldn't cause any problems, right?








Forza 2 FTMFL
*edit for the aweseome (you get it AWEsome) image of a riced out Z


_Modified by Edwin T. at 6:16 PM 8-16-2008_


----------



## FlyingTurtle (Mar 26, 2006)

*Re: (Edwin T.)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Edwin T.* »_Let me dumb it down for you, Todd.
1) I know there are a lot of people here who run REVO and still use APR's exhaust, so your "only APR's software corrects the problem" argument is worthless.
2) You can't throw CEL's in Forza 2 so of course your exhaust wouldn't cause any problems, right?








Forza 2 FTMFL
*edit for the aweseome (you get it AWEsome) image of a riced out Z

_Modified by Edwin T. at 6:16 PM 8-16-2008_

Revo has a similar precautionary that deletes the CEL due to 3" dp as APR does. Not holding sides here, but your post is not only nonsense, totally reflects your immaturity. Drop it, unless you have a positive contribution.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
No, we just work harder than you do. I thought that would be obvious to you from the results of our work in comparison to your's. I was in my office until 11pm working a proposal for another commissioned build for an oem. I'm back today to finish it up and check in on this thread. Dedication, find some, you'll be surprised by the results.

Unbelievably insulting. Says a lot about your character.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
No, you don't make software because you don't have the funding, equipment, experience or education to do so. That's a pretty weak argument as OEM's follow the same philosophy as APR as well as all the best tuner's in their respective markets. Lingenfelter, RUF, AMG, NISMO, TRD, VWMS, Quattro GmbH, MOPAR, on and on. You know as well as I that you are severely limited in your relationship with GIAC by not having complete control over the ems. For you to even try to argue different is preposterous and if you step back for a bit and quit postering for the Vortex community you know its true as well. How long before AWE jumps ship on Garrett like EVOMS and begins developing their own software too?.

I guess that's why Porsche, VW, and Audi use Bosch to do their fuel injection tuning, because they are underfunded, undereducated, and under-equipped. It's called core competency, and ours is in manufacturing hardware. Please remember that you do not build exhaust systems and instead outsource it to B&B for the same reason.
Evo was cut off by GIAC for lack of payment. It was not their choice to "jump ship". 


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Firstly, we need to clarify which version of our exhaust system you are debating. The previous version that used a 100 cell count catalyst or our current RSC system that incorporates a 200 cell count catalyst? Pick one and then I can address your questions.

What's the difference? They both throw a CEL because they are from the wrong supplier. 
If a CEL is so desirable as a byproduct of high flow, why did you even switch from a 100 cell to a 200 cell anyway? My guess is because you were hoping that it would help solve the CEL issue that was making your phone ring off the hook with complaints from end users and dealers, and 200 cell was the most you could do before appearing too "restrictive" since everyone else is using 200 cell.
It could have been solved by ponying up for the proper cat using the Emitec core like HJS does. 
Among the "quality" tuners out there, APR stands alone in their refusal to do so.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Poor turbo response is not exactly a correct description of what occurs with a 3" system on a 2.0T FSI. Increased turbo response with properly recalibrated ems is a more correct statement. The turbo response does not suffer from significant lag on an oem software car, it just gets better with a Stage 2 ecu upgrade.










Yeah, that's it. All that increased low end lag from the overly large downpipe is simply solved with software. 
Except that it's not. Go back to that thread I referred to earlier. You can't change the laws of physics with a recalibration of the ECU.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
No need for you to warn me. I know the conversation is getting dumber as soon as I see that you've replied.










Again, totally insulting and very revealing of the character of the person and company I am dealing with here. Do your bosses know you are acting like this on their behalf?


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I think Arin is doing a pretty good job for someone in their second or third week, no? He has a lot to learn as would any new employee so any blame for any mistakes can placed directly on me. However, in my defense, I have to manage more people in my 2 departments than you do in your entire company.

Maybe you need to keep him from making technical posts on your company's behalf before he has been properly trained. Especially after the thread escalated to the level it has. However, I am convinced that your corporate culture encourages the type of posts that you guys did here, which is bizarre.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
p.s. Sorry if my posting on a Saturday requires you to work harder than you would like so you can try to keep up with me.


Well, you are consistent in your insulting demeanor. 
I have no taste to "discuss" this with you any further, since all you are doing is reverting to inappropriate insults.
We could have discussed cats and downpipes, but instead, your "boiling blood" let your true nature shine through, and it is way too unprofessional for me to engage with.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (prodigymb)*


_Quote, originally posted by *prodigymb* »_
now that is 100% BS. CEL for the cat inefficiency comes on almost right away.


Funny, the OP of this thread would say otherwise.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Unbelievably insulting. Says a lot about your character.

Simply responding in kind. You think you can make insulting posts and noone can reply? Sure, you hide your's with insuation better than I but I have character issues because I am direct and honest where you are devious and attempt to hide it?









_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I guess that's why Porsche, VW, and Audi use Bosch to do their fuel injection tuning, because they are underfunded, undereducated, and under-equipped. It's called core competency, and ours is in manufacturing hardware. Please remember that you do not build exhaust systems and instead outsource it to B&B for the same reason.
Evo was cut off by GIAC for lack of payment. It was not their choice to "jump ship".

Again, you know very little about Motronic calibration. Bosch develops the entire ems for VAG and Porsche as a collaborative effort amongst Bosch and VAG engineers. The VAG engineers spec to Bosch what they want the ems to do, Bosch builds it and verifies it, yes they have to verify it works by actually calibrating something and then VAG takes it in house and runs with it and get's continual support from Bosch while doing so. You make it sound like VAG assembles engines, sends them to Bosch, Bosch sets the fueling for them and sends the engines back. Many an engineer's hands are on the ems development for new engines inside VAG and Bosch.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_What's the difference? They both throw a CEL because they are from the wrong supplier. 
If a CEL is so desirable as a byproduct of high flow, why did you even switch from a 100 cell to a 200 cell anyway? My guess is because you were hoping that it would help solve the CEL issue that was making your phone ring off the hook with complaints from end users and dealers, and 200 cell was the most you could do before appearing too "restrictive" since everyone else is using 200 cell.
It could have been solved by ponying up for the proper cat using the Emitec core like HJS does. 
Among the "quality" tuners out there, APR stands alone in their refusal to do so.

The difference is that our 100 cell and 200 cell aren't made by the same manufacturer at all! Again, you don't know what you are talking about! Please stop trying to tell me where we source our parts. When you come to work in our purchasing department, then you can speak from experience. I appreciate that you need to justify paying higher prices for your HJS equipped downpipes since you can't recalibrate the ems but please stop trying to say that because we can, we are somehow doing something wrong.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Yeah, that's it. All that increased low end lag from the overly large downpipe is simply solved with software. 
Except that it's not. Go back to that thread I referred to earlier. You can't change the laws of physics with a recalibration of the ECU.

Please show some testing that follows the scientific method accomplished by accredited engineers in a controlled environment to support your claims of increased low end lag? I read the entire thread and I saw where one poster had shown a graph with an obvious boost leak not allowing requested to be made but other than your written claims, there was no data to support your claims in that thread either.
You have a nice, seemingly valid technical explanation on your website but that has been argued ad naseum and has been shown to be nothing more than a weak attempt by you guys to try and sell more 2.5" systems since you are one of the few manufacturers that chose to maintain the oem tubing diameter.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Again, totally insulting and very revealing of the character of the person and company I am dealing with here. Do your bosses know you are acting like this on their behalf?
Maybe you need to keep him from making technical posts on your company's behalf before he has been properly trained. Especially after the thread escalated to the level it has. However, I am convinced that your corporate culture encourages the type of posts that you guys did here, which is bizarre.
Well, you are consistent in your insulting demeanor. 
I have no taste to "discuss" this with you any further, since all you are doing is reverting to inappropriate insults.
We could have discussed cats and downpipes, but instead, your "boiling blood" let your true nature shine through, and it is way too unprofessional for me to engage with.


You keep saying Arin has made a mistake with one of his posts whereas he has not. You have not addressed hardly any of my counter points that reveal your lack of understanding.
You keep saying you are done with this thread but you keep coming back for more once your feelings get hurt.
You keep lobbing over veiled insults and then want to cry foul because someone takes those underhanded comments and knocks them out of the park.
You can't win from a technical approach so you try and attack me for my retorts to your insults.
Throw up some conclusive data. Relay your testing protocols. Cover all spectrums and variables and then make a true diagnosis or hypothesis.
And also you should remember I work in Sales and Marketing and you are an Engineering Ninja! This should be easy for you. Stop complaining that I'm breaking the rules and simply man up and try to win by producing some conclusive evidence. Unless you already know you can't.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Again, you know very little about Motronic calibration. Bosch develops the entire ems for VAG and Porsche as a collaborative effort amongst Bosch and VAG engineers. The VAG engineers spec to Bosch what they want the ems to do, Bosch builds it and verifies it, yes they have to verify it works by actually calibrating something and then VAG takes it in house and runs with it and get's continual support from Bosch while doing so. You make it sound like VAG assembles engines, sends them to Bosch, Bosch sets the fueling for them and sends the engines back. Many an engineer's hands are on the ems development for new engines inside VAG and Bosch.


What you described is EXACTLY our relationship with GIAC. 
You seem to have some naive assumption that we just say to them "here's our hardware, please make us a chip file for it". Literally hundreds of hours of interface between our engineers and their engineers happens whenever we collaboratively design a file for one of our turbo kits. Just like what happens between an OEM and Bosch. 
Assuming it is *not* that way is foolish and grossly underestimates your competition. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to educate you and the forum further about our relationship with GIAC and how it closely mimics an OEM's relationship with Bosch.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
The difference is that our 100 cell and 200 cell aren't made by the same manufacturer at all! Again, you don't know what you are talking about! Please stop trying to tell me where we source our parts. When you come to work in our purchasing department, then you can speak from experience. I appreciate that you need to justify paying higher prices for your HJS equipped downpipes since you can't recalibrate the ems but please stop trying to say that because we can, we are somehow doing something wrong.

Actually, I admit I am wrong. I see you now have switched to Corsa as your new exhaust supplier. I think they use Arvin Meritor, which is better than what B&B used, but has the same issues as I described (as we tested directly). 
And the question you still have not answered is why you switched to a higher count cat to begin with, if a CEL is such a desirous condition since it exposes how high flow your dp is.
Recalibrating the EMS to turn off the CEL from a low quality cat is not something we WANT to do, as it would limit us to selling exhausts only to people with GIAC software. Instead, we took the time to properly research and incorporate a cat that works with all software and supports 500+ hp in flow (as tested). Unfortunately, that cat costs a lot of money, but we did not want to burden our clients with a known CEL issue by using a cheaper cat.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Please show some testing that follows the scientific method accomplished by accredited engineers in a controlled environment to support your claims of increased low end lag? I read the entire thread and I saw where one poster had shown a graph with an obvious boost leak not allowing requested to be made but other than your written claims, there was no data to support your claims in that thread either.
You have a nice, seemingly valid technical explanation on your website but that has been argued ad naseum and has been shown to be nothing more than a weak attempt by you guys to try and sell more 2.5" systems since you are one of the few manufacturers that chose to maintain the oem tubing diameter.

Huh? You asked for this:
"Please show some testing that follows the scientific method accomplished by accredited engineers in a controlled environment to support your claims of increased low end lag"
And this think is EXACTLY what you are asking for, yet you are dismissing it for what reason? 
http://www.awe-tuning.com/page...nt=41
Now you're making me dizzy.
We documented the whole process (as we do with all our product development) and shared it with the community from day one.
We chose to use 2.5" simply *because* our accredited engineers did controlled environment testing. 
Like I said in the other thread, that is one of our distinct advantages over your company since we have the resources to prototype and build right on on the premises. We can bend up 3" tubing as easily as 2.5", so there was no inherent reason for us not to use 3" until the comprehensive testing showed us why not to use it.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
You keep saying Arin has made a mistake with one of his posts whereas he has not. You have not addressed hardly any of my counter points that reveal your lack of understanding.
You keep saying you are done with this thread but you keep coming back for more once your feelings get hurt.
You keep lobbing over veiled insults and then want to cry foul because someone takes those underhanded comments and knocks them out of the park.
You can't win from a technical approach so you try and attack me for my retorts to your insults.
Throw up some conclusive data. Relay your testing protocols. Cover all spectrums and variables and then make a true diagnosis or hypothesis.
And also you should remember I work in Sales and Marketing and you are an Engineering Ninja! This should be easy for you. Stop complaining that I'm breaking the rules and simply man up and try to win by producing some conclusive evidence. Unless you already know you can't.










Kieth, look at our site and then look at yours. We have actual dyno charts (not excel graphs), sound volume charts, explanations of test methodology, etc. We've been transparently sharing our data to this level with the community for years. Your site is conspicuously absent of a lot of the above info, so tell me how somehow you guys have been doing this "better".

No "feelings hurt" here, Kieth, just passionate defense of our beliefs and company culture, and what you call "veiled insults" I simply call mature debate. I realize you may not understand the difference, because if you did, your approach in these kinds of threads would be a lot different.
Honestly, every time I have the unfortunate opportunity of discoursing with you in a public forum, I come away puzzled. 
APR is one of the strong market leaders, yet you guys have been resorting to these juvenile and unprovoked attacks on your competitors and forum members for years. 
That tells me that it's not just a simple case of the owners of the company fine tuning the way the employees present themselves in public, or it would have been corrected a long time ago. 
I come away from these type of exchanges with APR reps wondering just how great of a company APR *could* be if they didn't repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot each time they allow their spokesperson to lash out and hurl insults like a spurned adolescent when he is challenged in public.
I need to stop assuming you'll actually engage is a professional discourse, and just say my piece and avoid being sucked back into the loopy method you use to attempt to discredit all critics.


----------



## EL_3grab (Mar 25, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_I come away from these type of exchanges with APR reps wondering just how great of a company APR *could* be if they didn't repeatedly shoot themselves in the foot each time they allow their spokesperson to lash out and hurl insults like a spurned adolescent when he is challenged in public.


EXACTLY !!!


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
What you described is EXACTLY our relationship with GIAC. 
You seem to have some naive assumption that we just say to them "here's our hardware, please make us a chip file for it". Literally hundreds of hours of interface between our engineers and their engineers happens whenever we collaboratively design a file for one of our turbo kits. Just like what happens between an OEM and Bosch. 
Assuming it is *not* that way is foolish and grossly underestimates your competition. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to educate you and the forum further about our relationship with GIAC and how it closely mimics an OEM's relationship with Bosch.

You sure you don't just sit at a laptop and press start logging and then end logging and email the logs to GIAC?
Then they make some changes based on the logs and email a new file for you to try?
Its called remote tuning and something we refuse to do because we know you can't accomplish it as well as you can with both the calibrator and the car in the same location. You know it as well.
You refer to engineers. I think you have one but who are the others? Who are the engineers at GIAC as well? Garrett studied medicine.
Do any of these engineers have experience at any OEM's or Teir 1 One Suppliers?
How do you datalog the cars you calibrate? What program do you use?
How does GIAC interface with the ecu? How do they datalog the ecu's?
Please continue because saying your "engineeers" and Garrett's "engineers" spend a long time collaborating, etc. is very nice and all but what do they spend their time doing? What equipment do they use to do it with?
How about the Electrical and Software Engineering side? Who figures out how the ecu's tick? Who determines the locations of the maps inside the ecu's so Garrett knows what maps to change?
How many maps do you guys usually change in a calibration? What tables do you rescale for your turbo upgrade applications?
I know you are gonna say all of that is proprietary but if you just ask me the same I'll answer every single question from APR's side.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Actually, I admit I am wrong. I see you now have switched to Corsa as your new exhaust supplier. I think they use Arvin Meritor, which is better than what B&B used, but has the same issues as I described (as we tested directly). 
And the question you still have not answered is why you switched to a higher count cat to begin with, if a CEL is such a desirous condition since it exposes how high flow your dp is.
Recalibrating the EMS to turn off the CEL from a low quality cat is not something we WANT to do, as it would limit us to selling exhausts only to people with GIAC software. Instead, we took the time to properly research and incorporate a cat that works with all software and supports 500+ hp in flow (as tested). Unfortunately, that cat costs a lot of money, but we did not want to burden our clients with a known CEL issue by using a cheaper cat.

Well, again, you don't know what you are talking about.








Corsa doesn't make a single system that includes a catalyst so how you tested one of their cats or know where they source their cats, I have no idea.
Blatantly lying isn't going to help and please at least check their website before you think you know anything about someone's product.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Huh? You asked for this:
"Please show some testing that follows the scientific method accomplished by accredited engineers in a controlled environment to support your claims of increased low end lag"
And this think is EXACTLY what you are asking for, yet you are dismissing it for what reason? 
http://www.awe-tuning.com/page...nt=41
Now you're making me dizzy.
We documented the whole process (as we do with all our product development) and shared it with the community from day one.
We chose to use 2.5" simply *because* our accredited engineers did controlled environment testing. 
Like I said in the other thread, that is one of our distinct advantages over your company since we have the resources to prototype and build right on on the premises. We can bend up 3" tubing as easily as 2.5", so there was no inherent reason for us not to use 3" until the comprehensive testing showed us why not to use it..

And although some people may fall for your attempt at relaying a technical study, you have some pretty big flaws in your testing.
1. Did you measure backpressure anywhere in the system at all during any time?
2. Did you try an ecu calibration that is made for a 3" system?
3. Did you measure exhaust gas temperatures anywhere in the system at any time?
4. Did you try developing a calibration specifically for a 2.5" and then for a 3"?
The biggest problem, as I've stated previously, with your summation and your testing is that you assume the ems is static and can't be changed to match a set of hardware.
Reduction of egt's from a larger diameter exhaust which reduces backpressure results in more opportunity with the larger diameter system once the ems has been calibrated to take advantage of those opportunities. Until you can test these possible advantages, your data means absolutely nothing unless you use it as an argument for customers that want an exhaust for a car with OEM programming or one that isn't optimized for a larger diameter.
GIAC calibrates with and for a 2.5" system. They've stated that several times.
Repeating a flawed argument continually doesn't add additional merit to the argument, it just get's boring.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Kieth, look at our site and then look at yours. We have actual dyno charts (not excel graphs), sound volume charts, explanations of test methodology, etc. We've been transparently sharing our data to this level with the community for years. Your site is conspicuously absent of a lot of the above info, so tell me how somehow you guys have been doing this "better".

You've again misspoken about another company because you don't even take the time to look at their website. http://www.goapr.com/VW/produc....html
Actually, the graphs on our site are artist renderings of actual data from our dyno that is then normalized over a large average of runs and then we apply a moderate drivetrain loss and present an accurate represenation that can be repeated on almost any dyno anywhere in the world.
How is showing whp dyno graphs that you recommend to multiply by a ridiculous 1.15 on your self admitted "cooked" dyno an accurate representation of anything?
I've learned you make alot of assumptions. My suggestion would be to research and double check yourself before mistakenly relaying flawed data yet again.

_Modified by [email protected] at 11:04 AM 8-18-2008_

_Modified by [email protected] at 11:06 AM 8-18-2008_


_Modified by [email protected] at 11:12 AM 8-18-2008_


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Kieth, as much as you would like to turn this into a pissing contest so you can proclaim to the world how superior APR is in every way shape and form, this thread was about downpipes and CELs. 
Don't take my lack of point by point response to your last post as if we have something to hide. 
I enjoy seeing that the company you work for has such a grossly simplistic and inaccurate impression of what we do and how we do it. Thanks for that glimpse into APR's inner workings as it makes our job that much easier.

Regarding this comment:
"Corsa doesn't make a single system that includes a catalyst so how you tested one of their cats or know where they source their cats, I have no idea."
I was not referring to us testing a Corsa downpipe made for you. I was referring to the Arvin Meritor brand cat that they seem to use. We've tested that 200 cell cat, and its not better than what you were getting from B&B. 
I base my assumption that they are using Arvin Meritor from some pics that you posted in another thread publicizing your "new RSC technology" (which, by the way, everyone in the exhaust industry knows is a Corsa product, not an APR product). Each brand cat has a distinctive look to the cans they use, and it's pretty easy to determine their origin just from a pic.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but maybe you can answer this one question as it is very much on topic and would perhaps correct some wrong conclusions I have made:
If, as you stated, a cat fault code and CEL is proof of how your downpipe is higher flowing than ours, why did you switch from a 100 cell to a 200 cell cat? 

Thanks in advance for any clarification.


----------



## Murder'd (Jul 16, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*

No matter the quality of APR's products, I will never purchase anything from them because of their conduct on this forum and others. This community deserves an apology.


----------



## a3slvrchrgd (Jun 22, 2003)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Keith: You guys should spend less time bickering in this forum and do more work on my excessive fuel cuts and hard limp modes created by your software


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Kieth, as much as you would like to turn this into a pissing contest so you can proclaim to the world how superior APR is in every way shape and form, this thread was about downpipes and CELs. 
Don't take my lack of point by point response to your last post as if we have something to hide. 
I enjoy seeing that the company you work for has such a grossly simplistic and inaccurate impression of what we do and how we do it. Thanks for that glimpse into APR's inner workings as it makes our job that much easier.

I gave you the opportunity to proclaim to the world how great your abilities are and you bow out. You even say you have nothing to hide yet you don't answer the quesions?!?
I think its because you can't.
I think you datalog with vag-com which has horrible resolution for a calibration exercise and you know it.
I think you don't have more than 1 accredited engineer and he has no oem or teir 1 background.
I think you don't know who works on the Electrical and Software Engineering side of your calibrations.
I think you don't have a clue as to what tables get rescaled on your turbo kits.
I think you don't know what changes are made to accomplish a calibration.
I think you are in over your head.
I think you can't answer any of these question with a yes.
1. Did you measure backpressure anywhere in the system at all during any time?
2. Did you try an ecu calibration that is made for a 3" system?
3. Did you measure exhaust gas temperatures anywhere in the system at any time?
4. Did you try developing a calibration specifically for a 2.5" and then for a 3"?
You claim interjecting calibration methods into this thread is "off topic" but what you just can't seem to get through your head is that downpipes and CEL's have EVERYTHING to do with calibration!!!
You wanted me to stop responding to your insults so I did. What next? What shall I stop doing now so you can continue the technical debate?


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Regarding this comment:
"Corsa doesn't make a single system that includes a catalyst so how you tested one of their cats or know where they source their cats, I have no idea."
I was not referring to us testing a Corsa downpipe made for you. I was referring to the Arvin Meritor brand cat that they seem to use. We've tested that 200 cell cat, and its not better than what you were getting from B&B. 
I base my assumption that they are using Arvin Meritor from some pics that you posted in another thread publicizing your "new RSC technology" (which, by the way, everyone in the exhaust industry knows is a Corsa product, not an APR product). Each brand cat has a distinctive look to the cans they use, and it's pretty easy to determine their origin just from a pic..

And that prompted my reply about you and your assumptions. You are willing to admit that you claim to know what you speak about and what another company does based on a pic you saw on a website?
This pic has no part numbers. This pic has no batch numbers. This pic has nothing that will let you know who makes that cat unless you ASSUME since it looks like a cat you've seen before, it must be that cat.
Hell, maybe its a cheap chinese knockoff that looks just like a Arvin Meritor. Maybe its something entirely different.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Kieth:
If, as you stated, a cat fault code and CEL is proof of how your downpipe is higher flowing than ours, why did you switch from a 100 cell to a 200 cell cat?


----------



## brekdown29 (Jun 26, 2007)

From the debate thus far, it's obvious that APR has too much time on their hands.


_Modified by gliplatinum at 12:29 PM 8-18-2008_


----------



## sTTeve (May 13, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*

man this is still going on? Im losing some respect for both companies.


----------



## majid (Sep 29, 2006)

*Re: (sTTeve)*


_Quote, originally posted by *sTTeve* »_man this is still going on? Im losing some respect for both companies.









On the other hand I think this is good stuff


----------



## bostonaudi1 (May 14, 2006)

*Re: (majid)*

This is a great thread. It is most interesting to observe human behavior. But a couple of things bother me to the point where I feel the need to inject.
Regarding 2.5" vs. 3" exhaust, this is the general theme I see, loss of low end with 3". 
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...83172 
A 2.0 motor with a little K03 doesn't really need such a big pipe. Probably fine for a drag race car though, where peak power is needed at high rpm. And then I would run a direct pipe out the side to atmosphere.
Additional points, 
I highly respect Techtonics, who has been tuning VW's for longer than APR and AWE combined, if they say 2.5" is the best, that's what I'm going with (and did). Apparently AWE reached the same conclusion (I have never bought parts from either APR or AWE). 
I also don't like the notion that in order to install a DP you have to deal with CEL's. In fact it seems in order to use the APR 3" DP, you need their software for 2 reasons a) fix the CEL, b) try to "fix" the loss of low end torque.
Again, I have never bought parts from either APR or AWE, but I'm actually kinda glad AWE called APR out on this topic. If you are going to sell a part that causes a CEL condition on its own, I would suggest plainly stating in the product literature that in order to make it work right you also need a software "fix", and include that software with the purchase of the part. My TT downpipe caused no CEL's with stock software. 
Lastly, and this was most offensive to me, for APR to call out GIAC because Garrett Lim has a medical degree is truly flabbergasting. I can't recall reading anything more arrogant anywhere, APR, you've truly outdone yourselves. But I've observed over the years that that's basically been the company culture from the start, coming from the founders. I don't have direct experience with AWE either, but their engineering seems pretty solid, and they're partnering with a highly respected company (GIAC) that I've used for years with no problems ever.


----------



## prodigymb (Mar 9, 2004)

I personally love the sound of the AWE system. But the loss of low end story never swayed me.


----------



## NS01GTI (Jan 31, 2005)

*Re: (prodigymb)*

Aside from a few personal jabs, I think this thread is a great addition to the technical forum with loads of great information to be read.


----------



## majid (Sep 29, 2006)

*Re: (bostonaudi1)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bostonaudi1* »_
I also don't like the notion that in order to install a DP you have to deal with CEL's. In fact it seems in order to use the APR 3" DP, you need their software for 2 reasons a) fix the CEL, b) try to "fix" the loss of low end torque.

If you want to put an exhaust on a turbo VW before chipping it, you should probably be driving a Honda instead








If there is a "fix" then doesn't that mean that there are also benefits flowing that much exhaust, and still having bottom end. The real key is keeping that massive low end torque but still getting what little more top end you can with that turbo. 2.5" better than 3" in the top end in a turbo car?


----------



## bostonaudi1 (May 14, 2006)

*Re: (majid)*


_Quote, originally posted by *majid* »_
If you want to put an exhaust on a turbo VW before chipping it, you should probably be driving a Honda instead








If there is a "fix" then doesn't that mean that there are also benefits flowing that much exhaust, and still having bottom end. The real key is keeping that massive low end torque but still getting what little more top end you can with that turbo. 2.5" better than 3" in the top end in a turbo car?

Why? Even with stock programming you'll make more power. I installed my TT exhaust before getting chipped, and it definitely picked up power. Some folks don't want to mess with their warranties either, which pure bolt ons like exhausts are less likely to do.
That's right, that's why I think the 2.5 or 2.75" exhausts are generally better, they make more torque under the curve for the K03/04's. A 3" might make better peak power, but less under the curve (go back to your calculus class if you forgot what "under the curve" means - greater area under the torque curve means more overall power). The factory strove greatly to keep the torque curve flat over the greatest possible rpm range, which gives the highest area under the curve - or in this case, a nearly flat line. Almost peak torque is made not far off idle.


----------



## bostonaudi1 (May 14, 2006)

*Re: (majid)*


_Quote, originally posted by *majid* »_
If you want to put an exhaust on a turbo VW before chipping it, you should probably be driving a Honda instead








If there is a "fix" then doesn't that mean that there are also benefits flowing that much exhaust, and still having bottom end. The real key is keeping that massive low end torque but still getting what little more top end you can with that turbo. 2.5" better than 3" in the top end in a turbo car?

Why? Even with stock programming you'll make more power. I installed my TT exhaust before getting chipped, and it definitely picked up power. Some folks don't want to mess with their warranties either, which pure bolt ons like exhausts are less likely to do.
That's right, that's why I think the 2.5 or 2.75" exhausts are generally better, they make more torque under the curve for the K03/04's. A 3" might make better peak power, but less under the curve (go back to your calculus class if you forgot what "under the curve" means - greater area under the torque curve means more overall power). The factory strove greatly to keep the torque curve flat over the greatest possible rpm range, which gives the highest area under the curve - or in this case, a nearly flat line. Almost peak torque is made not far off idle.


----------



## mav90g60 (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: (bostonaudi1)*

how about a awe 2.5 dp matted to a a apr 3" stealth cat back


----------



## Corradokcid (Nov 6, 2006)

*Re: (mav90g60)*

wow to the apr guys
you really did try to downplay awe in this post....you guys make some quality components....but trying to slander another companies product is not the way to make money.....this is the stuff EIP used to do in there post that made alot of this forum distrust them...atleast give AWE a apology instead of digging the whole deeper......and please dont take this post out of context im just merely making a bussiness ethics point...


----------



## Noside (Aug 20, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
to win by producing some conclusive evidence. 

Somnething that I've asked for in multiple threads and provided evidence on my behalf to disprove your falsified claims and evidence. Heck I did one today where you jumped to conclusions to boost your outrageous prices you offer for exhaust systems


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: (Noside)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Noside* »_Heck I did one today where you jumped to conclusions to boost your outrageous prices you offer for exhaust systems









http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...01575 http://****************.com/smile/emlips.gif http://****************.com/smile/emlips.gif http://****************.com/smile/emlips.gif http://****************.com/smile/emlips.gif http://****************.com/smile/emlips.gif


----------



## Noside (Aug 20, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...01575 http://****************.com/smile/emlips.gif http://****************.com/smile/emlips.gif http://****************.com/smile/emlips.gif http://****************.com/smile/emlips.gif http://****************.com/smile/emlips.gif









certainly got me there


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: (Noside)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Noside* »_
certainly got me there









Nobody's trying to 'get you'...But you may want to lock your doors when we are up north for H2O.


----------



## Noside (Aug 20, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Nobody's trying to 'get you'...But you may want to lock your doors when we are up north for H2O.

















I'll wear a hello my name is Noside


----------



## majid (Sep 29, 2006)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
The bitterness of poor quality is remembered long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten


Thats good stuff man http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## djwhiplash2001 (Apr 21, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*

I want to see APR and AWE rumble at H2O!
This thread makes me want to buy an eBay DP and REVO chip :/


----------



## Noside (Aug 20, 2008)

*Re: (djwhiplash2001)*


_Quote, originally posted by *djwhiplash2001* »_I want to see APR and AWE rumble at H2O!
This thread makes me want to buy an eBay DP and REVO chip :/

don't go ebay at least get the ATP








+1 on the Revo software http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## fahrven (Apr 2, 2005)

*Re: (Noside)*

It's so funny how AWE gets up on their high horse with "we design stuff to work with the stock ecu" but then they go out and use a resistor to fake the ECU into not throwing a code with their new DV for 2.0t.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...24793

How is this sooooo different from APR trying to prevent any codes when using their DP?


----------



## HoldDaMayo (Feb 16, 2008)

*Re: (fahrven)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fahrven* »_It's so funny how AWE gets up on their high horse with "we design stuff to work with the stock ecu" but then they go out and use a resistor to fake the ECU into not throwing a code with their new DV for 2.0t.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...24793

How is this sooooo different from APR trying to prevent any codes when using their DP?
























probably because they didn't have to play with the tune of the ECU to fix the problem...
I don't exactly understand what's so "high horse" about designing products with different consumer preferences in mind... APR doesn't have any problems selling parts... I think the market and us tuner addicts will continue to support both companies just fine...







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


----------



## fahrven (Apr 2, 2005)

*Re: (HoldDaMayo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *HoldDaMayo* »_
probably because they didn't have to play with the tune of the ECU to fix the problem...
I don't exactly understand what's so "high horse" about designing products with different consumer preferences in mind... APR doesn't have any problems selling parts... I think the market and us tuner addicts will continue to support both companies just fine...







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

That would be fine if AWE just said " we are just different and that's that". But they're trying say they are superior in their tuning methods.


----------



## HoldDaMayo (Feb 16, 2008)

*Re: (fahrven)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fahrven* »_
That would be fine if AWE just said " we are just different and that's that". But they're trying say they are superior in their tuning methods.

I didn't read everything in this thread, but it sounded to me like they were claiming superior hardware, not tuning ability.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (fahrven)*


_Quote, originally posted by *fahrven* »_It's so funny how AWE gets up on their high horse with "we design stuff to work with the stock ecu" but then they go out and use a resistor to fake the ECU into not throwing a code with their new DV for 2.0t.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/zer...24793

How is this sooooo different from APR trying to prevent any codes when using their DP?
























It's not at all similar to what we do with our DV kit.

We don't have a problem with them turning off the catalyst code CEL with their software, like we do with our resistor. It's a band-aid that works as advertised.
The problem we have is that their downpipe will throw a CEL with stock software or any software that does not turn off the catalyst codes, yet they do not warn customers of this issue beforehand.
Further, they then try to pass the CEL off as a benefit when confronted, saying how it is proof that their downpipe flows more than our downpipe.

Perhaps my point got lost in the battle that broke out here.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
It's not at all similar to what we do with our DV kit.

We don't have a problem with them turning off the catalyst code CEL with their software, like we do with our resistor. It's a band-aid that works as advertised.
The problem we have is that their downpipe will throw a CEL with stock software or any software that does not turn off the catalyst codes, yet they do not warn customers of this issue beforehand.
Further, they then try to pass the CEL off as a benefit when confronted, saying how it is proof that their downpipe flows more than our downpipe.

Perhaps my point got lost in the battle that broke out here.

Or perhaps you should just say that GIAC won't turn off the secondary O2 sensor because they're based in CA and that'd be a big CARB and CA emissions law violation? 
There's spin and then there's actual facts . . . Neuspeed also doesn't touch the secondary O2 sensor readings for that same reason. They also use the HJS 200 cat. That being said, the HJS 200 cat has been known to fail and is not "bulletproof" as Todd would like to make it seem.
Dave


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (crew219)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew219* »_
Or perhaps you should just say that GIAC won't turn off the secondary O2 sensor because they're based in CA and that'd be a big CARB and CA emissions law violation? 
There's spin and then there's actual facts . . . Neuspeed also doesn't touch the secondary O2 sensor readings for that same reason. They also use the HJS 200 cat. That being said, the HJS 200 cat has been known to fail and is not "bulletproof" as Todd would like to make it seem.
Dave

Actually, turning off the cat monitoring is a Federal emissions violation. That penalty's bad enough to dissuade any chip tuner, but this has nothing to do with GIAC or APR software as I already stated.
We have had ONE HJS cat fail on us out of the THOUSANDS we have sold. Compared to the numerous other metal core cat brands we have used and tested on Porsches, VWs, and Audis, they are FAR superior and any company wanting to sell a downpipe WITHOUT having to pair it with a software band-aid uses this cat.
Dave, you're an intelligent guy, what is it that you're not comprehending here? Maybe I can make it clearer.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Actually, turning off the cat monitoring is a Federal emissions violation. That penalty's bad enough to dissuade any chip tuner, but this has nothing to do with GIAC or APR software as I already stated.
We have had ONE HJS cat fail on us out of the THOUSANDS we have sold. Compared to the numerous other metal core cat brands we have used and tested on Porsches, VWs, and Audis, they are FAR superior and any company wanting to sell a downpipe WITHOUT having to pair it with a software band-aid uses this cat.
Dave, you're an intelligent guy, what is it that you're not comprehending here? Maybe I can make it clearer.

Todd, earlier today you also claimed that you never heard of anybody complain about the length of the tips on your exhausts . . . I refrained from posting in that thread but you and I both know that plenty of people have said that they stick out way too far. You also adamantly deny using hose clamps as exhaust clamps when the manufacturer clearly states that they are not to be used for exhausts. 
The latest AWE marketing misnomer . . . that your DV is not available to be purchased from the OEM without buying the turbo, when you can go into any GM parts dept and get the same thing for $70. 
*shrugs* I don't know how much more you want to convince yourself that there haven't been concerns expressed about your product. 
I've treated your company fairly, given you consideration before posting anything negative, but everytime I post something truthful that puts your company in a bad light, you come on the forums taking a strong stance to discredit me instead of actually admitting fault or working to resolve a problem. http://****************.com/smile/emthdown.gif 
As for failed HJS cats . . . .
http://forums.audiworld.com/s4b6/msgs/422722.phtml
http://forums.audiworld.com/s4b6/msgs/438058.phtml
Dave


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (crew219)*

Hmm, quite an off topic attack, Dave. I guess that's what I expected though. What this has to do with tips, DVs, and clamps, I have no idea...

HJS uses Emitec cores.
Emitec is the OEM supplier to all major German car manufacturers.
It's expensive. That's why a lot of companies avoid using them.
But they're the only ones that keep the CEL off when used with stock software.
Do some searching on the Porsche forums. Miltech, B&B, Fabspeed, Cargraphic, Capristo, FVD, etc. all use HJS cats now, because, like I said before, a CEL light in the Porsche market is the kiss of death.
It does not seem to be such the kiss of death in the VW world though, but that does not excuse the fact that APR is doing the spin job about cats and CELs here, not us.


----------



## FSI-King (Jun 19, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Actually, turning off the cat monitoring is a Federal emissions violation. That penalty's bad enough to dissuade any chip tuner, but this has nothing to do with GIAC or APR software as I already stated.
.

fwiw apr does not shut off the cat monitering feature, last time I checked a car with APR software and a cat-less downpipe will fail a readiness test, for a catalytic converter. But with the APR downpipe will pass readiness. So they simply did not disable that feature from the ECU as well as the fault code like other tuners do. I guess Apr rescaled the temperature values within the ecu to work in unison with their high flow cat. However, there is another big name in software that disables the cat readiness all together, meaning a car with no cat what so ever will still pass readiness, this is what I consider to be a band-aid.


_Modified by FSI-King at 5:48 PM 9-2-2008_


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (FSI-King)*


_Quote, originally posted by *FSI-King* »_
fwiw apr does not shut off the cat monitering feature, last time I checked a car with APR software and a cat-less downpipe will fail a readiness test, for a catalytic converter. But with the APR downpipe will pass readiness. So they simply did not disable that feature from the ECU as well as the fault code like other tuners do. I guess Apr rescaled the temperature values within the ecu to work in unison with their high flow cat. However, there is another big name in software that disables the cat readiness all together, meaning a car with no cat what so ever will still pass readiness, this is what I consider to be a band-aid.

_Modified by FSI-King at 5:48 PM 9-2-2008_

Nevermind, I reread what you wrote and see that their DP w/ cat will not set a CEL and will pass readiness as long as their DP specific software is used, but will not pass if no cat at all is used.


_Modified by [email protected] at 6:00 AM 9-3-2008_


----------



## maxximumtek (Jul 12, 2001)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Great post, lots of info.
definitely taking APR off the list of potential DP's I'm looking at. Since their software was never in my plans (and seems to be required), and they could never backup any of their claims of 3" flowing better in stock tune (or chipped) in concrete fact. The unwillingness to answer a simple question about the 100cell vs 200cell cats was another nail in the coffin. I can never fault a company for wanting to make profitable products, but getting into a technical discussion without the firepower to defend their technical claims was APR's undoing. Having no prior opinion about the company beforehand, I found that frankly, Keith's posts showed an immaturity and lack of businessmanship that I actually still can't comprehend being aired in an open forum full of POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS. Yikes.
*Edit: Keith did contact me after my post and we had a nice discussion. I am well aware there is a lot of competition in this marketplace, and it *is* refreshing to see these companies being so passionate about their products and companies (for the advancement of the scene, AND the entertainment value







). Hopefully in the end, us consumers win (somehow!).


_Modified by maxximumtek at 5:23 PM 9-3-2008_


----------



## ShutItDown (Jun 14, 2007)

*Re: (maxximumtek)*

I haven't been on here for awhile but all i know is since i got the stage 2 flash it has never been back and sounds sweet with just the DP i like it a lot. the only problem i had putting it on was one of the couplers was a dud.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_Hmm, quite an off topic attack, Dave. I guess that's what I expected though. What this has to do with tips, DVs, and clamps, I have no idea...

HJS uses Emitec cores.
Emitec is the OEM supplier to all major German car manufacturers.
It's expensive. That's why a lot of companies avoid using them.
But they're the only ones that keep the CEL off when used with stock software.
Do some searching on the Porsche forums. Miltech, B&B, Fabspeed, Cargraphic, Capristo, FVD, etc. all use HJS cats now, because, like I said before, a CEL light in the Porsche market is the kiss of death.
It does not seem to be such the kiss of death in the VW world though, but that does not excuse the fact that APR is doing the spin job about cats and CELs here, not us.

Bump from the dead. Looks like AWE HJS also throws codes.
http://www.golfmkv.com/forums/...age=3
Short version: OP throws codes with his AWE 200 cell DP, emails AWE about it . . . they send him a spacer for the rear O2. OP is using approved GIAC software. 

_Quote, originally posted by *1MEANGTI* »_Last update on this. GIAC has completely left me to twist in the wind with absolutely no help. AWE will only provide a space for my O2 sensor. At this point I will be getting a new flash from another company. I will never use either company again and will not recommend them ever. I can handle a mistake or poor product, it happens. But terrible service is not excusable.

So Todd, I thought you claimed that your cat doesn't need a "band-aid" to keep the CEL off? What exactly is the O2 spacer you're providing?








Dave


_Modified by crew219 at 1:43 PM 9-28-2008_


----------



## brekdown29 (Jun 26, 2007)

sounds more like a software rather than hardware issue in this case.


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: (gliplatinum)*


_Quote, originally posted by *gliplatinum* »_sounds more like a software rather than hardware issue in this case.

As true as that may be, it's the recommended software and hardware set-up. Whether it's GIAC or AWE, the whole situation was handled extremely poorly.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (rbradleymedmd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rbradleymedmd* »_
As true as that may be, it's the recommended software and hardware set-up. Whether it's GIAC or AWE, the whole situation was handled extremely poorly.

It may seem like it was handled poorly according to 1meangti, but in reality, both companies have gone beyond what they really should have to do in this situation.
Both our hardware and the GIAC software have been tested to death, together and independently. On the track, on the dyno, on the street. They do not produce EGTs like he is seeing.
And with EGTs like that, there is a strong possibility our cat has been damaged, which would produce a cat code.
Both companies have been very responsive to this customer, but we are simply not giving him a solution he is demanding, despite the fact that neither of our products seems to be at fault here. That is why he is upset.
As members of the modifying community, you all have seen situations like this before. A broken car that gets worse when modified.
We're doing our best to help him get to the root of the cause, but fixing someone's car via e-mail and phone is never easy. I can't see how this was handled poorly.


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Both our hardware and the GIAC software have been tested to death, together and independently. On the track, on the dyno, on the street. They do not produce EGTs like he is seeing.
And with EGTs like that, there is a strong possibility our cat has been damaged, which would produce a cat code.


What kind of EGT's are you seeing with the latest GIAC file?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (rbradleymedmd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rbradleymedmd* »_
What kind of EGT's are you seeing with the latest GIAC file?

Typical range is 900, creeping towards 950 on pump fuel. If he is seeing EGTs as measured at the O2 sensor ~1k on RACE fuel, something is not right here (as he has been told).
Is it the irridium plugs? Is there an intake leak somewhere? Something else is going on here. It's not the exhaust and software. Which he has been told, but does not want to hear. Even thought the two companies are still being responsive to him, this is a problem that neither company really has to adopt. Like I said, this is not poor service.


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Typical range is 900, creeping towards 950 on pump fuel. If he is seeing EGTs as measured at the O2 sensor ~1k on RACE fuel, something is not right here (as he has been told).
Is it the irridium plugs? Is there an intake leak somewhere? Something else is going on here. It's not the exhaust and software. Which he has been told, but does not want to hear. Even thought the two companies are still being responsive to him, this is a problem that neither company really has to adopt. Like I said, this is not poor service.

What data from his logs indicate that something is not right with his car...besides EGT's? Granted he didn't start the logs early enough in the RPM band, but that would have made it even worse.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Typical range is 900, creeping towards 950 on pump fuel. If he is seeing EGTs as measured at the O2 sensor ~1k on RACE fuel, something is not right here (as he has been told).
Is it the irridium plugs? Is there an intake leak somewhere? Something else is going on here. It's not the exhaust and software. Which he has been told, but does not want to hear. Even thought the two companies are still being responsive to him, this is a problem that neither company really has to adopt. Like I said, this is not poor service.

Iridium plugs cause egts huh? Lol. 
How about the massive ATDC timing found on GIAC software?
Dave


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (crew219)*


_Quote, originally posted by *crew219* »_
Iridium plugs cause egts huh? Lol. 
How about the massive ATDC timing found on GIAC software?
Dave

Dave,
Your credibility is totally shot in my eyes, so I'm not going to waste time answering question you pose. Just so you know.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (rbradleymedmd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rbradleymedmd* »_
What data from his logs indicate that something is not right with his car...besides EGT's? Granted he didn't start the logs early enough in the RPM band, but that would have made it even worse.

The EGTs alone tell me something is not right with his car.


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

That would tell me something is definitely not right as well, but every other value in his logs show that every specified value requested is met by his actual values...


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
The EGTs alone tell me something is not right with his car.

Also, if this is the case...then why did you send him a spacer to "solve" these issues? How does that help him out?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (rbradleymedmd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rbradleymedmd* »_
Also, if this is the case...then why did you send him a spacer to "solve" these issues? How does that help him out?

The software and dp were purchased from separate locations.
All we did here was try to help him keep his CEL off since this is not really a warranty issue with the cat. 
GIAC has been also spending time with him regarding the software.
Bottom line is that he has an EGT issue stemming from neither the software nor the dp, yet both companies are doing the best we can to help this client nonetheless. 
Seems that it may have backfired, since he is blasting us on the golfmk5 forum, and troublemakers like Dave then selectively cross post the info. Perhaps both companies should have told him he was SOL and ignored him further? Should we really be bad mouthed for going beyond the individual product support?


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

Todd, personally I would agree with you on the fact that the problem does not stem from the AWE DP. Nonetheless, it seems that since we are unaware of the full story, we are only able to base conclusions from his side of the story. However, I will admit that offering the gentleman a "fix" that does not "solve" his problems is not what I would expect from AWE. Now you say that GIAC is looking into it for him, but he has yet to receive any details from them.







Knowing your relationship with GIAC, it seems to me that you should be able to follow up on his issues from your end to make sure the end user is happy...rather than offering a spacer and washing your hands clean of the situation.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (rbradleymedmd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rbradleymedmd* »_Todd, personally I would agree with you on the fact that the problem does not stem from the AWE DP. Nonetheless, it seems that since we are unaware of the full story, we are only able to base conclusions from his side of the story. However, I will admit that offering the gentleman a "fix" that does not "solve" his problems is not what I would expect from AWE. Now you say that GIAC is looking into it for him, but he has yet to receive any details from them.







Knowing your relationship with GIAC, it seems to me that you should be able to follow up on his issues from your end to make sure the end user is happy...rather than offering a spacer and washing your hands clean of the situation.

You are assuming that we have not been in contact with GIAC on his behalf. In fact, we have corresponded with them about his issue.
However:
The customer bought the DP from us directly.
He bought the GIAC software elsewhere.
He came to us complaining about a cat code and asking for a cat warranty replacement. He forwarded logs to us.
He also stated that he was already in direct contact with GIAC.
The logs showed excessive EGTs. This cannot be from our dp, but it certainly can harm a cat. We offered a spacer to keep off his CEL, but told him that this was not a cat warranty.
Should we not have offered anything at all? Seems like our offer of help, however unwarranted, is what we are getting heat for here.
Should we also have adopted a customer issue for a product that we did not sell him (the software), even though logs already suggested it was not a problem with the software either?
We're enthusiasts as well as a business, but in reality, time is money, and we just can't help everybody that has a tech issue unrelated to our products. We'll try to when we can, but it is a bit unfair to criticize us when we cannot do that all the time.


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Should we also have adopted a customer issue for a product that we did not sell him (the software), even though logs already suggested it was not a problem with the software either?


No, I don't think you should have to help him with the issue, but you are the "SPECIFIED" hardware supplier for GIAC. That means if their is something wrong with his car...you two are somewhat tied together. His CEL came on due to a CAT Ineffiency...naturally, he contacted you inquiring about it. I don't fault him either. With that said, how can you be so certain that the software is not the issue? I mean if everything that is requested is met by the actual values, then explain to me how you can be so certain?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (rbradleymedmd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rbradleymedmd* »_
No, I don't think you should have to help him with the issue, but you are the "SPECIFIED" hardware supplier for GIAC. That means if their is something wrong with his car...you two are somewhat tied together. 

Yes, which is why we remained in the loop, but technically, whomever sold him the software should be following up on his behalf if he has software related questions, not us. However, we followed up anyway due to our commitment to customer service.


_Quote, originally posted by *rbradleymedmd* »_His CEL came on due to a CAT Ineffiency...naturally, he contacted you inquiring about it. I don't fault him either. With that said, how can you be so certain that the software is not the issue? I mean if everything that is requested is met by the actual values, then explain to me how you can be so certain?

I am certain it is not the software simply because we have tested that software to death on multiple cars and have not seen EGTs like that. I'm not sure how else I can put it.
Unfortunately, it seems to always be the aftermarket software that gets blamed for odd/poor running cars, no matter what brand. After 17 years of doing this I can tell you that the FAR majority of issues are not software related. You guys should know that by now, too. 
Just because one car is having an issue is not enough to blame the same part that is not causing this issue on several thousand other ones.


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Yes, which is why we remained in the loop, but technically, whomever sold him the software should be following up on his behalf if he has software related questions, not us. However, we followed up anyway due to our commitment to customer service.


Agreed 100% here. I do agree that it was beyond your customer service duties, but again you have a repor with GIAC...thus I can't blame anyone for contacting you as well. However, the local tuner should have been able to solve the issue. That was my initial advice to him. I hope you don't take our conversation here as an insult...merely just trying to see why this was handled the way it was.

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I am certain it is not the software simply because we have tested that software to death on multiple cars and have not seen EGTs like that. I'm not sure how else I can put it.
Unfortunately, it seems to always be the aftermarket software that gets blamed for odd/poor running cars, no matter what brand. After 17 years of doing this I can tell you that the FAR majority of issues are not software related. You guys should know that by now, too. 
Just because one car is having an issue is not enough to blame the same part that is not causing this issue on several thousand other ones.

This is where I disagree with you though. There is no way you could have tested and tested the software out before it's release...now, if after the fact, then that's a different story. Also, if you have done all this testing...explain these logs to me...








The reason why EGT's are so high is due to the timing map of the software. I have plenty more where this came from...but it's safe to say that this will suffice (if you wish to see the correction factors from each cylinder I can provide those as well...this way you will note that the ECU is detecting no detonation in any cylinder...thus the overall timing is not reflecting compensation).


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (rbradleymedmd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rbradleymedmd* »_
The reason why EGT's are so high is due to the timing map of the software. I have plenty more where this came from...but it's safe to say that this will suffice (if you wish to see the correction factors from each cylinder I can provide those as well...this way you will note that the ECU is detecting no detonation in any cylinder...thus the overall timing is not reflecting compensation).

Of course I would need more info on the condition under which those logs were obtained.
IATs?
Fuel used?
What mode was the car in?
Other mods?
No, a timing curve like that does not automatically equal high EGTs. There is way more to the story than that.


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

Okay...well that was the only graph I have access to at work...however I have logs representing Rail Pressure, Correction Factors, IAT, Boost, Overall Timing, EGTs, MAI, Injection Timings, and Wastegate Cycle...will that allow for a clearer pic?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (rbradleymedmd)*


_Quote, originally posted by *rbradleymedmd* »_Okay...well that was the only graph I have access to at work...however I have logs representing Rail Pressure, Correction Factors, IAT, Boost, Overall Timing, EGTs, MAI, Injection Timings, and Wastegate Cycle...will that allow for a clearer pic?

I have to warn you here, you're sucking me into a tech discussion that is really OT for this thread. I'm already on borrowed time as it is.
Your best bet if you have specific concerns regarding what you feel to be significant trending in the GIAC product is to approach them directly first. Have you done that?


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
I have to warn you here, you're sucking me into a tech discussion that is really OT for this thread. I'm already on borrowed time as it is.
Your best bet if you have specific concerns regarding what you feel to be significant trending in the GIAC product is to approach them directly first. Have you done that?

Fair enough...I will leave it at that and not clutter the thread (agreed on that as well). GIAC has had access to my logs for over a month now and I have not heard from them (other than a response saying they will get around to it). It is of no bother...I have since moved on, but this issue is something that a lot of people have contacted me about personally.


----------



## 08 passat turbo (Mar 29, 2008)

*Re: (rbradleymedmd)*

yea


----------



## 1meanvw (Sep 29, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*

OK, so its a leak in the stock intake? or the primary O2 sensor is bad? Or the DP was damaged? Except it isn't any of that. I asked flat out if the Cat could be the problem and was told no. Now you're saying its the cat? I have had everything checked by both the dealership as well as at Auto Assets, and every person has said, the cat isn't damaged, the Primary 02 sensor works perfectly which leaves what? Todd you make it seem like I've been unreasonable or AWE has had more than two email responses to me. One said, we will send you a spacer, the other said we aren't replacing the cat because it can't possible be bad. You make mention that maybe it was "damaged"? on a car with less than 2000 miles? There has been little to no communication, GIAC suggested I leave my car at the shop for a few days, on my dime to try and figure out what is up with the software.


----------



## 1meanvw (Sep 29, 2008)

No one has been spending time with me regarding anything. The fact is everyone has just guessed. The list went from, bad DV, to bad PCV, to bad fuel pump, to bad O2 sensor, you mentioned bad Cat, now Austin says they have no clue. Two one or two sentence emails is "good" communication in your eyes? Tell me that your product can't possible be the problem isn't exactly problem solving. If there has been all of this testing shouldnt we be able to pinpoint the issues?


----------



## 1meanvw (Sep 29, 2008)

You make it seem like I bought the parts on the black market. The down pipe was ordered directly from AWE and the software was installed by an AWE and GIAC licensed shop.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 30, 1999)

*Re: (1meanvw)*

Tell me what is not correct with the statements I made here:
"The customer bought the DP from us directly.
He bought the GIAC software elsewhere.
He came to us complaining about a cat code and asking for a cat warranty replacement. He forwarded logs to us.
He also stated that he was already in direct contact with GIAC.
The logs showed excessive EGTs. This cannot be from our dp, but it certainly can harm a cat. We offered a spacer to keep off his CEL, but told him that this was not a cat warranty."
I personally reviewed the e-mail logs my staff exchanged with you. This is exactly how it went down.
I think the problem here is you assumed AWE knew more than we did about your car, and I am not sure why you would assume that given how you used multiple sources for your parts. 
Perhaps if you shared with us at AWE the chain of events instead of just e-mailing to ask us for a cat replacement based on codes and logs, you wouldn't have been "twisting in the wind".
However, in the end, this is not a software or downpipe problem, so you are still left in a position you don't want to be in. 
But it is ultimately not our fault or GIAC's fault as it is not related to our products. Something is wrong with your car and neither AWE or GIAC is able to fix it over the internet or phone.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: ([email protected])*


----------



## csullivan (Jun 1, 2008)

as someone that has APR software and an APR downpipe, that's completely uncalled for and unprofessional.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: (csullivan)*


_Quote, originally posted by *csullivan* »_as someone that has APR software and an APR downpipe, that's completely uncalled for and unprofessional.

So is Todd coming in and starting an unprovoked fight regarding APR's selection in catalytic converters. 
If you didn't notice, Todd came in criticizing the APR dp using a cat which would set off the CEL for cat inefficiency. He also criticizes how APR disables the secondary O2 CEL via software. He then promotes his own product citing that it doesn't set off CELs. At the same time, members have had issues with CELs on the AWE dp and Todd makes the situation "right" by sending out a spacer. How is his mechanical "band-aid" any better than an electrical one? 
FWIW, 1meangti isn't the first AWE dp owner who has complained about CELs. Frankly, when you delete the pre-cat you're significantly more susceptible to CELs upon cat warmup. 
Dave


----------



## csullivan (Jun 1, 2008)

I didn't say it was any better. But when presented with the option to take the high road and act like they don't need to even take the bait, I'd expect a company with some class to not resort to petty bickering with another company.


----------



## majid (Sep 29, 2006)

*Re: (csullivan)*


----------



## ShutItDown (Jun 14, 2007)

*Re: (csullivan)*

My problem was solved with a simple stage II reflash. there is nothing more to discuss in this thread.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

*Re: (majid)*


_Quote, originally posted by *majid* »_

















BWAHAHAHA, the cheapest fix!


----------



## iThread (Sep 27, 2005)

*Re: ([email protected])*

Locked at the request of the OP.


----------

