# APR vs GIAC vs REVO software comparison with datalongs and dyno charts



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*MOD NOTE:* Since this comparison has been conducted GIAC has released their X+ chip which is more aggressive than the Sport chip represented here. For information on the X+ chip use the search feature.
*Purpose*
Conduct data logs and dyno testing of GIAC, REVO, and APR resulting in the most appropriate software for my 2005.5 Audi A4 2.0T Quattro 6 speed manual.
*Approach*
Conditions
The data logs were conducted using a Ross Tech vag-com HEX+CAN USB interface with the Turbo button enabled. A Mustang all-wheel-dyno, located at Vivid Racing, was used for the horsepower and torque measurements. Chevron 91 Octane was used through out the whole testing process. Each software flash was on the car for two weeks before it went to the dyno. The fuel pump installed on the car is the "B" pump. There are no modifications other than the software. All data logs were measured on the same road going the same direction. The logs were conducted in 3rd gear starting at 2500 RPM's followed by WOT until redline (6800 RPM's).
Software
GIAC was purchased at Evolution Motorsports, REVO at 20 Valve Tuners, and APR at Billy Boat exhaust. The GIAC was purchased and soon followed by a full refund with no hassles. 20 Valve Tuners also, refunded the full purchase price with no hassles. The APR was purchased since the timed trial would have expired before 2 weeks were reached (they will refund money up to 30 days). APR was tested using the 91 octane program. GIAC was loaded preconfigured for 91 octane. The REVO flash was set with timing at 1 and boost at 6 (set by 20 Valve Tuners). 
*Results* 
Air:Fuel - block 31 (calculated by Lambda actual * 14.7)
























Fuel Rail Pressure - block 106 _note check scale it is not 60 - 120_
























Boost - block 115 (calculated by (boost actual - 920) * .0145) _note 920 is the pressure inside the turbo at idle here in Arizona._
























Timing correction Factors (all cylinders) - block 20
























Timing - block 11
























All the exhaust gas temperatures were within normal limits at or below 810 degrees C.
Dyno - _note all the dyno numbers are uncorrected. Corrected numbers will be here soon as vivid racing fixes there printer._
APR vs Stock








GIAC vs Stock








REVO vs Stock








order top to bottom = APR - REVO - GIAC








*Analysis and Conclusions*
The testing went very well. There were many miles driven, a lot of time spent, many risks taken and much money blown, but I enjoyed meeting all the tuners and talking with the software companies. I am in no way affiliated with any software company, and did my best to keep the results fair and even. This report is my personal doing that I am nice enough to share with everyone with hopes of creating some very good technical discussions. I drove way to many miles (at least 110 miles each way 5 times) and spent too much money to have a pissing contest because of personal preferences. Not to mention that I beat the piss out of my baby. I went WOT in the last 6 weeks more than most people will in their A4's life. I am sorry baby... please forgive me!
That being said - I want to thank Mitch at Vivid Racing for doing all my dyno runs, Chris at 20 Valve tuners for loading and adjusting the REVO software, Anders at Evolution Motorsports for loading the GIAC, and Eric and Billy at Billy Boat exhaust for flashing my ECU with APR (and thanks to everyone for flashing me back to stock). If anyone is in the Phoenix area please pay these guys a visit - they were all good to me. Thanks again guys!	
In the future I plan on testing new software revisions along with some hardware modifications. GIAC and APR informed me they were testing new software products at the time this article was written.
My personal feelings (yes opinions) not meant to start a pissing contest, just what I felt. APR felt very smooth, so smooth I was surprised at the power it made. APR has the smoothest shifts (don't seem to loose power between shifts). The REVO has a blast of torque that can be felt, but doesn't seem to hold its power as long. The GIAC felt similar to stock, but not as smooth (kind of choppy). 

My rating
1. APR
2. REVO
3. GIAC


_Modified by iThread at 8:29 AM 12-5-2006_


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: APR vs GIAC vs REVO software comparison with datalongs and dyno charts (parks853)*

Lets try this again. Hopefully this time it brings about usefull comments, questions, and concerns instead of criticism.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

In the previous deleted thread, a lot of GIAC supporters were saying that you were flashed over with another version of GIAC "stock" programming hence the little change in hp/tq.
One thing I should point out is that the timing angle of the GIAC appears to be as aggressive as the APR and more aggressive than the REVO. 
Parks: do you have any a/f, timing angle, boost logs for the stock software? That would easily settle the debate that was present in the last thread.
Dave


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (crew217)*

let me dig them up. I could not fit more than 20 pics in the original post (19 pics right now). I may not have the timing angle, but I can log the car stock. Timing angle was something that I decided to log after I got the REVO. I will get those very soon. 
thx crew!


----------



## r32senior (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: APR vs GIAC vs REVO software comparison with datalongs and dyno charts (parks853)*

thanks for your efforts and sharing this data with all of us...what the 'tex is really for.
Sure looks like APR is a blowaway. I've used GIAC in the past with excellent results and I would ordinarily go with GIAC, but your post sheds alot of light on the subject.
You are the Vortex Member of the Day.


----------



## crew219 (Oct 18, 2000)

*Re: APR vs GIAC vs REVO software comparison with datalongs and dyno charts (r32senior)*


_Quote, originally posted by *r32senior* »_thanks for your efforts and sharing this data with all of us...what the 'tex is really for.
Sure looks like APR is a blowaway. I've used GIAC in the past with excellent results and I would ordinarily go with GIAC, but your post sheds alot of light on the subject.
You are the Vortex Member of the Day.

A few things in the other thread that should be mentioned:
The REVO settings were incorrect (1,6 should have been 3,5) and he was also flashed with V1 of the REVO software, not the newer V2 that is out. 
GIAC also had a few other versions of their programming out but were not final release versions. 
Nevertheless, Jeremy's contributions should be appreciated since they do show a reasonable comparision of the currently released programs. Given the dynamic nature of chip tuning, you can bet the companies that showed deficiencies in the dynos will be working hard to remedy their issues. Give it another year and I doubt we'll be seeing any of these "early-adopter" issues. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
Dave


----------



## kujo17 (Sep 25, 2004)

This GIAC had to be the Sport flash and NOT the Xchip.
There are 3 GIAC flashes.
kj


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: (kujo17)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kujo17* »_This GIAC had to be the Sport flash and NOT the Xchip.
There are 3 GIAC flashes.
kj

That's correct. At the time of the article there was only one GIAC chip available. It has since been named the "sport" chip. cheers! Mike


----------



## CandywhiteGTi (Feb 2, 2006)

How about this. Doesn't Revo offer a free 3 day trial? Go back get the free trial w/ the new settings and dyno one more time. I know you have already put a lot of time and effort into this, but it would give an answer, which is why you did all this in the first place.


----------



## kujo17 (Sep 25, 2004)

*Re: (bhvrdr)*


_Quote, originally posted by *bhvrdr* »_
That's correct. At the time of the article there was only one GIAC chip available. It has since been named the "sport" chip. cheers! Mike

I have the X Chip in mine and it's makes a ton of power.
Garret will be custom tuning my car with the FX file soon.
I'll post logs and dyno's when we have them.
GIAC 'Sport' flash, should NOT be compared to Revo or APR.
The X chip is thier equivilent.
kj


----------



## theguysmiley (Jan 24, 2003)

*Re: (kujo17)*

Thank you VERY much for the effort you put into this comparison.

















_Modified by theguysmiley at 4:25 AM 2-26-2006_


----------



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

*Re: APR vs GIAC vs REVO software comparison with datalongs and dyno charts (parks853)*

Thanks for the objective way of going about and providing data, however this isnt going to change peoples preferences.


----------



## VrstewartW (Mar 14, 2005)

thanks for thread. i was actually planning to get one soon but didnt know which one to go with, i know now.


----------



## Sincity (May 17, 2005)

*Re: (VrstewartW)*

Thank you for all of your hard work, Park. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif Do you have any exhaust or intake mods?


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (Sincity)*

all stock except software.


----------



## MoeMonney (Aug 23, 2005)

*Re: (parks853)*

REVO v2 software has significant changes to power delivery and smoothnes. I think you should try REVO V2 software.


----------



## dave333 (Sep 11, 2005)

*Re: (MoeMonney)*

Thank you!  A very commendable effort...
Did you see any PCV or DV issues during all of this high-load testing? How about now? Which ECU calibration are you running now?


_Modified by dave333 at 2:20 PM 10-6-2006_


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

great comparison!
Just a note as stated by others that Revo and Giac for sure have made changes since their earlier software versions (which this comparison shows). Either way I don't see any major differences that would flag anyone for any particular thing.


----------



## NS01GTI (Jan 31, 2005)

*Re: (magilson)*

It's probably safe to say that all of the companies have released updated files since this was done. It would be great if someone was prepared to put in the time & effort to do something like this again.


----------



## placenta (Jun 3, 2003)

very nice tests


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (NS01GTI)*


_Quote, originally posted by *NS01GTI* »_It's probably safe to say that all of the companies have released updated files since this was done. It would be great if someone was prepared to put in the time & effort to do something like this again.









I would love to try it again.


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

everyone is giving Dave a hard time for his REVO and APR logs.. just to bring up a old dead horse here are my 91 again I repeat 91 octane logs. 
For PD and the other guy (the one giving Dave a hard time) I included timing logs in my data.
I am not saying go one way or another for your software and I am not biased, just thought it might be a good time to bring this back to life.


----------



## J. Moss (May 27, 2000)

*Re: (parks853)*

Just so the newbies to this thread understand-
This test was released days before the X chip was released. The leas saucy Sport setup was tested and compared to Revo and APR setups that would have been a better comparison against the stronger setup. 
Not sure why his Sport Chip results were so poor with this setup. It does not match mine, 
Either way, enjoy.
Jeff


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: (J. Moss)*

+1 Jeff!
Just check the date on the first post. It's from February. From then to now in internet and chip development time, is about 1 of your earth lifetimes


----------



## magilson (Apr 18, 2005)

*Re: (syntrix)*


_Quote, originally posted by *syntrix* »_+1 Jeff!
Just check the date on the first post. It's from February. From then to now in internet and chip development time, is about 1 of your earth lifetimes









Did you just invent chip-years? Similar in effect as dog-years? lol, I love it http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (J. Moss)*

Jeff,
I talked to you on the phone a few times. My offer still stands to test the newer software. I am looking for what I think is the best software for my car and I am willing to test new things. If something better comes up I will switch.
I even offered to talk with the guys at GIAC to make sure all my testing was done correctly and to discuss my results, but no one ever called. I have no affiliation with any of the companies I tested. The test were accurate and unbiased. The software was loaded by your premier dealer: EVOMS.
You are right - the software was not the X-chip but it was not out at that time. It was also not done at the end of my testing. I wanted a chip then so I made my decision based on what the current market was.
I am just glad other people are doing more testing. This is great stuff to help people decide what chips they want for their car. Unfortunetly they will have to test the X-chip themselves before they make a decsion. I always suggest demoing all the software before one makes a decision.
Hopefully one of these days I can do another comparison but not possible right now. Just bought a house and I am way to busy. Not really in the mood to put the 3000 extra miles on my car again either.. not even at a year yet and I have 22000 on the car.. oh well.. it is wicked fun to drive!


----------



## OCaudi (Nov 16, 2006)

Good job Jeff.


----------



## SchnellFowVay (May 20, 2001)

*Re: (OCaudi)*

Can we please kill this thread?
It will just spread mass confusion and chip misinformation among the noobs. 
Please, just put it out of its misery.


----------



## traviswho (Aug 29, 2006)

*Re: (SchnellFowVay)*


_Quote, originally posted by *SchnellFowVay* »_Can we please kill this thread?
It will just spread mass confusion and chip misinformation among the noobs. 
Please, just put it out of its misery. 

x2
I can confirm that is not what a revo curve is supose to look like. 1 dyno per company is hardly conclusive, and were they the same cars? same day? This information is useless.


----------



## Javier de la Cruz (Mar 7, 2006)

*Re: (parks853)*

Hello.

*all stock but software* 
Those were the words I was waiting for......... as so were 80 percent of 2.0TFSI users. Besides, I only can say...thumbs up for you.
Well, lets go for the tech, hahaha....... all programs seem to be very good, really, but Revo its kinda saying "I will kill your clutch in six moths"...... and this is not bad after all, you know....















Seriously, Id like to see somo Unitronic work, you know. 

Greetings from paradise.


_Modified by Javier de la Cruz at 6:38 AM 11-30-2006_


----------



## gibhunter (Oct 8, 2006)

*Re: APR vs GIAC vs REVO software comparison with datalongs and dyno charts (parks853)*

I like the APR results. Seems like Revo will kill the turbo the fastest. Lots of boost for little power IMO. APR is nice except for that dip around 3,000 RPM. They should fix that. I wonder how Neuspeed would compare to these graphs. Either way, even with the drive train loss it seems to me that the claims of 250HP or 50HP gain are marketing BS. As for GIAC, I wonder what they were thinking, might as well stick with the stock program.


----------



## mrshl13 (Jun 12, 2006)

*Re: APR vs GIAC vs REVO software comparison with datalongs and dyno charts (parks853)*

Based on the timing pulls and assuming each color is a different cylinder...the REVO and GIAC don't show much of a difference between the 4 but APR shows two with a higher timing pull at higher RPMs. Since it doesn't happen with the other two I'd say it's not a cooling problem. Are two cylinders being starved for fuel there?


----------



## BumbleBeeJBG (Apr 30, 2006)

*Re: APR vs GIAC vs REVO software comparison with datalongs and dyno charts (mrshl13)*

Have you people not been paying attention to everyone?
*THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS, THE RESULTS ARE FLAWED AND THE TESTING WAS MOST LIKELY FLAWED AND THE SOFTWARE USED WAS FLAWED* 
The OP isn't even here to answer up to scrutinization.
Cmon now, I'm an APR fan and you don't even see me signing on to this shiz.


----------



## bhvrdr (Jan 26, 2005)

*Re: APR vs GIAC vs REVO software comparison with datalongs and dyno charts (BumbleBeeJBG)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BumbleBeeJBG* »_Have you people not been paying attention to everyone?
*THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS, THE RESULTS ARE FLAWED AND THE TESTING WAS MOST LIKELY FLAWED AND THE SOFTWARE USED WAS FLAWED* 
The OP isn't even here to answer up to scrutinization.
Cmon now, I'm an APR fan and you don't even see me signing on to this shiz.

It was a great job by him. It's just out of date now. At the time these were the most up to date files available from each company. The same car and same dyno was used for every run. Great job to Jeremy. I can only hope he does this again now with the newer software that each company now has out.
cheers! Mike


----------



## syntrix (Aug 20, 2000)

*Re: APR vs GIAC vs REVO software comparison with datalongs and dyno charts (bhvrdr)*

+1 Mike http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif
Let's keep thread around. It has some great info in it for people that might be new to vag-com and data logging.
http://****************.com/smile/star.gif


----------



## BumbleBeeJBG (Apr 30, 2006)

*Re: APR vs GIAC vs REVO software comparison with datalongs and dyno charts (bhvrdr)*

It was a decent job, woulda been better if he was more prepared for his testing journey imho. Regardless of anything now, we can all agree that this data isn't worth anything *at this point in time*
Didn't mean to come off as flaming the OP, but rather trying to ward off people who were reading and considering the results seriously.


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*I'm here!*

First off let me say.. A moderator and I spoke. The thread was left open for dicussion of the data and methods of testing. It has been made clear by me and everyone that all the software companies have updated their software. GIAC for the record incase you dont already know came out with not only an update but a whole new file. The file I tested has now became their sport chip. And for all I know it might have even been updated.
No I dont come to this forum that often anymore. I just happen to browse by every now and then. I get sick of wading through all the trash and edebates and everynow and then, unfortunetaly, find myself in one. There are some very educated and experiened people that talk in here.. well there use to be. A lot of them seem to not come here that often, thanks to the edebates and critisim. 
I if anyone know about cristism. I spent my own time and my own money testing, and abusing my car to present this data for discussion. I did not get paid to do this. I do plan on doing more testing in the future of maybe software or other products. I recently bought a house and have been a bit tied down.
The data maybe dated but the process is not. If you think there is something wrong with how I did my testing please enlighten me on how to do it correctly. This was my first shot at testing car software. First time having my car on a dyno. I have learned a lot, and have many ideas for my next round of testing if it happens. 
If you have ideas on what to do if another test ocurs now is the time to say. Rather than criticize provide some use information, some useful data, another comparison that did it better, and/or suggestions.. otherwise please keep your comments to your self (help the community rather than wasting everyones time). To say I did somethign wrong means nothing if you dont say how to do it better. If you think my data is bogus post something to prove otherwise. Show me a more controlled and extensive test than mine. Give me ideas or show me other ways to do better. Back up what you are saying with some data of your own.
that all being said.. I am at work but will try to answer all questions that I see. I will catch up to the rest later.
thanks for looking and I appreciate information from those of you that are trying to help me and the community. Thanks for any comments.. and to the rest of you.. well.. fill in what you like.


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (crew217)*

Dave,
I could not fit the stock data logs in the post and make it work formatting wise. I also made a bad assumption that everyone knows what the stock data looks like. I will try to find time and dig up the stock data.
Thanks!
*edit* just realized how old your original post was. I guess I was supposed to get them for you before. Sorry Dave!


_Modified by parks853 at 11:36 AM 12-5-2006_


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (CandywhiteGTi)*


_Quote, originally posted by *CandywhiteGTi* »_How about this. Doesn't Revo offer a free 3 day trial? Go back get the free trial w/ the new settings and dyno one more time. I know you have already put a lot of time and effort into this, but it would give an answer, which is why you did all this in the first place.

Not sure if they do a 3 day trial. I worked it out to where I paid for the software then got a refund when I got flashed back to stock.
Maybe one of these days I will do it again!


_Modified by parks853 at 11:35 AM 12-5-2006_


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (traviswho)*


_Quote, originally posted by *traviswho* »_x2
I can confirm that is not what a revo curve is supose to look like. 1 dyno per company is hardly conclusive, and were they the same cars? same day? This information is useless.

please confirm then.
Same car. Not the same day. I stated each software was driven on for 2 weeks, then I returned to the dyno.
If I would have done all the testing in the same day.. then it would have been "you did not let the software settle". From speaking with the software companies the longest time suggested was 2 weeks to settle. 
Thank you for your concern!


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: APR vs GIAC vs REVO software comparison with datalongs and dyno charts (Liquid1.8T)*


_Quote, originally posted by *Liquid1.8T* »_Thanks for the objective way of going about and providing data, however this isnt going to change peoples preferences.

that is not the point, to change their mind. I did this for my self because it is second nature to do things correctly and to the best of my ability. I was curious and then it turned into this. I decided it might be nice to share it with the community.
O.. and you are welcome!


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (MoeMonney)*


_Quote, originally posted by *MoeMonney* »_REVO v2 software has significant changes to power delivery and smoothnes. I think you should try REVO V2 software.

I would love to. And sure I will one of these days. I like REVO and the adjustability of it.


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (dave333)*


_Quote, originally posted by *dave333* »_Thank you! A very commendable effort...
Did you see any PCV or DV issues during all of this high-load testing? How about now? Which ECU calibration are you running now?

_Modified by dave333 at 2:20 PM 10-6-2006_

I still currently run APR software (the same verison I had when I did this).
I had no PCV or DV issues. That seems to be more of a transverse issue.


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: APR vs GIAC vs REVO software comparison with datalongs and dyno charts (BumbleBeeJBG)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BumbleBeeJBG* »_Have you people not been paying attention to everyone?
*THIS THREAD IS WORTHLESS, THE RESULTS ARE FLAWED AND THE TESTING WAS MOST LIKELY FLAWED AND THE SOFTWARE USED WAS FLAWED* 
The OP isn't even here to answer up to scrutinization.
Cmon now, I'm an APR fan and you don't even see me signing on to this shiz.

You have a couple post. .I will just stick to this one. Answering people on this forum usually doen't help anything. BUt I am going to give it a shot this time. I did spend a lot of time on this.
You seem to have a lot to say. Please provide some help for anyone or myslef that might try this in the future.


----------



## blackvento36 (Mar 17, 2003)

*Re: (parks853)*


_Quote, originally posted by *parks853* »_
Maybe one of these days I will do it again!

Yeah and next time you do it there will be even more ppl whining about how flawed it was. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif for the effort, I doubt anyone would've gone through all this trouble.


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (blackvento36)*


_Quote, originally posted by *blackvento36* »_Yeah and next time you do it there will be even more ppl whining about how flawed it was. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif for the effort, I doubt anyone would've gone through all this trouble.

If one learns from a mistake it is no longer a mistake, but a lesson. Never will it be flawed. Maybe improved upon, but none the less it was still a great first effort.


----------



## djorkaeff_andrei (Sep 16, 2006)

great effort! thank you so much


----------



## parks853 (Jan 4, 2006)

*Re: (djorkaeff_andrei)*


_Quote, originally posted by *djorkaeff_andrei* »_great effort! thank you so much

you are welcome!


----------



## lonepatrone (Jan 22, 2005)

*Re: (parks853)*

to the top for an oldie but goodie. I wish somebody would do this comparison again with the latest files.


----------



## Malaco0219 (Mar 18, 2007)

thanks fro post. I didnt think APR was so low on boost. I was going to go uni cause of the lower boost they use


----------



## csullivan (Jun 1, 2008)

_Quote, originally posted by *lonepatrone* »_to the top for an oldie but goodie. I wish somebody would do this comparison again with the latest files.

and I wish you hadn't bumped it because people are stupid and they won't read the dates. They'll assume the information presented is current when in fact it's YEARS out of date.

_Quote, originally posted by *Malaco0219* »_thanks fro post. I didnt think APR was so low on boost. I was going to go uni cause of the lower boost they use

See?


----------



## Malaco0219 (Mar 18, 2007)

*Re: (csullivan)*

Haha, now this is starting to make me consider APR


----------



## JLT (May 18, 2008)

That's funny, I am doing an independent test right now but have no one to read my logs!


----------



## rbradleymedmd (Feb 24, 2007)

*Re: (JLT)*


_Quote, originally posted by *JLT* »_That's funny, I am doing an independent test right now but have no one to read my logs!

Send them to me...I'll take a look at them...graph them and send them back to you or post them up (if you like)...


----------



## Noside (Aug 20, 2008)

*Re: (rbradleymedmd)*

definitely post them up http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------

