# Fix for Misfire on TTRS with Flashes/Tunes



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

I've been seeing some posts with people noticing occasional misfires when they have a flash tune installed. I've noticed this on mine occasionally too. After talking with Arin @ APR I decided to re-gap my spark plugs. Doing so seems to help with the misfiring. I also noticed the gaps on the plugs on my car varied from .25 to .28 with no consistency. I went ahead and gapped them all to .26. This is probably too low of a gap but I wanted to see if it helped. It did but still have random misfire/hesitation here and there. 


Dave


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

cool, I hope this is all it take.


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

I just dropped off my car at the Tuner this morning i will update everyone soon..


----------



## systemz (Mar 15, 2009)

I just recently found out my car was misfiring when i'm going over 90 mph in 6th gear and give a fairly good amount of gas. Is this the same issue you have? It seemed fairly consistent too.


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

that's the issue I am having. If I ease in the gas it's a smooth acceleration


----------



## systemz (Mar 15, 2009)

I just realized it happens in different gears too. It seems to happen when you full throttle it while at a lower rpm and the engine doesn't have the torque and it takes a bit longer for the engine to get into the powerband. So it seems just gapping the plugs works. I'll be trying that soon!


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

GIAC stage 1 flash

it happens is third or forth at WOT. Have to back out and feed in slower. i have had lots of issues at the track since flashing. also, experienced power drop off but below redline, like there is a fuel delivery issue. all post-flash.

i am going to reflash with apr stg 2 (w/ DP) and see if this resolves. plug gap is a very intresting "cause/solution"


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

LongviewTx said:


> GIAC stage 1 flash
> 
> it happens is third or forth at WOT. Have to back out and feed in slower. i have had lots of issues at the track since flashing. also, experienced power drop off but below redline, like there is a fuel delivery issue. all post-flash.
> 
> i am going to reflash with apr stg 2 (w/ DP) and see if this resolves. plug gap is a very intresting "cause/solution"


I'd log that thing with VCDS to see if you're knocking / retarding timing. The last thing you want to do is blow your motor due to the tune being too aggressive and the ECM not being able to save its butt in time.


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

I had my plugs re-gapped today and no more miss fires in 6th however I had a minor one in 5th while winding her out but nothing as bad as before. I have tried to duplicate the 5th gear winding again and it did happen again but it was even less than it was a few seconds earlier. The plugs did have something to do with this whole mess.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

At what RPM and under what driving conditions are you guys exactly seeing this misfire?

Can someone also describe the feeling/sensation/noise of what is deemed to be the misfire


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

Seems like a lot of people are having the same issues. Arin, do you think you can do done research on this because it is an obvious problem. I was wondering one thing... Should we wait until atleast 190 oil temp to wot it seems that has helped a bit with the problem.. Could it be an issue of the car is not warned up enough to go wot?


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

what are the plugs supposed to be gapped to??


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

The first time (right after the tune) while cruising at 80 MPH in 6th gear and the RPMs are like 3500 isn and when you drop the hammer and when the RPMs get between 4 and 5000 you would get a major miss fire. After gapping the plugs that went away completely however as I stated earlier I now had a very minor miss while in 5th gear and winding her out and the RPMs were about 4800. I am not sure what the gapped the plugs to today but i am sure if you PM Arin he could certainly tell ya.


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

From what I remember, don't quote me... The reason you lower the spark gaps has to do with the increased boost and higher cylinder pressures which blow out the spark. Lowering the gap helps with this condition. 


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

Misfire as in one big hesitation and pop through the exhaust?

In europe this has been an issue for years on tuned cars, but our misfires are under high load, higher rpm ie 5000rpm and above, and you can hear it, its like a machine gun going off and the car doesnt really accelerate at that point. This is what we had found with some german mappers and revo software.

People fitted race plugs to try and cure it, it helped alot but never cured.

Granted I never had misfires on my car with the APR map, but I already had race plugs at that point


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

I'm hitting the track saturday and will report back. Running GIAC stage 2. Generally running the 93 tune but will switch to 100 tune for track.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

i wonder if people should specify if they got the 91 or 93 program? maybe that will help

i requested the 93 program, never had a misfire yet and i already have stg1 a few months now, everything is nice and strong, haven't touched my spark plugs yet

recently i did some logging to sort out another issue, if anyone wishes to compare here is my log file, in there is my injection timing at full load up to 155mph 

http://bartoski.com/aprlog.zip


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

I have the 93 octane tune as well


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

*misfires*

I was having the exact same problem. Car under load or low rpm and going wot. I switched out my plugs for a slightly cooler iridium set and it seems to have made the issue much better. I had read that the issue was boost blowing out the spark and also that the fuel pump in the ttrs wasn't up to the task. As mentioned above, if you ease into full throttle or punch it from way down low this issue just doesn't occur. 
I have had the new plugs in since May.


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

What kind of plugs and what did you gap them at if you don't mind sharing.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

Pretty sure he went with NGK R7437-8. They run about $25 each!


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

Thanks BB and good luck at the track!!!!!!


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

*yep*



Black BeauTTy said:


> Pretty sure he went with NGK R7437-8. They run about $25 each!


yes those are the plugs i went with. i have had no problem since. with those plugs you need to run the car pretty hard every few days to burn off any carbon build up on the plugs. i don't have any issue with that !:thumbup:


----------



## systemz (Mar 15, 2009)

Mine didnt start happening until a few months after the apr stage 1 tune. It seems i can WOT from first gear until third no problem. But in the higher gears in lower RPM's it will misfire, its almost like a complete power loss for a second and a backfire. And as others stated, if you smoothly roll on the power it does not happen. It could possibly be the spark plugs in combination with the fuel pump not satisfying the demand. I know with the TTS you needed to have a new fuel pump for the stage2+, perhaps this is a requirement for any tune on the TTRS...


----------



## systemz (Mar 15, 2009)

Also forgot to mention, this happens when the car is fully warmed up!


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

systemz said:


> Also forgot to mention, this happens when the car is fully warmed up!


mine too! I am going to have the plugs re-gapped. Hopefully that fixes it.


----------



## Stevelev (Mar 4, 2004)

southpole12 said:


> mine too! I am going to have the plugs re-gapped. Hopefully that fixes it.


Sucks to hear about this issue. I'm interested to know the before and after gaps. In a previous car (BT B6) plugs made a nice difference in the smooth running of the engine ...


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

systemz said:


> Mine didnt start happening until a few months after the apr stage 1 tune. It seems i can WOT from first gear until third no problem. But in the higher gears in lower RPM's it will misfire, its almost like a complete power loss for a second and a backfire. And as others stated, if you smoothly roll on the power it does not happen. It could possibly be the spark plugs in combination with the fuel pump not satisfying the demand. I know with the TTS you needed to have a new fuel pump for the stage2+, perhaps this is a requirement for any tune on the TTRS...


I doubt it is a design level issue with the fuel pump... People have made 500hp on the stock fueling, so I can't see stage 1 being an issue. 

Have you run a scan with VAG-COM to see if there are any stored faults? You can have codes stored without the MIL light on. 

Cut outs in higher gears are not new to the VAG scene with the TSI/TFSI engines and aftermarket tunes. Plenty of threads about people with this issue that have the 2.0 TSI engine. Typical (partial) remedies are gaping the plugs at. 028 and going to a one step colder plug with that gap. Also, replacing the coil packs is another common route. None of these is a cure all though. You could also be getting a fuel rail pressure too high fault, which will momentarily cause a drop in power while the ECU tries to sort things out. 

I have a 2.0 TSI GTI APR Stage 2+ which has had the cut out in higher gear behavior from time to time. I installed one step colder plugs gaped at. 028, which helped but did not eliminate the issue. I also get the fuel rail pressure too high code from time to time, which causes a cut out so it is difficult to say whether the problem is really the spark being blown out or not. I have never had a misfire code associated with cut outs in higher gears, so I suspect that the issue is related to the fuel rail pressure fault, but don't have enough data to prove it. 

I recently found a bad/weak coil pack on the GTI, so I installed all new coils. I will check with my son who drives the car to see whether that has finally cured the cut out in higher gears issue and post an update. I am also going to replace the fuel rail pressure sender to see if that helps with the fuel rail pressure code. 

Note that my GTI doesn't exhibit the cut out when put in 'stock' map mode. It is only when running the higher HP modes that I get the fuel rail pressure fault also. The symptoms between the 2.0 TSI and 2.5 TFSI are too close to be coincidence.


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

hightech - great additionalinfo. thanks for the post.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

Yes, excellent info indeed. I'm running the race tune this weekend for the first time. If there is going to be an issue, it'll be under these circumstances.


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

Has anyone had data logging done for this issue? APR has not heard of this misfire issue. It looks like a lot of people here are having the same issue and they need to know about it so it can be fixed.


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

Stevelev said:


> Sucks to hear about this issue. I'm interested to know the before and after gaps. In a previous car (BT B6) plugs made a nice difference in the smooth running of the engine ...


I had the plugs re-gapped. Did not make much of a difference, it even seems like it is doing it a little more now. It is very frustrating.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

southpole12 said:


> I had the plugs re-gapped. Did not make much of a difference, it even seems like it is doing it a little more now. It is very frustrating.


Please call APR to ask for assistance. The more people that report it and help root-cause it, the better for everyone.


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

Marty said:


> Please call APR to ask for assistance. The more people that report it and help root-cause it, the better for everyone.


I did just call them. That is the reason I posted, to let everyone know to make APR aware of the issue.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

southpole12 said:


> I did just call them. That is the reason I posted, to let everyone know to make APR aware of the issue.


Great! What did they say?


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

I had called them too, same day that I got the tune installed. I first got transferred to some customer relations dude, who referred me to the TTRS dyno graphs and suggested the hesitation was merely just the slight dips represented on the graph. I told him he was full of it and asked for a tech to talk with me. Unfortunately the tech seemed kinda rude and basically told me he was busy and to go to the tuner and do a data log....wtf..

Anyway, I hope this issue gets resolved soon.

I haven't re-gapped the plugs yet, hopefully this will fix the issue for me.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

as i have said previously, no misfires for me, not once, everything is nice and strong, the only problem i have with the tune is i have a speed limiter in place which is lower than the factory setting, i can't go faster than ~155mph, where factory was ~170, i sent them logs now i'm waiting for a fix too


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

Marty said:


> Great! What did they say?


The performance shop I went to were not able to data log due to my car being a 2013. They were called ross tech (vagcom) to find out the issue and have not got back to me yet. I called APR with this information and they said we have to wait until we can do logs, that is the only way we will know. So, I am just waiting.


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

Timster said:


> I had called them too, same day that I got the tune installed. I first got transferred to some customer relations dude, who referred me to the TTRS dyno graphs and suggested the hesitation was merely just the slight dips represented on the graph. I told him he was full of it and asked for a tech to talk with me. Unfortunately the tech seemed kinda rude and basically told me he was busy and to go to the tuner and do a data log....wtf..
> 
> Anyway, I hope this issue gets resolved soon.
> 
> I haven't re-gapped the plugs yet, hopefully this will fix the issue for me.


APR told me no one has called in with this issue on a TTRS so thanks for confirming that you called in. I hope the plugs help you, but for me it seems it is worse. It is kind of pointless to have a tune that does not even work... I hope they fix this.


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

Well it seems the regapping helps but I'm still experiencing slight miss and hesitation between 4k and 5500 on fourth gear. Going to try doing a vag com log of it.. Not easy to do when driving! 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

Optimus812 said:


> Well it seems the regapping helps but I'm still experiencing slight miss and hesitation between 4k and 5500 on fourth gear. Going to try doing a vag com log of it.. Not easy to do when driving!
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


Ok cool!!! Please post the results here and send that information to APR. They need to solve this problem!


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

Now that I got my laptop out its not misfiring! This issue is so hit and miss, 
Very strange.. 


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

Optimus812 said:


> Now that I got my laptop out its not misfiring! This issue is so hit and miss,
> Very strange..
> 
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


Yes you are right. It is very hit and miss. I see you guys re-gapped the plugs to like 26. My shop did mine to 22.... do you guys think that is to low?


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

southpole12 said:


> Yes you are right. It is very hit and miss. I see you guys re-gapped the plugs to like 26. My shop did mine to 22.... do you guys think that is to low?


I IM'd Arin and he said they recommend re-gapping to 28. 22 seems low


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 4, 2004)

Figured Id post in here just to let everyone know what we have run into with this problem. 

We have upgraded numerous RS's and only have had one customer with this issue so it definitely seems to be some weird problem with the car not software.

We had the vehicle twice and couldnt get it to produce the misfire. No stored faults. Tried full throttle pulls, part throttle roll ons, and cruising to full throttle transitions and just wouldn't do it. 

Checked plugs and 4 were at .027" I believe and one was at roughly .022" :screwy: seems odd there is a common inconsistency of plug gap of these cars from the factory. 

In all our testing I think we saw 1 misfire on 1 cylinder but couldn't feel it and couldn't get it to happen again.

Customer is bringing the car in tomorrow to see if he can duplicate it while we log.


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

Thanks for the info. Today when I'm full throttle in 4th between 4.5k and 6 I still feel some slight hesitation like a random muss fire a couple of times during the pull. I'm going to try gapping the plugs a little lower to see if that helps. It definitely helped before when I regapped them.


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

someone who never had it ever misfire with a tune after a few months should report back with their gaps! :thumbup:


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> Figured Id post in here just to let everyone know what we have run into with this problem.
> 
> We have upgraded numerous RS's and only have had one customer with this issue so it definitely seems to be some weird problem with the car not software.
> 
> ...


If this hesitation is so common on this forum, I find it hard to believe that it's a problem with the cars and not the tune. If the tune is pushing the car to a point where some problem is popping up on a reasonable percentage of the cars, I'd still call it a tune margin problem, not a car problem. If the plugs need to be replaced or re-gapped with the tune, then that should be specified.


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

[email protected] said:


> We have upgraded numerous RS's and only have had one customer with this issue so it definitely seems to be some weird problem with the car not software.


once giac flashed, i never had a hint of problems until i got on the track a pushed the car hard in repeat accelerations, etc... on the street, my fun runs with wot never showed any issues. 

the oem flash never sowed any issues either.

it is in the flash and interaction thereof.

it could be possible that a majority of your customers drive fairly safe on the street.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

LongviewTx said:


> once giac flashed, i never had a hint of problems until i got on the track a pushed the car hard in repeat accelerations, etc... on the street, my fun runs with wot never showed any issues.
> 
> the oem flash never sowed any issues either.
> 
> ...


I was convinced I'd have the issues surface on my track day but no dice. I was in race tune all day and it never missed a beat. If it is a timing related phenomena, the 93 tune may be more susceptible than the race tune.


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

Marty said:


> If this hesitation is so common on this forum, I find it hard to believe that it's a problem with the cars and not the tune. If the tune is pushing the car to a point where some problem is popping up on a reasonable percentage of the cars, I'd still call it a tune margin problem, not a car problem. If the plugs need to be replaced or re-gapped with the tune, then that should be specified.


Agreed 100%. I hope they get to the bottom of this real soon. If we need colder racing plugs than so be it but lets find out what the heck is going on here. I am sure APR will figure it out. I am patiently waiting


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Figured Id post in here just to let everyone know what we have run into with this problem.
> 
> We have upgraded numerous RS's and only have had one customer with this issue so it definitely seems to be some weird problem with the car not software.


Thanks for posting and I am glad you guys are looking into it but it is not just one person. There are a few just on this forum with the same issue along with 034 motorsports who have been experiencing the problem as well. There must be something in the tune that is causing this issue. I agree it is definitely on and off but something has to be causing it. Maybe to much torque curve in the 3k range? Maybe we need colder race plugs? I don't know but hopefully you guys can log the issue because it is a common issue on here. I cannot log my car due to my car being a 2013 which for some reason is not allowing the vcds to log my information. I have spoken to ross tech about this and they say it should work but it doesn't so I don't know where to go on my end to get this thing logged until that problem is rectified.


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

Black BeauTTy said:


> I was convinced I'd have the issues surface on my track day but no dice. I was in race tune all day and it never missed a beat. If it is a timing related phenomena, the 93 tune may be more susceptible than the race tune.


yeah, good specification, i am in 93 oct tune running 93 octane fuel. you r in race with 100 octane, so your experience of no problems my be a reason to focus on fuel specific tunes. can you post a link to the track you ran. i'd like to see the elevational changes and overall geometry.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 4, 2004)

southpole12 said:


> Thanks for posting and I am glad you guys are looking into it but it is not just one person. There are a few just on this forum with the same issue along with 034 motorsports who have been experiencing the problem as well. There must be something in the tune that is causing this issue.


I know its more then 1 person I said one of the many I have done so its not every car. Also wasn't there two people with Giac who said they had a problem also? That would kind of rule the tune out and make me think there is some weird issue with the cars. Like you said maybe colder plugs are needed, that would be odd considering its already turbo and its level of performance that the factory would use a plug that is border line enough.


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I know its more then 1 person I said one of the many I have done so its not every car. Also wasn't there two people with Giac who said they had a problem also? That would kind of rule the tune out and make me think there is some weird issue with the cars. Like you said maybe colder plugs are needed, that would be odd considering its already turbo and its level of performance that the factory would use a plug that is border line enough.


Yes, I have heard a couple people with GIAC experiencing the same type of issue. I really don't know what else it can be. I drove my car today and it misfired in 5th at 3.5k rpms and that was when I was pushing down toward wot. After that I did a pull wot 1st through second and no problem. My plugs are gapped at .22 so I guess right now it is a mystery.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

LongviewTx said:


> yeah, good specification, i am in 93 oct tune running 93 octane fuel. you r in race with 100 octane, so your experience of no problems my be a reason to focus on fuel specific tunes. can you post a link to the track you ran. i'd like to see the elevational changes and overall geometry.


Here you go...
http://http://www.njmp.com/facility/track-maps.html

I ran the Thunderbolt track. It is a nice track with a nice mix of geometry. When I hit the back section correctly and maintained my speed and line through the esses, I entered the final turn leading to the front straight at 100. Top speed for me was 140 before needing to brake and take turn 1 at 90. I was hitting about 110 on the back straight that leads uphill to a sharp crest where you get very light at that speed and then need to brake hard for a right hander. Good times!


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

Poverty said:


> Misfire as in one big hesitation and pop through the exhaust?
> 
> In europe this has been an issue for years on tuned cars, but our misfires are under high load, higher rpm ie 5000rpm and above, and you can hear it, its like a machine gun going off and the car doesnt really accelerate at that point. This is what we had found with some german mappers and revo software.
> 
> ...


Curious, do you know what type of plugs were used? 

Were they the NGK R7437-8? 


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2


----------



## OldKenzo (Aug 14, 2012)

southpole12 said:


> Thanks for posting and I am glad you guys are looking into it but it is not just one person. There are a few just on this forum with the same issue along with 034 motorsports who have been experiencing the problem as well. There must be something in the tune that is causing this issue. I agree it is definitely on and off but something has to be causing it.


The APR stage 2 flash and APR downpipe installed by 034 on my 2013 TTRS has been flawless under many WOT situations and launches. Not a single issue. I'm not convinced this is a widespread problem.


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

OldKenzo said:


> The APR stage 2 flash and APR downpipe installed by 034 on my 2013 TTRS has been flawless under many WOT situations and launches. Not a single issue. I'm not convinced this is a widespread problem.


How are you not convinced it is widespread if about 10 people or more on here have experienced the problem?


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

Have been having a problem with my power shifting to the right on the dyno graph along the rpm axis. Used to comeon about 1000-1200 rom earlier, now it is around 3200 when you feel it pull and it more of a fadein than a slam back in the seat. Got my cable and did some logging and found misfires. Not a lot(not enough for the dealer to fix it). Then yesterday did some more loggging and found misfiresin cylinders 1, 2 and 4.
Originally i thought it was the wastegate becausde i hear a nosie right when the power should coe on and it stops when the power does coneon. I still think itmigh be that but the misfires are puzzling me. I logged the timing retardation along with a bunch of other things but the problem is that I dont know what half of it means. Logged rail pressure(spec and actual) throttle position, boost,(sepc and acual), N75 ,,,
I am running Stasis and they have been great trying to help but sincei am pretty far away the dealer ship does a lot of the diagostis and reports to them. The delaership has heard the wastgate noise ands said htta is what it sounds like but then they said they dontworkon enough of them to know ifit is a normal noise ornot. They found another ttrs and drove it. Told me it sounds exactly the same(surprosedme thay a stock car sounded the same). Still trying to fiure out what happened to cause the power to delay by 1000 rpm but wanted to share the isfire part and volunteer to log or send y logs to anyone tha thinks it may help. 
tell me what to log nd i will run them tomorrow
As far as widespread, if you think about the number of the number of any specific model of car on the road, say an S5, the compare it to the number of TT RS on the road, it doesnt take as many TT RS to make something widespread since there arent that many out there.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 4, 2004)

southpole12 said:


> How are you not convinced it is widespread if about 10 people or more on here have experienced the problem?


I think what he means is its not widespread in the sense that if maybe 10 have the problem from at least 2 different manufacturers, out of hundreds of flashed cars. The ratio is pretty low and pinpoints to possibly a car issue. What it is I dont think anyone knows yet but if it was software every car would do it.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

maybe instead of this






you need this :laugh:


----------



## DocQuattro (Apr 8, 2005)

Figured I should share for the group's edification: 

I have a blue early '12 RS with about 12000 miles in the shop now, APR flashed by 034. They're in touch with APR about it, I've sent some logs. The misfire is easily repeatable, a very rapid single pop happening in 3rd, 4th, or 5th (customer says 6th too, but I'm not going that fast in someone else's car), anywhere from 3000 to 3800 RPM on rapid throttle application to WOT. It feels almost like an overboost cutout, or spark blowout misfires like I've experienced in upgraded 1.8t's. 

It seemed most common in cylinder 3, which turned out to have the largest plug gap. I found the plugs between .022 & .028 stock, matching some of the posts I've read since about inconsistent gapping. I regapped them all to .022, and on my first road test afterward things didn't seem to have improved. Unfortunately I didn't have logging enabled on that drive, but it continued to count misfires in various cylinders. Boost control is solid in block 115 (maxing the MAP sensor at 2500mBar), and timing change is minimal but consistent across cylinders in 20 & 21, with no more than 4 degrees of pullback. Throttle control is apparently without fault as well. Interestingly, on my second drive post re-gap (about an hour later), I only experienced it once despite repeated attempts. Fortunately I caught it in a log. 

The main event is the big pop, but it counts undetectable misfires regularly, in all cylinders under various load conditions. The customer has the car back now and will report back if things are improved. 

BTW, the dealer will know if your car is flashed, there's a bulletin from March of this year to that effect. Big brother is watching.


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

thanks for a great post. i've got new ngk plugs to install to attempt to combat per others advisements. what would u think about these cooler plugs and gap that they should be set at?


----------



## keitth24 (Dec 5, 2007)

Are there any updates on this issue? I want to chip my TTRS but reading these misfire issues has stopped me =(


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

i haven't heard a single thing and my car is still misfiring. I am going to try to make it back to the tuner this week. Seems like were out on a limb.


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

rp5311 said:


> i haven't heard a single thing and my car is still misfiring. I am going to try to make it back to the tuner this week. Seems like were out on a limb.


Your not kidding! You would think they would really be looking into as people on here are debating the tune due to the misfire issue.


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

I've been recently emailing Arin about this issue and this morning I sent him some VAG-COM logs of the misfiring and hesitation that he requested. I'll let you know when I hear back from him.


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

That is the same reason I am heading back to the turner so they could gather some data and send it to APR so hopefully one of us will get the answer were all looking for. Please share what they find and I will certainly do the same.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

We've located a customer reporting the same behavior as others with our software, and other tuner's software, and it will be here this Friday for diagnosis. Our own personal vehicle has not experienced this problem, but it is stage 3 running far more boost with a freer flowing turbo and manifold. We'll look into the usual hardware suspects and if necessary make adjustments to the software as well. I'll keep everyone updated on what we find. :thumbup:


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> We've located a customer reporting the same behavior as others with our software, and other tuner's software, and it will be here this Friday for diagnosis. Our own personal vehicle has not experienced this problem, but it is stage 3 running far more boost with a freer flowing turbo and manifold. We'll look into the usual hardware suspects and if necessary make adjustments to the software as well. I'll keep everyone updated on what we find. :thumbup:


Great to hear Arin, like I said before if you need any more logs or any additional testing from me, let me know! :thumbup:

Dave


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Thank you Dave!


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

Great News, Thank you Arin!!!!!!


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

Yes, very good news!!!


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

Black BeauTTy said:


> Yes, excellent info indeed. I'm running the race tune this weekend for the first time. If there is going to be an issue, it'll be under these circumstances.


 I'm having these misfire issues too. Running stage 2 GIAC with awe SP exhaust. 
Having awe intercooler installed next week and some are saying this should help with the issues. 
It might help since you have this setup BbeauTTy and you don't seem to be having these issues. We'll see. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

Black BeauTTy said:


> I was convinced I'd have the issues surface on my track day but no dice. I was in race tune all day and it never missed a beat. If it is a timing related phenomena, the 93 tune may be more susceptible than the race tune.


 You're the only one out of everyone on this topic that has GIAC 2 plus both the exhaust AND intercooler from AWE. Just pointing that out not sure if is coincidental. I'll know next week 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

i doubt IC will fix it, i have no aftermarket IC and no misfires


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

J662 said:


> You're the only one out of everyone on this topic that has GIAC 2 plus both the exhaust AND intercooler from AWE. Just pointing that out not sure if is coincidental. I'll know next week
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 There are a couple confusing things going on for sure. Let me be completely clear with my setup and things uncovered during development. I had all the hardware in place before the tuning process with GIAC began. I am running OEM plugs BTW. The Stage 2 tune on my car right now, is the original Stage 2 tune that was released. It is NOT the slightly enhanced new Stage 2 tune that markedly increased upper end torque. I had misfires with that 93 tune under abrupt WOT runs that sound very similar to what has been described throughout this thread. I never tried the other modes (stock or race) so can't comment on them. It is an awesome tune if you drive normally or even aggressively on the street but I was getting ready for a track day and "normal" was going to be out the window! I had the original Stage 2 tune put back on the car prior to the track day, filled up with 100oct fuel, switched it to the Race tune and had a blast. It ran hard all day and never missed a beat. I have since been running the 93 tune without any misfire issues. 

From a DD perspective, I really liked the feel of the enhanced Stage 2 tune, so I am going to switch back to it and try the cooler plugs to see if that cures the issues.


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

What other mods are required to run the GIAC stage 2 tune? Is it for an enhanced FMIC like Forge's offering? 

I had the NGK 2487 plugs installed yesterday, gapping to 0.028". All OEM plugs came out at an equal 0.027" gap. 

May run at track Saturday, if not next weekned for sure both sat and sun. I will know by then if the plugs, for my GIAC stage 1 tune / 93 octane, make any improvement.


----------



## Josh/AWE (Feb 7, 2012)

That is correct, the IATs that we found on stock TT RS's are not suitable for an aggressive tune. For this instance, Stage 2 requires an FMIC. FWIW the AWE Tuning FMIC showed impressive gains even before any software was added to the car.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

Black BeauTTy said:


> The Stage 2 tune on my car right now, is the original Stage 2 tune that was released. It is NOT the slightly enhanced new Stage 2 tune that markedly increased upper end torque. I had misfires with that 93 tune under abrupt WOT runs that sound very similar to what has been described throughout this thread.


 So all this time you've been saying the GIAC tune was perfect wasn't exactly true since you did in fact have the same issue the folks with APR tunes have. So this really isn't a tune issue but some hardware limitation that APR, REVO and GIAC are all bumping into.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

tdi-bart said:


> i doubt IC will fix it, i have no aftermarket IC and no misfires





Black BeauTTy said:


> filled up with 100oct fuel, switched it to the Race tune and had a blast. It ran hard all day and never missed a beat.


 Black BeauTTy's running 100 octane and is fine. 

Bart, are you running a higher grade european fuel? 

In the UK there were many reports of misfires that were cured when switching to APR software. However, the UK does have higher octane fuel as another variable. 

In the fall / winter months we've just recently started to see this issue pop up, and many states, typically northern states and probably California, get winter fuel blends with more additives that sometimes result in worse performance.... 

Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

JohnLZ7W said:


> So all this time you've been saying the GIAC tune was perfect wasn't exactly true since you did in fact have the same issue the folks with APR tunes have. So this really isn't a tune issue but some hardware limitation that APR, REVO and GIAC are all bumping into.


 I believe the slightly enhanced Stage 2 tune that I referred to above is still a development project. Kind of an ongoing exploration of potential and I expect things to come up. That is the nature of development work. Until it is released, why comment on things that aren't fully baked? I offered up my observation here as another data point that might help get at the root cause. However, it is still true that the released Stage 2 that is on my car now has displayed none of these issues.


----------



## mad chemist (Aug 25, 2012)

*TTRS misfire/pop issue in the UK*

Hi Arin, 

Like you say this is quite common in the UK. My car is MRC S1 mapped and was fine from 3 month old with the MRC re-map. After 7 months I got the popping going wide open throttle in higher gears. Tuner suggested plugs. I switched to the racing NGK plugs (one step colder) and it was better, but then would start popping occasionally again. MRC said the TTRS is very sensitive to petrol quality and that he'd had a few strange dyno results with customer cars running the petrol I was using in the UK (Momentum 99). Since this time I have not changed any thing on the car and it has not popped/misfired again under any conditions. 

I can only conclude that the problem was called from lower quality batch of the fuel I was using at the time. 

Mad.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Mad Chemist, 

This is good information to have. Thank you for sharing your results. :thumbup: 

-Arin


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Black BeauTTy's running 100 octane and is fine.
> 
> Bart, are you running a higher grade european fuel?


 i have used canadian husky 94 with E10 without probs, one tank of 92 around seattle also no problems, in europe mostly i put in 98 [which is 93 in american ], again no problems, but when given the chance i go higher, 100 and sometimes 102 euro octane, everything is beautiful except the speed limiter for me :wave: 

i have stg1 93 octane prog, had the tune since august, who knows maybe it will come up for me down the road?


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

Will/AWE said:


> That is correct, the IATs that we found on stock TT RS's are not suitable for an aggressive tune. For this instance, Stage 2 requires an FMIC. FWIW the showed impressive gains even before any software was added to the car.


 Thanks!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

tdi-bart said:


> who knows maybe it will come up for me down the road?


 Perhaps not. Is your car a canadian spec vehicle? I'm gunna go pull some spark plug numbers.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Perhaps not. Is your car a canadian spec vehicle? I'm gunna go pull some spark plug numbers.


 ya canadian, alberta specifically where we have very cold winters, maybe i have some polar bear spark plugs


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

*fuel*

I have the newest GIAC stage 2.5 tune. My car is fitted with a forge ic and colder plugs. i am located in california and all we have is pisstane at the pump. however there is a station that is close to me that has both 95 and 100 at the pump. i usually run a blend to knock the octane up a few notches. i definitely have noticed weird behavior when using regular fuel on road trips along the hwy 1 up the coast through random little towns. i to agree that this car is very sensitive to octane and fuel quality. i had the problems that everyone is speaking of and could replicate them on demand until i decided to replace my coil packs and put the ngks in the car. for the past 4 month there hasnt been an issue other than a boost leak thing that was un related tot the tune. my car currently has 18k on the odom and has been running stage 2 for about 10k miles.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

trichards69 said:


> I have the newest GIAC stage 2.5 tune. My car is fitted with a forge ic and colder plugs. i am located in california and all we have is pisstane at the pump. however there is a station that is close to me that has both 95 and 100 at the pump. i usually run a blend to knock the octane up a few notches. i definitely have noticed weird behavior when using regular fuel on road trips along the hwy 1 up the coast through random little towns. i to agree that this car is very sensitive to octane and fuel quality. i had the problems that everyone is speaking of and could replicate them on demand until i decided to replace my coil packs and put the ngks in the car. for the past 4 month there hasnt been an issue other than a boost leak thing that was un related tot the tune. my car currently has 18k on the odom and has been running stage 2 for about 10k miles.


 Which coil packs and spark plugs did you get?


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Which coil packs and spark plugs did you get?


 i just got replacement coils from audi and the ngk plugs that have been mentioned previously


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

Interesting, in the Supra world we used to need to install an ignition amplifier once we got over a certain level of power/boost to keep from misfiring. Do they make sure a device for the TTRS or upgraded ignition coils?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Optimus812 said:


> Interesting, in the Supra world we used to need to install an ignition amplifier once we got over a certain level of power/boost to keep from misfiring. Do they make sure a device for the TTRS or upgraded ignition coils?


 Okada makes ignition coils that supposedly offer higher amplification. I've tried them on my GTI and noticed no difference. We also dyno tested them on another car and saw no difference. However, I have colleagues in Europe who swear by them. Interestingly enough, the people that swear by them are on high boosted engines. I'm pretty sure we have a set of 5 in the office we can try out on the car coming in for diagnosis.


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

LongviewTx said:


> I had the NGK 2487 plugs installed yesterday, gapping to 0.028". All OEM plugs came out at an equal 0.027" gap.
> 
> May run at track Saturday, if not next weekned for sure both sat and sun. I will know by then if the plugs, for my GIAC stage 1 tune / 93 octane, make any improvement.


 Ran at Motorsport Ranch - Cresson, Texas yesterday with Apex Driving Academy. Six 20 minute sessions spaced out through the day from 9 to 4:30. Had much better performance. The plugs did make a difference. I still have some weaker pull in 4th as it winds out. I have an APR downpipe in the living room and will get installed then flashed to APR 2+ sometime this "winter" in Texas. 

some power stall/pull backs in tight courners with large slip is clearly the non-overriding ESP system in the background (the ESP is turned off). This is an awarness issue for the driver to distinguish the difference.


----------



## jibbed (Dec 3, 2011)

Hey Guys, 

Do you have VCDS cables? 

If you can do a couple of pulls in 3rd (or 4th), logging Boost, Knock Retard, RPM, Throttle position on a flat surface, I can calculate power curves for you. 

You can then tell whether the cars are down on power. 

FWIW - My own pulls vs my dyno were within 3-5whp of the actual dyno figure. 

Cheers, 
matt 



LongviewTx said:


> Ran at Motorsport Ranch - Cresson, Texas yesterday with Apex Driving Academy. Six 20 minute sessions spaced out through the day from 9 to 4:30. Had much better performance. The plugs did make a difference. I still have some weaker pull in 4th as it winds out. I have an APR downpipe in the living room and will get installed then flashed to APR 2+ sometime this "winter" in Texas.
> 
> some power stall/pull backs in tight courners with large slip is clearly the non-overriding ESP system in the background (the ESP is turned off). This is an awarness issue for the driver to distinguish the difference.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

ok here's a story 

so if you read my previous posts, 3 months with apr stg1 93 tune and no misfires ever. this weekend i went on a long road trip and it happened... 

-previous 2-3 tanks of fuel were BP 98 (93 US) 
-i get into germany, tank is empty, fill up with Aral 98 (93 US). within minutes i get my first jerk and pop in the exhaust. definitely a misfire (suspicious coincidence?) 
-i got a total is 6 misfires while using up 3/4 of that tank 
-enough is enough now i have 1/4 tank and i fill up with Aral 102 (96-97 US). on this tank i got a total of 1 misfires, so we have some improvement cause 25% of the older fuel was in there still 
-subsequent fill ups were Aral 102, then towards the end of my trip back to BP 98 and I haven't had a misfire since 

so in my experience its just crappy fuel, either it's really bad, below what the station is advertising, or tunes are on the edge and need 93 or preferably better just to be safe if that's the program you have 

another observation is - make sure your esp is not kicking in, because the car cuts power and the exhaust starts popping/farting too, best to look for that orange flashing light right away, although the misfire is usually one louder pop 

just sayin :laugh: 

here's a list of fuel brands i never misfired with 
-BP 98 (93 US) 
 -Shell Vpower Racing 100 (95 US) 
-Husky Canada 94 (94 US) 
-Petro Canada 94 (94 US) 
-Aral 102 (96-97 US) 
-Exxon 92 (92 US) 

avoid: 
-Aral 98 (93 US)


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

tdi-bart said:


> ok here's a story
> 
> so if you read my previous posts, 3 months with apr stg1 93 tune and no misfires ever. this weekend i went on a long road trip and it happened...
> 
> ...


 I've heard this is def one of the issues. Does anyone know of an additive that can be used in the tank to improve the quality? Would octane booster do anything?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

you can try toluene from home depot  its like 114 octane or something, don't buy the stuff in fancy cans from gas stations that's nonsense


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

I just had a chance to try out a stage 2+ car reporting the occasional misfire. I'm not sure what brand of gasoline is in the car, but it's now nearly empty and is 93 (R+M)/2. I spent sometime doing long pulls in different gears and stabbing the throttle at different RPM as well as rowing through the gears and such and I could only get it to miss 3 times total after a lengthy driving period. If I recall correctly, this was in the taller gears at the 3500-4000 RPM range after a quick stab of the throttle. It was a short and quick single 'pop' and was difficult to repeat. 

Has anyone hammered down the conditions in which it seems to happen? Can you repeat it on command and if so, what are you doing? Due to different calibration strategies, this will most likely vary between tuner and stages. 

I've already spoken with engineering and they will run through a bunch of tests, and possibly even make some calibration changes to see if we can make it happen more regularly. If so, and if we find it's something related to plugs or some other hardware, we'll have a better test bed for trying hardware changes to sort it all out if we can actually make it happen on a regular basis as they were few and far between at the moment.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 4, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> I just had a chance to try out a stage 2+ car reporting the occasional misfire. I'm not sure what brand of gasoline is in the car, but it's now nearly empty and is 93 (R+M)/2. I spent sometime doing long pulls in different gears and stabbing the throttle at different RPM as well as rowing through the gears and such and I could only get it to miss 3 times total after a lengthy driving period. If I recall correctly, this was in the taller gears at the 3500-4000 RPM range after a quick stab of the throttle. It was a short and quick single 'pop' and was difficult to repeat.
> 
> Has anyone hammered down the conditions in which it seems to happen? Can you repeat it on command and if so, what are you doing? Due to different calibration strategies, this will most likely vary between tuner and stages.


 
With the one customer we had we ran into the same problem. 3 times we had the car and could never get it to do it. After the 2nd time I think is when we gapped plugs(found them oddly inconsistent like others have) 

Since we did that even so less often the customer hasn't been able to make it happen like he used to either.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> With the one customer we had we ran into the same problem. 3 times we had the car and could never get it to do it. After the 2nd time I think is when we gapped plugs(found them oddly inconsistent like others have)
> 
> Since we did that even so less often the customer hasn't been able to make it happen like he used to either.


 We'll be look into the plugs too. We haven't checked the factory gap yet.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 4, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> We'll be look into the plugs too. We haven't checked the factory gap yet.


 this one had like .022, .031, .028, .025, .023 or something like that 

during all the driving I did kinda same thing you did, random driving, in gear pulls, and full pull from launch till redline in 4th and got like 3 random misfires, but never the sound being described and nothing I could ever feel. 

After the plugs I got 1. Still kinda confused how erratic the plug issue is from factory on a car specifically designed for performance versus the standard model. 

Thats like building a big turbo 1.8t/2.0t etc and putting some plugs in you had laying around. As important as plugs are you think they would have paid more attention to them


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

The most common time it happens to me is within 10 minutes or so of starting it up. 

In 3rd, around 3K rpm, and then accelerating briskly but I'm not doing WOT. Right when you hear the turbo start to spool up I get a misfire and a jolt. The worst was yesterday, it was a double pop. After that I usually can't replicate it. Not sure why. 

Fuel is Chevron 91. California has switched to winter fuel. 

Still only one Stage 1.


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

I don't hear any popping sounds when my RS hesitates. I can feel it though...like a quick jolt or some such.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

The double on sunday was the only time I heard a pop. Otherwise it was always just a hesitation. I don't know if it was just because I didn't have music on that I heard it this time or this was the first time it actually made noise.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

I'm ready to try the GIAC enhanced stage 2 tune again. Hopefully, these bad boys do the trick, the other test mules have reported good results...


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

Black BeauTTy said:


> I'm ready to try the GIAC enhanced stage 2 tune again. Hopefully, these bad boys do the trick, the other test mules have reported good results...


 Interested to know if that helps. I just had my awe intercooler installed today. Still getting misfires in 3rd and 4th at WOT. Really sucks. 

I have the latest GIAC File as well...2.5. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Keep us all updated on the plugs. Thanks!


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

I just drove about 40 miles and had over a dozen misfires! Tank was getting low and almost any throttle input in 3rd and 4th caused it. Seems to happen right as the turbo started to spool. It also happened after I filled up in 6th gear. Always right when I start accelerating. It doesn't have to be WOT. This is getting really frustrating and I'm worried I might be doing damage to the engine.


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

Ok, if i understand things correctly( and i probably dont but dont get pissed)the misfires are almost backfires. Does that mean that the cars might be running rich.Would this come from the cars running too rich in the high end and the wastegate or the n75valve possibly not working properly?
I did some logs and noticed that the car runs very rich in the higher rpms and the n75 is cutting back before the actual boost meets the specified boost but inconsistently and misfires(but not loud backfires) in 3 cylinders that come and go. I am also having a problem with the power curve moving to higher RPM. What used to happen at 2000 rpm now happens at 3000-3200 rpm. While talking with my son we came up with a idea. If there is a problem with the N75 it does not alway register a fault. A faulty n75 will lead to wastgate issues and also combustion to some extent becasue the gasses are not being funneled the right way. If the wastegate is not opening or closing all the way the sensors will get the wrong data and the ecu will adjust according to what it thinks is happening but since the n75 may not be workig the ecy may be getting incorrect readings and making the wrong adjutments in air fuel ratio creating a rich misfire in the higher rpms at wot.
Then there is the matter of the knock sensor on the grassy knoll.
I am not real knowledgeable about the audi engines but I am trying to help so please keep that in ind before you set fire to me.


----------



## jpkeyzer (Aug 24, 2011)

Quisp said:


> Ok, if i understand things correctly( and i probably dont but dont get pissed)the misfires are almost backfires. Does that mean that the cars might be running rich.Would this come from the cars running too rich in the high end and the wastegate or the n75valve possibly not working properly?
> I did some logs and noticed that the car runs very rich in the higher rpms and the n75 is cutting back before the actual boost meets the specified boost but inconsistently and misfires(but not loud backfires) in 3 cylinders that come and go. I am also having a problem with the power curve moving to higher RPM. What used to happen at 2000 rpm now happens at 3000-3200 rpm. While talking with my son we came up with a idea. If there is a problem with the N75 it does not alway register a fault. A faulty n75 will lead to wastgate issues and also combustion to some extent becasue the gasses are not being funneled the right way. If the wastegate is not opening or closing all the way the sensors will get the wrong data and the ecu will adjust according to what it thinks is happening but since the n75 may not be workig the ecy may be getting incorrect readings and making the wrong adjutments in air fuel ratio creating a rich misfire in the higher rpms at wot.
> Then there is the matter of the knock sensor on the grassy knoll.
> I am not real knowledgeable about the audi engines but I am trying to help so please keep that in ind before you set fire to me.


 Quisp - what is an "N75"? 

I believe that all and any input at this point is welcome - this is an issue that I'd like to see resolved before any additional ECU modifications are made!


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

ECU controlled valve that in turn controls the waste gate on the turbo. Basically VAG's version of Electronic Boost Control. Some newer VAG engines have done away with the N75 valve and instead control the waste gate on the turbo directly. A Google search will turn up a ton of information on how the N75 valves work.


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

Just out of curiosity I went ahead and gapped my new Denso plugs I bought down to .018 spark plug gap and still get the misfire under full throttle at appx 4200 RPM. I'm really starting to believe this issue isn't from the plugs but from something else... I agree with the post above. I have also noticed it does run pretty rich up top (10.4 afr)... that probably adds to some of the hesitation from 6k to 7k that I feel. 

Arin, any new updates with the testing?


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

someone call up Joachim Boehme or Michael Ganz i'm sure they can tell us a fix asap 

http://www.jlosee.com/images/TTRS/PDF/l5ttrs.pdf


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Optimus812 said:


> Arin, any new updates with the testing?


I don't have anything to report yet. We'll be on it more next week.


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

what would cause it to run rich, the programming or a misread sensor or both? Is the ecu compensating for something or is it the software programmed to keep it rich for the safety of the engine at the higher boost?would additional intake air help? I know a lot of people have exhausts but now many have intakes to provide additional air coming in?


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

Lots of turbocharged cars run rich at wot to protect the engine


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

It's mapped to run a lower air fuel ratio to decrease EGT levels.


----------



## abacorrado (Apr 5, 2005)

Any possibility its weak valvesprings like on the 2012 jettas?


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

OK, i wasnt sure if that was why. I am trying to figure out the misfires in 3 cylinders along with the power curve shifting 1100 rpm higher. (Like serious lag). 
Would carbon deposits contribute to misfiring?


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

tdi-bart said:


> someone call up Joachim Boehme or Michael Ganz i'm sure they can tell us a fix asap
> 
> http://www.jlosee.com/images/TTRS/PDF/l5ttrs.pdf


No doubt!


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

Quisp said:


> OK, i wasnt sure if that was why. I am trying to figure out the misfires in 3 cylinders along with the power curve shifting 1100 rpm higher. (Like serious lag).
> Would carbon deposits contribute to misfiring?


Doubt it. Those should burn off quickly. This happens to some of us who haw low mileage as well. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

Quisp said:


> OK, i wasnt sure if that was why. I am trying to figure out the misfires in 3 cylinders along with the power curve shifting 1100 rpm higher. (Like serious lag).
> Would carbon deposits contribute to misfiring?


How many miles? I wouldn't expect that we'd see any effect from carbon build-up like the V8s have for at least 20k miles. And then I don't think the 2.0TFSI engines have the same issues and the TTRS head is basically a 2.0TFSI head with an extra cylinder.


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

JohnLZ7W said:


> How many miles? I wouldn't expect that we'd see any effect from carbon build-up like the V8s have for at least 20k miles. And then I don't think the 2.0TFSI engines have the same issues and the TTRS head is basically a 2.0TFSI head with an extra cylinder.


Reading the technical documents on the TT-RS 2.5L, it looks like Audi addressed crank case ventilation even more so than the 2.0 TSI engines, though carbon build up also comes from oil seepage past the valve guides. With such low mileage cars running into this issue, carbon build up does seem unlikely, but should be ruled out. That is easy enough for anyone with a bore scope to do. Also, in theory, running the engine over a certain rpm level for a long enough period will help clean any deposits which have built up. This is covered in an Audi patent on Direct Injection (referenced in a post on Vortex, but I haven't read the patent myself to confirm).


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

Ran with the NGK plugs again this weekend with no issues. Other variables, cool temps ( mid 60 F) and driving with smoother throttle application.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

Excellent news. Mine are going in Wed along with the enhanced stage 2 tune. Fingers crossed.


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

On a more positive note, I drained my tank completely (drove even past display reading "zero miles till empty") and went to Chevron. Filled up with 91. I added both STP octane booster and STP engine cleaner (suppose to remove water etc.) and so far I can report that the car does in fact run smoother and there are no misfires under WOT, high rpm third and 4th gear shifts. 

I was getting misfires before even with a full tank of Chevron 91 but with NO additives. BOTH additives seem to have a favorable effect on the car. I have yet to replace my plugs, however they are on order. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

sounds like fuel quality to me, that is what i keep saying anyway if you read my previous story, next try some 93 without additives, are there any around? is your tune 91?


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

tdi-bart said:


> sounds like fuel quality to me, that is what i keep saying anyway if you read my previous story, next try some 93 without additives, are there any around? is your tune 91?


Yeah I saw that post. All the stuff around here is 91 except for one gas station that has 95 and 100. I tried 100 but only simultaneously with the race file. I know it's a higher octane but not sure of the quality. Im starting to think *part* of it has to do with the quality and not only the octane rating. The 100 oct is from VP. I would get misfires using 100 in conjunction with the race file. Haven't used 100 on regular pump mode however. I have GIAC stage 2.5 tune 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

next tank put in 95 or 100 and stay on regular mode, that is what i would do

is there no exxon 92 around you? i used that once and i have a 93 tune and also didnt get any misfires, so i was using a lower octane even!


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

tdi-bart said:


> next tank put in 95 or 100 and stay on regular mode, that is what i would do
> 
> is there no exxon 92 around you? i used that once and i have a 93 tune and also didnt get any misfires, so i was using a lower octane even!


I'll try that for the next tank. Pretty pathetic but there is nothing higher than 91. Total joke. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tilmonr (Jun 28, 2012)

Question, aren't these maps set at a certain grade of octane from the tuners depending on the person's area???


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

tilmonr said:


> Question, aren't these maps set at a certain grade of octane from the tuners depending on the person's area???


Octane yes, area I don't think so. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tilmonr (Jun 28, 2012)

What i mean like , most of cali is 91 and a lot of places down south (Arkansas...) are 93.


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

tilmonr said:


> What i mean like , most of cali is 91 and a lot of places down south (Arkansas...) are 93.


I'm pretty sure the file is designed for around 91-93 oct. the race file for GIAC is designed for around 100+ oct


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

Ok, here's the scoop. I had the enhanced GIAC stage 2 reinstalled yesterday. I DID NOT install the cooler plugs yet. I wanted to control variables and change things one at a time. 

To recap: I had misfires with this development tune a couple months ago. I provided that feedback to GIAC and they suggested the cooler plugs. I had a track day coming up though, so opted to switch back to the original stage 2 tune before experimenting any further with this tune.

On a side note, I met up with JPKeyzer yesterday before the install. He got to sample the car with the standard GIAC stage 2 tune and the car was still running on the generic fuel. I'll let him convey his thoughts.

This thread has been helpful in that it has illuminated the possibility that the fuel quality is playing a role in this issue. Perhaps major or perhaps minor, that is still unknown. Anyway, I had the tune put on yesterday and the only thing I changed since the original install was the fuel. I usually fill up with a 93 oct generic gas from our corner convenience store (Landhope Farms for you PA folks). I ran the tank nearly dry before the install and filled up with Shell 93. 

I drove the snot out of the car today and couldn't produce a single misfire. I tried everything and every scenario that has been discussed here. Nothing. Pulled straight to redline in 3rd and 4th gears without hesitation. I'm actually quite shocked by this. I could reproduce the misfires at will before and this time I can't get any. It is possible that these tuned engines are operating at a level that makes them very sensitive to fuel quality. The OEM tune, and apparently original GIAC tune, may have enough "room" to manage fuel differences but more aggressively tuned engines lose some of that "room". After all, it's not like they aren't running well, they are just having intermittent misfire issues under certain circumstances. It is also possible that the cooler plugs will further expand the operating margin for fuel differences and allow smooth operation with aggressive tunes irrespective of fuel quality. I already spent the money, so I am going to install them but it appears, unbelievably to me, that a simple change to a brand named quality fuel did the trick for me. Go figure!


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

Black BeauTTy said:


> Ok, here's the scoop. I had the enhanced GIAC stage 2 reinstalled yesterday. I DID NOT install the cooler plugs yet. I wanted to control variables and change things one at a time.
> 
> To recap: I had misfires with this development tune a couple months ago. I provided that feedback to GIAC and they suggested the cooler plugs. I had a track day coming up though, so opted to switch back to the original stage 2 tune before experimenting any further with this tune.
> 
> ...


Just a quick thought. Could you try using the Landhope Farms fuel again after you run this tank of Shell dry and before installing the plugs to see if you can recreate the misfires using the "lower quality" fuel just to see if the misfires come back as soon as you use the other fuel again. Might be helpful to see if they return as soon as you add that variable back to the equation. Just a thought. Either way thanks for the info.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

lpriley32 said:


> Just a quick thought. Could you try using the Landhope Farms fuel again after you run this tank of Shell dry and before installing the plugs to see if you can recreate the misfires using the "lower quality" fuel just to see if the misfires come back as soon as you use the other fuel again. Might be helpful to see if they return as soon as you add that variable back to the equation. Just a thought. Either way thanks for the info.


I'm feeling like a lab rat, but I can do that! :laugh:


----------



## jpkeyzer (Aug 24, 2011)

Black BeauTTy said:


> On a side note, I met up with JPKeyzer yesterday before the install. He got to sample the car with the standard GIAC stage 2 tune and the car was still running on the generic fuel. I'll let him convey his thoughts.


Black BeauTTy was kind enough to meet me yesterday and allow me to experience his AWE Tuning/GIAC beast! I have an Audi TT-RS Stasis stage 1 tune and am very happy with its performance. Having said that, there is a very noticeable difference between the two vehicles. 

The AWE SwitchPath exhaust is absolutely incredible and gives this vehicle the exact audible note it deserves. It is subtle but noticeable when not engaged (more noticeable than my TT-RS sports exhaust). Once engaged is comes alive and sounds like a high performance vehicle should. It burps and pops just as I had hoped it would. It truly is an outstanding exhaust that should be heard in person. Congratulations to AWE for getting it right!

Having driven this vehicle, I can report that the GIAC stage 2 tune with the AWE Intercooler makes a significant performance improvement! This performance differential caught me by surprise. It is awesome! It is a beast!

Thank you again Black BeauTTy!


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

jpkeyzer said:


> Black BeauTTy was kind enough to meet me yesterday and allow me to experience his AWE Tuning/GIAC beast! I have an Audi TT-RS Stasis stage 1 tune and am very happy with its performance. Having said that, there is a very noticeable difference between the two vehicles.
> 
> The AWE SwitchPath exhaust is absolutely incredible and gives this vehicle the exact audible note it deserves. It is subtle but noticeable when not engaged (more noticeable than my TT-RS sports exhaust). Once engaged is comes alive and sounds like a high performance vehicle should. It burps and pops just as I had hoped it would. It truly is an outstanding exhaust that should be heard in person. Congratulations to AWE for getting it right!
> 
> ...


stasis tune is just a revo tune.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

I've run nothing but Tier 1 fuel (Chevron and Shell) and still get the hesitations. I've gone through about 6 tanks of gas from various gas stations around town.

The installer is going to log my car hopefully this weekend. I'm still on APR stage 1 (91 octane) with stage 2 downpipe sitting at their shop.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

Black BeauTTy said:


> I drove the snot out of the car today and couldn't produce a single misfire. I tried everything and every scenario that has been discussed here. Nothing. Pulled straight to redline in 3rd and 4th gears without hesitation. I'm actually quite shocked by this. I could reproduce the misfires at will before and this time I can't get any. It is possible that these tuned engines are operating at a level that makes them very sensitive to fuel quality.


like i said :laugh:

need good fuel :thumbup:

we should maintain a list of fuels i started, good/bad ones


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

LynxFX said:


> I've run nothing but Tier 1 fuel (Chevron and Shell) and still get the hesitations. I've gone through about 6 tanks of gas from various gas stations around town.
> 
> The installer is going to log my car hopefully this weekend. I'm still on APR stage 1 (91 octane) with stage 2 downpipe sitting at their shop.


I'm running 93 FWIW. Have you tried that?


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

Black BeauTTy said:


> I'm running 93 FWIW. Have you tried that?


We don't have 93, 91 is premium here. My tune is also for 91 so it shouldn't make a difference.


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

The carbon deposits can happen much sooner than 20k miles. If i am not mistaken this car is direct injection which is prone to carbon deposits because there is no gas washing to reduce the carbon. My last two cars were both direct injection and had carbon issues at around 10 k miles. Much of it also has to do with the type of driving. A lot of short trips in city typoe stop and go will increase the carbon deposits. Tsaking the car on the highway and holding it in 4th and high rpms for abojut 10 -15 minutes will supposedly help. I have not tried it yet.
do a search on direct injection and carbon buildup and you will see it is a common problem for all the manufacturers and many theroetical solution(oil catch cans, pcv valves, seafoam...)
not sure about that and the misfires but somthing to keep in mind if you notice the symptoms of buildup.

on a different note



Poverty said:


> stasis tune is just a revo tune.


and? Not sure how this effects the misfires or anything.

I have been running 91 because that is the highest you can get here also. I have run some 100 octane through it with mixed results. Car definitely liked the 100 octane mixed in but it also hesitated more dramatically (when it did hesitate).
91 is the highest you can get in many states so I do not see why Audi would sell a car that would need 93 to function properly. I cant speak for the tunes but it seems that each one offers a 91 map and a 93 map so it surprises me that the octane would be the reason. Not saying it is not the reason, only that I didnt think it would be the culprit because of the specific mapping for the different octanes.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

What does octane level have to do with misfires? Lower octane fuel is more easily combustable than higher octane..


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

caj1 said:


> What does octane level have to do with misfires? Lower octane fuel is more easily combustable than higher octane..


No idea. I'm just an owner like everyone else and sharing observations.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating#Effects_of_octane_rating

Higher octane ratings correlate to higher activation energies: This being the amount of applied energy required to initiate combustion. Since higher octane fuels have higher activation energy requirements, it is less likely that a given compression will cause uncontrolled ignition, otherwise known as autoignition or detonation.


----------



## bsmack (Oct 16, 2008)

Speaking only for myself, I put only 93 octane in my car. I know the quality of fuel greatly differs from station to station (especially with the added ethanol during New England winters), but honestly, it's not something I want to worry about. I would much rather have my stage 1 tune be tuned down a notch if it means I won't get these hesitations.

That being said, I'm very happy that APR has acknowledged that this is a problem for their customers and is taking action. Hopefully we all get a solution soon!


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

Well Gentlemen, I ran my tank dry which was filled with Sunoco 93 and had major Misfires so I ran that dry and now am on my 3rd take of Shell 93 and just tried to duplicate the misfire and can't. I do know that a lot of Gas stations blend their fuel at the Pump to produce 93 and I am pretty sure Sunoco is one of them. I have a nice long trip today and will see what happens. More to follow!


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

Black BeauTTy said:


> Ok, here's the scoop. I had the enhanced GIAC stage 2 reinstalled yesterday. I DID NOT install the cooler plugs yet. I wanted to control variables and change things one at a time.
> 
> To recap: I had misfires with this development tune a couple months ago. I provided that feedback to GIAC and they suggested the cooler plugs. I had a track day coming up though, so opted to switch back to the original stage 2 tune before experimenting any further with this tune.
> 
> ...



I think this is exactly what is going on. Also, I filled up again on Chevron 91 and used the STP octane booster AND the STP additive that cleans the fuel and absorbs the water. This is consistently working for me. I've been testing all the way from my stage 1 file and I am certain it's the fuel/octane and cleaner additive that is making most of the diff. Like I said having the stage 2 file or 2.5 file (which is what I have now) makes no diff in terms of misfires. 

Car is running great and I have plugs on order and will install as this will just help that much more I believe and as BlackBeautty has indicated. We have the exact setup so it's good to see our cars are acting the same. 



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

i think the next step would be for someone who can easily replicate misfires between stations should take a sample from each station and get it analyzed at a lab, then we should know exactly whats going on, compare all the values between the 2 brands


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

I still have the missfires with lower rpm and higher gear. Even just down shifting to 3rd at 3k rpm and hitting WOT I have a miss fire. If I run it from a dig, NO miss fires at all. I tried different gas which slightly helped the issue. I still think it is the tune, to much torque or something at a higher gear.


----------



## Fissues (Nov 6, 2008)

2012 TTRS Owners Manual Pg. 178
Fuel recommendation
The fuel recommended for your vehicle is unleaded
premium grade gasoline. See also
¢ page 242, Data. Audi recommends using
TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline with a minimum
octane rating of 91 AKI (9S RON). For more
information on TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline,
please go to the official website (www.toptiergas.
com).
The recommended gasoline octane rating for
your engine can also be found on a labellocated
on the inside of the fuel filler flap. This rating
may be specified as AKI or RON.
Your vehicle may also be operated using unleaded
regular gasoline with a minimum octane
rating of 87 AKI/91 RON. However, using
87 AKI/91 RON octane fuel will slightly reduce
engine performance.

Octane rating indicates a gasoline's ability to
resist engine damaging "knock" caused by
premature ignition and detonation. Therefore,
buying the correct grade of gasoline is very
important to help prevent possible engine
damage and a loss of engine performance.

:banghead::banghead:


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

Interesting. Shell is listed but NOT Sunoco and certainly not my generic fuel. The switch to Shell seemed to help at least 2 of us. Hmmm, the plot thickens...


----------



## Fissues (Nov 6, 2008)

Mobil was recently added to Topteir but when I use it it is noticeably inferior. The owners manual for my TTS says a minimum of 93 and there's no way I would use anything less and I only use Shell.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

I call shotgun if you end up getting the "you know what"!


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

While I am glad that it looks like the octane is helping some of the cars, it kind of sucks for those of us i n states that only go up to 91 octane. Yes there are additives but not sure how Audi feels about them when it comes time for service and there is a problem. Dont want to have something denied because a fuel additive was blamed.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

Sorry but it is pure bull**** to put the blame on octane level or fuel quality. I've only ever used tier one fuel and have a tune mapped to my highest available octane level and still have gotten the hesitation with every tank. It isn't like we can get different fuel. They are tier 1 for a reason. There is something wrong with the tunes and I really hope APR figures out what it is. The fuel variances may exaggerate the cause, but that shouldn't be the source. 

Speaking of which, any news with the test car Arin?


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

LynxFX said:


> Sorry but it is pure bull**** to put the blame on octane level or fuel quality. I've only ever used tier one fuel and have a tune mapped to my highest available octane level and still have gotten the hesitation with every tank. It isn't like we can get different fuel. They are tier 1 for a reason. There is something wrong with the tunes and I really hope APR figures out what it is. The fuel variances may exaggerate the cause, but that shouldn't be the source.
> 
> Speaking of which, any news with the test car Arin?


Maybe it depends which tune one has.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

LynxFX said:


> Sorry but it is pure bull**** to put the blame on octane level or fuel quality. I've only ever used tier one fuel and have a tune mapped to my highest available octane level and still have gotten the hesitation with every tank. It isn't like we can get different fuel. They are tier 1 for a reason. There is something wrong with the tunes and I really hope APR figures out what it is. The fuel variances may exaggerate the cause, but that shouldn't be the source.
> 
> Speaking of which, any news with the test car Arin?


As I said in my OP...it may play a role, major or minor is unknown. It may be a number of small things that are conspiring together to cause the issues. Maybe a little fuel quality (NOT octane level), maybe a little coil pack, maybe a little fuel delivery...who knows. I'll post the data logs I ran from the original install with the misfires AND data logs from today with the same tune but running Shell 93. Judge for yourself. You can call BS but I haven't done anything but put different gas in the car. I'm as surprised as you.


----------



## mad chemist (Aug 25, 2012)

I believe the TTRS engine is far less likely to build up significant levels of carbon on the intake valve stems as it's running pretty high boost and has a very effective oil separator. The RS4 engine is far more likely to suffer this problem due to it being normally aspirated DI engine. Most RS4's dyno ~375 crank HP after 20 K miles due to this problem. 

I got the hesitation/pops after only 3K miles on my RS so unlikely related to deposits. Higher boost definitely plays a part, but high fuel quality is essential IMHO.

Mad.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

Black BeauTTy said:


> As I said in my OP...it may play a role, major or minor is unknown. It may be a number of small things that are conspiring together to cause the issues. Maybe a little fuel quality (NOT octane level), maybe a little coil pack, maybe a little fuel delivery...who knows. I'll post the data logs I ran from the original install with the misfires AND data logs from today with the same tune but running Shell 93. Judge for yourself. You can call BS but I haven't done anything but put different gas in the car. I'm as surprised as you.


I'd bet my house that it has nothing to do with fuel quality. As someone already mentioned, top tier fuel all comes from the same regional distribution tanks.

Plugs, coils, fuel pump, injectors are far more likely culprits.. No, it's not an easy fix. Nothing worthwhile is.. Best bet is to wait for APR to come back with a fix.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

caj1 said:


> I'd bet my house that it has nothing to do with fuel quality. As someone already mentioned, top tier fuel all comes from the same regional distribution tanks.
> 
> Plugs, coils, fuel pump, injectors are far more likely culprits.. No, it's not an easy fix. Nothing worthwhile is.. Best bet is to wait for APR to come back with a fix.


3 bedroom with a nice yard????:laugh:


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

I'd strongly suggest you do some research on gas wholesalers as well as individual retailers. Also some stations get the Premium from a mixture that is done right before it hits the pumps. I can also tell you what is in the bottom of all storage tanks and what happens when they get a fresh load of Fuel. I know first hand being I am in the Transportation Industry and deal with Trucks and Diesel fuel quality and have storage tanks on site. You'd be amazed!!!! At this time I'd have to agree with Black Beauty being I am experiencing the exact same thing with Shell 93, there is a difference and I can't duplicate the misfire since I made the switch. Very Strange indeed!!


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

caj1 said:


> I'd bet my house that it has nothing to do with fuel quality. As someone already mentioned, top tier fuel all comes from the same regional distribution tanks.
> 
> Plugs, coils, fuel pump, injectors are far more likely culprits.. No, it's not an easy fix. Nothing worthwhile is.. Best bet is to wait for APR to come back with a fix.


Couldn't agree more, I've run straight 100 and still have misfires. My bet is with the ignition system or the tune.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

rp5311 said:


> I'd strongly suggest you do some research on gas wholesalers as well as individual retailers. Also some stations get the Premium from a mixture that is done right before it hits the pumps. I can also tell you what is in the bottom of all storage tanks and what happens when they get a fresh load of Fuel. I know first hand being I am in the Transportation Industry and deal with Trucks and Diesel fuel quality and have storage tanks on site. You'd be amazed!!!! At this time I'd have to agree with Black Beauty being I am experiencing the exact same thing with Shell 93, there is a difference and I can't duplicate the misfire since I made the switch. Very Strange indeed!!


Tell us more! I've never heard of a modern fuel container which pumps fuel from the top of the tank, which is the only case where you'd be worried about what has gathered at the bottom. 

btw, poor fuel quality would affect the engine regardless of whether or not it was tuned. 

Whoever came up with "V-Power" is a marketing genius.


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

rp5311 said:


> I'd strongly suggest you do some research on gas wholesalers as well as individual retailers. Also some stations get the Premium from a mixture that is done right before it hits the pumps. I can also tell you what is in the bottom of all storage tanks and what happens when they get a fresh load of Fuel. I know first hand being I am in the Transportation Industry and deal with Trucks and Diesel fuel quality and have storage tanks on site. You'd be amazed!!!! At this time I'd have to agree with Black Beauty being I am experiencing the exact same thing with Shell 93, there is a difference and I can't duplicate the misfire since I made the switch. Very Strange indeed!!


I read that mid grade gas is normally a mix of low and high octane gas, which makes sense intuitively. That way the stations and distributors would only have to handle and store two grades.

What would a station mix to pump their highest octane/grade? Wouldn't they need gas close to 100 octane if they were going to mix with 87 octane to make 91-93?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## DrDomm (Feb 16, 2003)

Please let me know when this is sorted out...

As an aside, I had terrible "misfire" problems on my '03 GTI when I had the APR flash. Nothing seemed to fix it...gas, DV, N75...just got used to it.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

I've been running on a fresh tank of Chevron 91 and for the past 6 days I haven't had a single hesitation, and I've been trying really hard to get it to happen. For the last 4-5 fillups it would happen at least once per day. I've used Chevron from this same station before and had it happen. 

Not sure what is going on, coincidence? Only difference between other weeks is that it has been 10-15 degrees colder outside. 

I was told by my installer that APR has an update to the software for Stage 1 that they want to install. Installer also mentioned that Chevron (with Techron) isn't good for turbo charged cars. Any truth to that?


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

Here is a diagram of the injection for our cars. See how the gas spray is past the valves. That is the reason direct injection is prone o carbon buildup and why the detergents dont work as well on this type of injection.









There is a lot of technical info about the engine here:
http://www.jlosee.com/images/TTRS/PDF/l5ttrs.pdf

Take a look, maybe someone will be able to make more sens out of it than i can.


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

LynxFX said:


> I've been running on a fresh tank of Chevron 91 and for the past 6 days I haven't had a single hesitation, and I've been trying really hard to get it to happen. For the last 4-5 fillups it would happen at least once per day. I've used Chevron from this same station before and had it happen.
> 
> Not sure what is going on, coincidence? Only difference between other weeks is that it has been 10-15 degrees colder outside.
> 
> I was told by my installer that APR has an update to the software for Stage 1 that they want to install. Installer also mentioned that Chevron (with Techron) isn't good for turbo charged cars. Any truth to that?


I'm starting to think the 10-15 degree cooler temp plays a factor along with fuel quality. I've narrowed it to those two factors, at least for me having a giac tune. I think the tuner, depending on which one a person has, is a factor as well.


----------



## caj1 (Feb 16, 1999)

J662 said:


> I'm starting to think the 10-15 degree cooler temp plays a factor along with fuel quality. I've narrowed it to those two factors, at least for me having a giac tune. I think the tuner, depending on which one a person has, is a factor as well.


Anyone with an upgraded intercooler experiencing the same issues?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

LynxFX said:


> Speaking of which, any news with the test car Arin?


We could rarely make it misfire while data logging. It's probably somewhat back pressure related because we can barely run 1.8 bar of boost without some people seeing an occasional misfire. However on stage 3, which has a much freer flowing turbo and manifold, we're running over 2.1 bar without a hiccup. So we've added a 'lower output' file to the server. If you're fine now, keep what you have. If you're experiencing an occasional hiccup and can't live with it, try the other file. :thumbup:


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> We could rarely make it misfire while data logging. It's probably somewhat back pressure related because we can barely run 1.8 bar of boost without some people seeing an occasional misfire. However on stage 3, which has a much freer flowing turbo and manifold, we're running over 2.1 bar without a hiccup. So we've added a 'lower output' file to the server. If you're fine now, keep what you have. If you're experiencing an occasional hiccup and can't live with it, try the other file. :thumbup:


 Good info. I haven't had a problem all week. Before it was becoming a daily occurrence. I need to fill up today so will try it out over the weekend on a fresh tank. If nothing happens I'll just go and get the downpipe and stage II installed instead of reflashing stage I.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

so lower output means what power figures?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

tdi-bart said:


> so lower output means what power figures?


I honestly have no clue. Probably similar if not the same peak power and just lest torque in the 3-4000 rpm range where people complained. 

If this was an issue that truly hit every car and was software related we'd just update the file and be done with it, but since it's not on ever car, nor can we seem to recreate it all the time, I'm leaving the old file and offering this "lower output" file if anyone wants it.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

great, now when is the no_speed_limiter file coming


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

Thanks Arin, do you have to remove the ECU for this update?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

tdi-bart said:


> great, now when is the no_speed_limiter file coming


I couldn't get it to happen.  _I'm not saying I don't believe you._



rp5311 said:


> Thanks Arin, do you have to remove the ECU for this update?


Should be a port flash.


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

tdi-bart said:


> great, now when is the no_speed_limiter file coming




There is no speed limiter?


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

the speed limiter comes back on after 2-3k @ 155mph, for some people, including myself

read a few posts here http://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=259521&p=2212699#p2212699


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> I honestly have no clue. Probably similar if not the same peak power and just lest torque in the 3-4000 rpm range where people complained.
> 
> If this was an issue that truly hit every car and was software related we'd just update the file and be done with it, but since it's not on ever car, nor can we seem to recreate it all the time, I'm leaving the old file and offering this "lower output" file if anyone wants it.


That seems like the wrong approach. The fact that it's hitting so many cars (even if not all) says you have a margin issue over car tolerances, so your previous file was too aggressive.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Marty said:


> That seems like the wrong approach. The fact that it's hitting so many cars (even if not all) says you have a margin issue over car tolerances, so your previous file was too aggressive.


Now we have a file for those who experience the situation described by others and one for those who don't. What approach do you feel we should we take?


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

the approach i think is alright, think of it as a 93 and a 93+ program if your fuel permits it

but someone should try the new file see if it fixes the problem before jumping to conclusions, the other tuners i dont think got as many torqs as apr and they misfired too?


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

Marty said:


> That seems like the wrong approach. The fact that it's hitting so many cars (even if not all) says you have a margin issue over car tolerances, so your previous file was too aggressive.


:banghead:


Myself, and all the other people who don't have the issue, disagree with you.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> Now we have a file for those who experience the situation described by others and one for those who don't. What approach do you feel we should we take?


If Audi was tasked with re-tuning of the car to these power levels, what would they do?

I'd suspect there is some way to use the various engine sensors to appropriately dial back output when necessary to keep misfires from happening, without sacrificing that power when the conditions are good. 

Are the misfires actually misfires (with the mixture not igniting), or is it ignition timing pull-back due to detected knock?

I assumed it was the latter, making these "misfires" a bit dangerous for the engine. Is that not the case?


----------



## Koa1 (Feb 21, 2012)

1st tuner to ADEQUATELY explain what was wrong and how they fixed it gets my money.


----------



## 311-in-337 (Feb 19, 2003)

Koa1 said:


> 1st tuner to ADEQUATELY explain what was wrong and how they fixed it gets my money.



Same here.


Money in hand...waiting. :banghead:


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Now we have a file for those who experience the situation described by others and one for those who don't. What approach do you feel we should we take?


Arin, I appreciate APR delivering what is at least an interim solution for those that experience the misfire events. I would like to have the option of the more aggressive file, if my TT-RS doesn't misfire (going stage 2 in February). I do however agree that it sounds like we still don't have a confirmed root cause, which is going to be needed to help those that do experience the misfires ultimately address it. I doubt everyone will be able to jump to Stage 3 if their stage 2 tune doesn't run 100% correctly. 

Any ideas if the back pressure issue is along the lines of the weak valve springs in some 2.0 TSI engines? Can you share whether the log data shows any issues at the time of the misfire other than the misfire itself and if so, some details of what APR found? 

Hope everyone has a safe and happy Holiday season!


----------



## 4RingFanatic (Jun 26, 2012)

311-in-337 said:


> Same here.
> 
> 
> Money in hand...waiting. :banghead:


Me three. I planned on getting a tune but I'm not going to if there are cars experiencing misfires.


----------



## bsmack (Oct 16, 2008)

Don't want to speak too soon about anything, but by February I think we'll all have a proper solution 

Stay tuned!


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

bsmack said:


> Don't want to speak too soon about anything, but by February I think we'll all have a proper solution
> 
> Stay tuned!


What a tease! Come on, not even a hint?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Marty said:


> If Audi was tasked with re-tuning of the car to these power levels, what would they do?


They would probably install a larger turbo. 



> I'd suspect there is some way to use the various engine sensors to appropriately dial back output when necessary to keep misfires from happening, without sacrificing that power when the conditions are good.


One could just lower output in the range where it misfires, which is what we did. 



> Are the misfires actually misfires (with the mixture not igniting), or is it ignition timing pull-back due to detected knock?


It's not knock. It's a misfire. 



hightechrdn said:


> I doubt everyone will be able to jump to Stage 3 if their stage 2 tune doesn't run 100% correctly.


Stage 3 doesn't have back pressure issues due to our exhaust manifold, turbo selection and exhaust setup. 

So, it should be quite the opposite. The components that needed addressed were addressed. 



> Any ideas if the back pressure issue is along the lines of the weak valve springs in some 2.0 TSI engines?


No, probably not because it doesn't happen at higher RPMs. 



> Can you share whether the log data shows any issues at the time of the misfire other than the misfire itself and if so, some details of what APR found?


We could not get it to misfire much while data logging. However I do have a log when it happened and all of the data looks perfect.


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

Arin, I meant that customers won't have the $$$ to jump to Stage 3 or just may not want that level of power, non OEM components, etc. APR's Stage 3 kit will no doubt be a complete solution and provide much less back pressure vs stock, even at lower power and RPM levels. The divorced wastegate setup is the way to go for high power turbo engines. 

Assuming that the valves are shutting, since as you said the misfires occur at lower RPM's, what would be the actual conditions in the combustion chamber when a misfire occurs? Are we talking about insufficient fresh charge air so that there isn't enough oxygen for the fuel to burn? 

Has APR measured the intake vs exhaust pressure ratios on a stock TT-RS to determine whether there the exhaust/turbo restrictions are excessive at Stage 2 power/boost levels? 

Speaking of, any updates on the Stage 3 kit?


----------



## bsmack (Oct 16, 2008)

hightechrdn said:


> What a tease! Come on, not even a hint?


I am working with a very reputable tuner in my area early January who is creating both a stage 1 and stage 2 tune. That's all I want to say for now, I am very active on this forum and will let everyone know the results.

That being said, I'm glad that APR came up with this temporary solution. There is no way they can control the fuel quality in different areas, and from reading this thread it's pretty clear that those of us in the Northeastern region of the US get the shaft.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

bsmack said:


> I am working with a very reputable tuner in my area early January who is creating both a stage 1 and stage 2 tune. That's all I want to say for now, I am very active on this forum and will let everyone know the results.
> 
> That being said, I'm glad that APR came up with this temporary solution. There is no way they can control the fuel quality in different areas, and from reading this thread it's pretty clear that those of us in the Northeastern region of the US get the shaft.


Sounds like misfires are a mystery, but if it's not knock, I don't understand why varying fuel quality would be a driver. The fuel is not igniting. Isn't that the opposite of knock with low-octane fuels where they ignite too easily? 

Perhaps someone should log ignition currents to see if the spark is occurring during the misfire event and it's not igniting, or what.


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

I also wonder if the amount of air coming into the engine is enough especially when the air fuel mix gets richer to protect the engine. It the air fuel gets richer and there is already barley enough intake air for the engine then when it is rich that could create a situation.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Quisp said:


> I also wonder if the amount of air coming into the engine is enough especially when the air fuel mix gets richer to protect the engine. It the air fuel gets richer and there is already barley enough intake air for the engine then when it is rich that could create a situation.


If there isn't enough air, less fuel will spray to achieve the desired air fuel ratio.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> If there isn't enough air, less fuel will spray to achieve the desired air fuel ratio.


Unless the maps are off and not correctly taking into account volumetric efficiency losses at high loads. Isn't the TTRS MAP sensor-based (manifold absolute pressure), not MAF based (Mass Air Flow), so airflow itself isn't actually measured?


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

ttrs has 2 map sensors, pre and post throttle body


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Marty said:


> Unless the maps are off and not correctly taking into account volumetric efficiency losses at high loads. Isn't the TTRS MAP sensor-based (manifold absolute pressure), not MAF based (Mass Air Flow), so airflow itself isn't actually measured?


The o2 sensor will report any incorrect mixtures and will issue a fuel trim.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> The o2 sensor will report any incorrect mixtures and will issue a fuel trim.


Are the stock O2 sensors still accurate when you guys go super rich under load?

If so, can we log accurate AFRs down into the 10's with VCDS? That'd be pretty sweet.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Marty said:


> Are the stock O2 sensors still accurate when you guys go super rich under load?


Yes


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

What block would we log to check this? I have a cable and have been doing some logging which is how i found the misfires but dont know what all the bloaks mean so I am not sure which to monitor when logging. I know that i can only do 12 at a time so with the five cylinders misfire counts, engine speed and throttle position i usually monitor boost actual and spec, boost pressure control, lambda.
If there is something thatg wouldk be more beneficisal or give more info please let me know so I can log the right data.
Thanks


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

Two weeks, two tanks of gas, two different brands. So far no more hesitations. Does the ECU learn and adjust over time? 

I'm ready for Stage 2, still waiting on the downpipe. How long does it usually take to ship? It has been a month and I was supposed to get the one that was in stock.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

LynxFX said:


> Two weeks, two tanks of gas, two different brands. So far no more hesitations. Does the ECU learn and adjust over time?


Some values are learned and adjusted over time, usually just a few drive cycles. Other values are learned and adjusted during the current drive cycle only and are reset every time the car turns off. 

Is this the existing file or the new one?



> I'm ready for Stage 2, still waiting on the downpipe. How long does it usually take to ship? It has been a month and I was supposed to get the one that was in stock.


That's excessive and not typical. Exhaust lead times were hovering around 2-3 weeks on items not in stock. I have one of my sales guys on it now. I'll report back when I get an answer.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Some values are learned and adjusted over time, usually just a few drive cycles. Other values are learned and adjusted during the current drive cycle only and are reset every time the car turns off.
> 
> Is this the existing file or the new one?


This is still the existing tune. For about the first 1200 miles I had the tune I was getting hesitations almost every single day. Now for the past 500 miles I haven't had any. I've been trying to reduce the variables so I've driven it to near empty, testing different gas brands and locations. Really the only difference is that it has been 10 degrees cooler here.



> That's excessive and not typical. Exhaust lead times were hovering around 2-3 weeks on items not in stock. I have one of my sales guys on it now. I'll report back when I get an answer.


That's what I thought. The order was through Eurocoder if that helps. 

Thanks for the replies Arin!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

LynxFX said:


> This is still the existing tune. For about the first 1200 miles I had the tune I was getting hesitations almost every single day. Now for the past 500 miles I haven't had any. I've been trying to reduce the variables so I've driven it to near empty, testing different gas brands and locations. Really the only difference is that it has been 10 degrees cooler here.


Well that's good news! :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

And it looks like your exhaust will ship next week.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> Well that's good news! :thumbup:


Easy come, easy go. Easy go, easy come!


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> And it looks like your exhaust will ship next week.


 Thanks for checking. Have a happy new year!


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 4, 2004)

We have 1 TTRS system still in stock if anyone is looking for one


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

I was told that you don't gap iridium tip spark plugs. Is this true?


----------



## bsmack (Oct 16, 2008)

My car is currently with Jeff at United Motorsport. He will be fine tuning my car, along with installing an 034 downpipe. I'll let you guys know how it goes!


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

J662 said:


> I was told that you don't gap iridium tip spark plugs. Is this true?


Anyone?


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

J662 said:


> Anyone?


I hear it is recommend not to gap the iridium plugs do to the risk of damaging the fragile iridium tip. With that said, I have gapped iridium plugs plenty of times without issue, you need to make sure you DO NOT place any type of pressure on the iridium tip. What I do is bend the ground strap with a spark plug tool and then place a feeler gauge between the iridium tip and the ground strap, making sure not to apply pressure against the iridium tip. If an adjustment is needed bend the ground strap only.


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

Optimus812 said:


> I hear it is recommend not to gap the iridium plugs do to the risk of damaging the fragile iridium tip. With that said, I have gapped iridium plugs plenty of times without issue, you need to make sure you DO NOT place any type of pressure on the iridium tip. What I do is bend the ground strap with a spark plug tool and then place a feeler gauge between the iridium tip and the ground strap, making sure not to apply pressure against the iridium tip. If an adjustment is needed bend the ground strap only.


Great thanks


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

bsmack said:


> My car is currently with Jeff at United Motorsport. He will be fine tuning my car, along with installing an 034 downpipe. I'll let you guys know how it goes!


I hope he can make a good misfire-free tune for the TT-RS!


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

Marty said:


> I hope he can make a good misfire-free tune for the TT-RS!


Speaking of...has anyone ever used a place called Eurocharged? A buddy of mine with a C63 AMG had his car tuned by them and raves about it. They have a tune for the TTRS but it only pushes 400hp and 341 tq. Thats very low on tq compared to other tunes. Any thoughts?


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

Yea, I'm at the point to either try the APR de-tuned stage II tune or another. The misfires and hesitation in 4th gear between 5k - 7k rpm is really bad on my car... I think Arin might be on to something thinking too much back pressure on the stock manifold is causing this; in 4th gear I will peg my boost gauge at 22 psi thru the rev band. Gears 1-3 rarely see 22.5 psi and only about 17-20 psi. Maybe this is why anything below 100 mph 1-3 gear runs awesome.


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

Same here. I ran the car at the track WOT 1st-4th gear with no issues but still have the same issues when getting on the car in the higher gears at low rpm's. I have not been on here in a bit, still no fix?


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

I know the tunes are set to run richer air fuel to save the engine when it gets to the higher rpm, is there any chance that has anything to do with it?


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> We could rarely make it misfire while data logging. It's probably somewhat back pressure related because we can barely run 1.8 bar of boost without some people seeing an occasional misfire. However on stage 3, which has a much freer flowing turbo and manifold, we're running over 2.1 bar without a hiccup. So we've added a 'lower output' file to the server. If you're fine now, keep what you have. If you're experiencing an occasional hiccup and can't live with it, try the other file. :thumbup:


I just got the new APR lower output file flashed and so far I haven't got the hesitation and misfire in 4th gear like I used to with the old tune. Hope it stays this way! Boost seems the same and the car pulls just as strong as before... If the power is lower, it's not by much. 

Thanks Arin! 

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

Can apr post a before and after dyno plot?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

tdi-bart said:


> Can apr post a before and after dyno plot?


We didn't dyno the car.


----------



## twin__turbo (Apr 12, 2012)

Arin, if I go with Stage 2, can I get both programs and switch between them if I have misfire problems?


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

Arin, did APR measure the turbo drive pressures to confirm that back pressure is excessive? If not, any plans to do so? Wondering if this is pretty much it for the Stage 2 tune or if development will actively continue?


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

twin__turbo said:


> Arin, if I go with Stage 2, can I get both programs and switch between them if I have misfire problems?


That would need program switching, which APR doesn't support on the TT-RS.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

twin__turbo said:


> Arin, if I go with Stage 2, can I get both programs and switch between them if I have misfire problems?


Program switching is not released yet. When it is, we probably will not offer it like this, but then again, it may be something we can do. We'll need to discuss this after switching is released. We do offer flat torque curve and high output files for some of our big turbo kits though program switching. : )



hightechrdn said:


> Arin, did APR measure the turbo drive pressures to confirm that back pressure is excessive? If not, any plans to do so? Wondering if this is pretty much it for the Stage 2 tune or if development will actively continue?


We haven't and I don't think we plan to do so at this time.


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

Someone needs to dyno the revised ARP Stage 2 tune with standard supporting components so we can see the impact of lowering the mid range torque levels. 

Has GIAC or other tuners released any updates or information on the misfire issue? It wasn't only APR customers reporting this issue!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Reports from my customer base have been they were unable to detect any reduction in power.


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

Just had iridium tip plugs installed. Zero misfires so far. 3-4th 4th-5th WOT. Car is dialed!


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

hightechrdn said:


> Someone needs to dyno the revised ARP Stage 2 tune with standard supporting components so we can see the impact of lowering the mid range torque levels.
> 
> Has GIAC or other tuners released any updates or information on the misfire issue? It wasn't only APR customers reporting this issue!


My GIAC tune is perfect. I know one other guy same car same tune and his car is working great with no misses. Both have iridium plugs.


----------



## bsmack (Oct 16, 2008)

UM currently has my car in the development process for stage 1 and 2 tunes. I will be using an 034 Downpipe. I should have more info for you guys during the week of MLK.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

J662 said:


> My GIAC tune is perfect. I know one other guy same car same tune and his car is working great with no misses. Both have iridium plugs.


Third! The new tune is running great, no issues other than an odd cold start behavior. May be unrelated to the tune. Also running the colder plugs. Rock on!


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

Black BeauTTy said:


> Third! The new tune is running great, no issues other than an odd cold start behavior. May be unrelated to the tune. Also running the colder plugs. Rock on!


Did you see that video yet of the cold start with my car yet? I think you are noticing the same thing as me. IF its the same thing it's nothing to worry about. Is it basically on a cold start a drop in rpms with a little gurgle, then rpms jump back up to cold idle?


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

Identical, doesn't bother me in the least. Just curious as to what is going on. Car runs spectacular otherwise.:thumbup:


----------



## 311-in-337 (Feb 19, 2003)

Black BeauTTy said:


> Third! The new tune is running great, no issues other than an odd cold start behavior. May be unrelated to the tune. Also running the colder plugs. Rock on!



So GIAC has an updated tune to address the issue as well?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 8, 2007)

311-in-337 said:


> So GIAC has an updated tune to address the issue as well?


Our flash update wasn't for anything pertaining to misfires as this hasn't been a software issue for our customers. It was simply an update to stage 2 with more security and a bit more power. I keep close tabs with a group of our TTRS customers and they have reported that their cars have been running quite well. 

The only customers that even reported issues with misfire to GIAC were isolated and stated to be due to fuel. These reports were from BlackBeauTTy and Trichards. I know J662 had a misfire issue with his spark plugs, but his car was still bone stock at that point.

I would encourage ANYONE with a current misfire issue to contact me. I am certain I can find a solution for you. :thumbup:


----------



## jpkeyzer (Aug 24, 2011)

J662 said:


> Did you see that video yet of the cold start with my car yet? I think you are noticing the same thing as me. IF its the same thing it's nothing to worry about. Is it basically on a cold start a drop in rpms with a little gurgle, then rpms jump back up to cold idle?


J662 - how consistent is your cold start issue? Does it happen during every initial start? Where is the video you reference?

I have the Stasis Stage 1 tune and also have this issue.

It happens consistently every day during the initial start up.

As you know, during a normal initial ignition, the engine speed is immediately increased to 1400 RPM and maintained for about 1 minute. It is then decreases to a normal idle at about 800 RPM.

This initial start up procedure is now erratic and after initially increasing engine speed to 1400 RPM, the engine speed momentarily drops below this (to below 1200 RPM), increases above this (to above 1600 RPM) and settles at this speed once again. This happens for about 3 to 5 seconds. This "gurgle" sounds like a misfire to me.

Notice that I refer to this as an "initial start up" issue and not a "cold start up" issue because I have experienced this issue during both the summer months and now during the winter months.

It is very repeatable and has happened every morning upon initial ignition since the ECU upgrade.

Unfortunately, this really bothers me!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

I can take care of the annoying cold start if anyone's interested.


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Our flash update wasn't for anything pertaining to misfires as this hasn't been a software issue for our customers. It was simply an update to stage 2 with more security and a bit more power. I keep close tabs with a group of our TTRS customers and they have reported that their cars have been running quite well.
> 
> The only customers that even reported issues with misfire to GIAC were isolated and stated to be due to fuel. These reports were from BlackBeauTTy and Trichards. I know J662 had a misfire issue with his spark plugs, but his car was still bone stock at that point.
> 
> I would encourage ANYONE with a current misfire issue to contact me. I am certain I can find a solution for you. :thumbup:


Can you point me to information and dyno graphs of your Stage 2 tune? I didn't see much on your website...

Thanks


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> I can take care of the annoying cold start if anyone's interested.


LOL, what is it?!?!? Come on man, throw a brother a bone!


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

jpkeyzer said:


> J662 - how consistent is your cold start issue? Does it happen during every initial start? Where is the video you reference?
> 
> I have the Stasis Stage 1 tune and also have this issue.
> 
> ...


I've experienced this ONLY on cold start in the morning. Never happens any other time. It doesn't seem like a misfire to me.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Black BeauTTy said:


> LOL, what is it?!?!? Come on man, throw a brother a bone!


Tuning


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> as this hasn't been a software issue for our customers.
> 
> I would encourage ANYONE with a current misfire issue to contact me. I am certain I can find a solution for you. :thumbup:


You're (and most others if not all) also not making the same midrange torque as APR, so I'd expect to see less instances of misfires around 3000-4000 rpm.

Here is what our customers usually see. It's more than we advertise. Most are fine. Some had misfires. Less torque clears the issue. We offer software for both.

467 ftlbs, stage 1.


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

Koa1 said:


> 1st tuner to ADEQUATELY explain what was wrong and how they fixed it gets my money.


I dont know what to say....

~anyone can visualize what's going on with vag-com.

Its not:
spark plug gap
brand x vs brand y fuel choice
exhaust backpressure
weak valve springs ( really? :screwy: )

Short answer: its tuning. read post #7.


-Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

*So tell us...*

what you think is going on? Every tuner is experiencing the same issues.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Jefnes3 said:


> I dont know what to say....
> 
> ~anyone can visualize what's going on with vag-com.
> 
> ...


At first glance, this is a good assumption, but it's not correct. The 3-4k single misfire occurs even with absolutely no deviation in rail pressure.


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

Jefnes3 said:


> I dont know what to say....
> 
> ~anyone can visualize what's going on with vag-com.
> 
> ...


What about the tuning is it then? Since all tuners seem to be running into issues and the issues do not happen on every car that is tuned?


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

That's fine. Matt and I will sort it either way.

-Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## bsmack (Oct 16, 2008)

Can't wait to experience the tune Jeff. I was telling Jesse the other day that I feel like I did when I was first waiting delivery of the car!


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2012)

lpriley32 said:


> What about the tuning is it then? Since all tuners seem to be running into issues and the issues do not happen on every car that is tuned?


Here is our Stage 1 car, making healthy torque on a real load-based dyno measuring output at all four wheels. We have since revised this file to make more torque, as some customers have spoken of (with no misfires). So yes, you can say that it is a tuning issue.


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 8, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> You're (and most others if not all) also not making the same midrange torque as APR, so I'd expect to see less instances of misfires around 3000-4000 rpm.
> 
> Here is what our customers usually see. It's more than we advertise. Most are fine. Some had misfires. Less torque clears the issue. We offer software for both.
> 
> 467 ftlbs, stage 1.


So based on your assumption from either a FWD dynapack dyno or one single dyno from somewhere that has no comparable data from a GIAC flashed TTRS, you believe that your software makes more torque? That type of uneducated, out of left field candor seems to be par for the course for you. Our software is set right below the fuel pressure limit for stage 2. If you are making more torque, your cars will fuel cut. If you're not experiencing that, I believe you have your real world answer as to how much torque you make comparatively.


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Here is our Stage 1 car, making healthy torque on a real load-based dyno measuring output at all four wheels. We have since revised this file to make more torque, as some customers have spoken of (with no misfires). So yes, you can say that it is a tuning issue.


I'm not saying it isn't a tuning issue. I was asking, from an educational standpoint, what about the current set of tunes is causing the problems? 

I have read across multiple forums from multiple countries that no tuner is exempt from these issues. All tuners are experiencing limp mode/misfires/speedo resets and other issues. Also, there are some people that have a tune from X tuner that experience problems and some that have the same tune that have no problems. While I understand that driving style can play a role in some people experiencing problems and some people not...it is concerning that all tuners have been mentioned as having issues at some point.


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2012)

lpriley32 said:


> I'm not saying it isn't a tuning issue. I was asking, from an educational standpoint, what about the current set of tunes is causing the problems?
> 
> I have read across multiple forums from multiple countries that no tuner is exempt from these issues. All tuners are experiencing limp mode/misfires/speedo resets and other issues. Also, there are some people that have a tune from X tuner that experience problems and some that have the same tune that have no problems. While I understand that driving style can play a role in some people experiencing problems and some people not...it is concerning that all tuners have been mentioned as having issues at some point.


To my knowledge, any misfire issue with our software has been traced back to a hardware issue. Once these issues have been fixed, the misfires were eliminated with no need to dial back the software's power or retune the car. Like I said previously, we have actually released newer files with more power. As far as what is causing these problems, well I do not want to tell other tuners how to fix their software.


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

For the record, my GIAC Stage 1 flash yielded a significant issue with this on track. It improved over time and I added the NGK 2487 plugs. BUT, I still had issues.

When it first occurred, I was at a driving event, one day removed from receiving the flash, called autoscope to explain what was happening and the support from you guys was it's not our problem. So...


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 8, 2007)

LongviewTx said:


> For the record, my GIAC Stage 1 flash yielded a significant issue with this on track. It improved over time and I added the NGK 2487 plugs. BUT, I still had issues.
> 
> When it first occurred, I was at a driving event, one day removed from receiving the flash, called autoscope to explain what was happening and the support from you guys was it's not our problem. So...


My response to an issue would not be "its not our problem." Did you call GIAC directly? Or was that response relayed through them? Were you driving with traction control on?


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

So is there an update yet for the stage 2 APR tune to fix this miss fire issue?


----------



## LongviewTx (Dec 26, 1999)

[email protected] said:


> My response to an issue would not be "its not our problem." Did you call GIAC directly? Or was that response relayed through them? Were you driving with traction control on?


no & no. dealt through autoscope as they were your dealer and driving without esp and in sport mode


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

I have the Stasis tune but the misfires would happen in one cylinder and under 3000rpm. Dont think it is tune related because I am currently running stock software and have the same problem. One cylinder misfires up to the point when power surge comes on(approx 3000 rpm) after that it goes away. Logging shows that it moves from one cylinder to another so not sure what that could be but it happens on the stock software also. Has anyone else tried to see if they get the problem when they run stock software. Might help determine if it is hardware related, no?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

southpole12 said:


> So is there an update yet for the stage 2 APR tune to fix this miss fire issue?


Yes. If you're experiencing a misfire we've created a file with a little less torque which others have reported eliminates the 3-4 K misfire. If you're not experiencing this issue, you can continue to run on the production file. 



[email protected] said:


> Our software is set right below the fuel pressure limit for stage 2. If you are making more torque, your cars will fuel cut.


That's not quite correct.

The single most obvious calibration parameter in this situation would be related to minimum lambda (Air/Fuel ratio). 

There are also quite a few other calibration changes which can be made to maximize the fueling system. We've increased midrange torque further during testing, but in doing so we did see single random misfires, but they were not from a dip in rail pressure in the 3-4k range. These only occur with the stock turbo, and don't occur with the higher boosting stage 3 turbocharger setup. 

Stage III is easily able to trump Stage II+ boost levels without modification to the fueling system. 2.1 bar of boost, or 30.46 PSI wasn't a problem.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

That is great to hear about the OEM fuel delivery stoutness!


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

when is the stage III going to be available???????


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Timster said:


> when is the stage III going to be available???????


 When it's finished. We've changed and added quite a few parts along the way. Casting times have accounted for most of the 'waiting'.


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> When it's finished. We've changed and added quite a few parts along the way. Casting times have accounted for most of the 'waiting'.


 New pics already! :thumbup:


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Yes. If you're experiencing a misfire we've created a file with a little less torque which others have reported eliminates the 3-4 K misfire. If you're not experiencing this issue, you can continue to run on the production file.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Thanks for the info Arin!


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

question: When sitting still and have the car in sport mode, blip the gas pedal and get the popping, low level backfire sounds, what would that be classified as?


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

Quisp said:


> question: When sitting still and have the car in sport mode, blip the gas pedal and get the popping, low level backfire sounds, what would that be classified as?


 I classify that as awesome


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

JohnLZ7W said:


> I classify that as awesome


 ^^ agree 100%


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

lpriley32 said:


> ^^ agree 100%


 👍


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

JohnLZ7W said:


> I classify that as awesome


 Same!:thumbup:


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

Dont get me wrong I like the sound, just odd that it only recently started making it after 12000 miles. That is why i asked.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

Hmm mines always done it but I've had milltek decat pipes since the first day


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

I ran with the secondary cats in place for a while before losing them. I didn't hear all the pops and gurgles until the secondary cats were removed and the SwitchPath was installed. I'm sure they are there but just muffled a bit more with the OEM system.


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

they became noticeable when I was flashed back to the stock software to fix the timing chain grind. On Stasis they were more low burbles than backfire


----------



## TRZ06 (Jan 20, 2013)

Any new news on this issue?

All seems quite on this thread with no real resolution yet.

I have a 13' on order with a Stasis tune worked in as part of my deal. I might cancel that and stay stock if this doesn't get resolved.

Most issues seem to be APR tunes. Is that because APR is more popular than Stasis, or is it because APR is more aggressive in their tuning?

Either way, I don't want issues on a new car.


----------



## bsmack (Oct 16, 2008)

TRZ06 said:


> Any new news on this issue?
> 
> All seems quite on this thread with no real resolution yet.
> 
> ...


All tunes currently have experienced the issue. United Motorsport currently has my car and it is my understanding that it has been resolved and they are in the final stages of tuning. I would expect to hear something big from them mid-February.


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

TRZ06 said:


> Any new news on this issue?
> 
> All seems quite on this thread with no real resolution yet.
> 
> ...


My GIAC tune is fine. Just got back from the track this past weekend. Zero misses and balls out on the track.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

I've been running the APR stage 1 tune for the past 2 months, roughly 2000 miles. The hesitation happened quite a bit at first but now it seems to have worked itself out and only happens a couple times a week and not as noticeable as before.

I'm getting Stage 2 installed on monday. It is my understanding that they have a second version of the tune that lowers the torque a bit. I will probably go with that file.


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

J662 said:


> My GIAC tune is fine. Just got back from the track this past weekend. Zero misses and balls out on the track.


I see you are Stage 2. Do you have the newer version of the GIAC Stage 2 tune? Any other mods besides the AWE exhaust and intercooler (ex: plugs, downpipe, secondary cat delete, etc)?


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

hightechrdn said:


> I see you are Stage 2. Do you have the newer version of the GIAC Stage 2 tune? Any other mods besides the AWE exhaust and intercooler (ex: plugs, downpipe, secondary cat delete, etc)?


I have the newer version of stage 2 (2.5). Other mods: awe intercooler, awe switchpath w/cat deletes, iridium tip plugs.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

I'm running same GIAC/AWE setup with zero misfires. I do have an odd initial cold start hiccup though that they are looking into for me. Otherwise, it's smooth and strong.


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

Black BeauTTy said:


> I'm running same GIAC/AWE setup with zero misfires. I do have an odd initial cold start hiccup though that they are looking into for me. Otherwise, it's smooth and strong.


Yup. And not to be confused for a misfire. Here is a video of the cold start "hiccup": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCFkFWDsH_E


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

J662 said:


> Yup. And not to be confused for a misfire. Here is a video of the cold start "hiccup": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCFkFWDsH_E


Yep, that's it. My cold start video is up on that same page on Youtube when I had the original stage 2 tune. You'll notice there was no hiccup in that video. I've only had it with the new file. No biggie though but would prefer not to have it all. Incidentally, the cold start hiccup did not happen last week during that extreme cold snap. It appears there are different cold start maps depending on ambient temps. It appears to start up normally when it's below 20. Go figure. :screwy:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

J662 said:


> Yup. And not to be confused for a misfire. Here is a video of the cold start "hiccup": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCFkFWDsH_E


We can eliminate that with our software if you'd like. :thumbup:


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

LMAO! Dude, no poaching on the preserve! Congrats on the great showing at the 24! Most excellent work by the APR team.


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> We can eliminate that with our software if you'd like. :thumbup:


No thanks


----------



## AMD IS THE BEST (Mar 15, 2004)

Related or not, I am having these exact issues with my '13 Golf R. I've gone through gaping stock plugs, running one step colder plugs, gaping them smaller, two steps colder and none of the plug changes made a difference.

Has anyone here seemed to notice that the issue is worse in cold weather?


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

AMD IS THE BEST said:


> Related or not, I am having these exact issues with my '13 Golf R. I've gone through gaping stock plugs, running one step colder plugs, gaping them smaller, two steps colder and none of the plug changes made a difference.
> 
> Has anyone here seemed to notice that the issue is worse in cold weather?


What tune do you have? I use tapatalk, so I don't see signatures...


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

hightechrdn said:


> What tune do you have? I use tapatalk, so I don't see signatures...


Looks like APR stage 1


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

For what its worth, I haven't had any misfires since upgrading to stage 2. Still on the first tank.


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

LynxFX said:


> For what its worth, I haven't had any misfires since upgrading to stage 2. Still on the first tank.


Did you go for the lower torque version of the stage 2 tune?


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

hightechrdn said:


> Did you go for the lower torque version of the stage 2 tune?


I believe so. They just said it was the latest. The program listed is:
Stage 2+ 91 Octane V1.2 LO


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

LynxFX said:


> I believe so. They just said it was the latest. The program listed is:
> Stage 2+ 91 Octane V1.2 LO


Yup they put LO in the file name.:thumbup:


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> We can eliminate that with our software if you'd like. :thumbup:


He is right. Got my car re-tuned (stage 2) and no more misfire!!! Yay lol


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

southpole12 said:


> He is right. Got my car re-tuned (stage 2) and no more misfire!!! Yay lol


I don't have any misfires just a goofy cold start hiccup. I have something to try though that may remedy it. None of the other GIAC testers have it with the current file. Grrrrrrr.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

joneze93tsi said:


> Yup they put LO in the file name.:thumbup:


 Cool that is what figured, Low Output.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

I'm happy to report that GIAC took care of my cold start hiccup with a new stage 2 file! No cold start hiccup, no misfires, massive torque all the way to redline...I'm a happy camper! :laugh::thumbup:


----------



## Craig3Q (Oct 3, 2007)

LynxFX said:


> I believe so. They just said it was the latest. The program listed is:
> Stage 2+ 91 Octane V1.2 LO


Just curious, but why go with the lower torque program? Is it just a matter of personal preference, or is the higher torque program a problem some how? I know there must be a reason, or they wouldn't offer both, but am curious about reasons.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

Craig3Q said:


> Just curious, but why go with the lower torque program? Is it just a matter of personal preference, or is the higher torque program a problem some how? I know there must be a reason, or they wouldn't offer both, but am curious about reasons.


The title of this thread answers that. I was getting misfires on Stage 1 with the higher output file.


----------



## twin__turbo (Apr 12, 2012)

Has Arin said what the actual output of the APR Low Output (LO) tune is?


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

I am curious to the number on the low output stage 2 because I do not have any misfires anymore but I feel like I have lost power? What are the HP/torque values compared to the original file?


----------



## [email protected] (Jun 8, 2007)

Black BeauTTy said:


> I'm happy to report that GIAC took care of my cold start hiccup with a new stage 2 file! No cold start hiccup, no misfires, massive torque all the way to redline...I'm a happy camper! :laugh::thumbup:


:thumbup:

I really enjoy driving these cars. Our new high output Stage 2 calibration is pretty much the best of everything when it comes to power and overall drivability. We are just finishing putting the data together for it. I should have some additional power data to share next week. 

@J662 you should get this update so that your cold start hiccup is alleviated. I can send it over to Tag if you'd like. All of the other power items should remain the same.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> :thumbup:
> 
> I really enjoy driving these cars. Our new high output Stage 2 calibration is pretty much the best of everything when it comes to power and overall drivability. We are just finishing putting the data together for it. I should have some additional power data to share next week.
> 
> @J662 you should get this update so that your cold start hiccup is alleviated. I can send it over to Tag if you'd like. All of the other power items should remain the same.


Thanks for the fantastic customer service and a special shout out to AWE Tuning for always standing by to assist. That cap DC suggestion was pure genius! :thumbup: I literally couldn't be happier with the end results. The car hangs with the big dogs for sure!


----------



## Josh/AWE (Feb 7, 2012)

Black BeauTTy said:


> Thanks for the fantastic customer service and a special shout out to AWE Tuning for always standing by to assist. That cap DC suggestion was pure genius! :thumbup: I literally couldn't be happier with the end results. The car hangs with the big dogs for sure!


:thumbup::thumbup:

Looking forward to seeing how well it hangs this Summer :laugh:


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

*Double high fives...*

Austin and GIAC are awesome to work with. I can't wait to stuff that loba kit in the car this spring!


----------



## trichards69 (Feb 8, 2012)

*Oh yeah...*

AWE is the shiznits too! :thumbup:


----------



## Josh/AWE (Feb 7, 2012)

trichards69 said:


> AWE is the shiznits too! :thumbup:


Thanks dude!


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> :thumbup:
> 
> @J662 you should get this update so that your cold start hiccup is alleviated. I can send it over to Tag if you'd like. All of the other power items should remain the same.


Thanks, Austin. That would be killer!


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

Black BeauTTy said:


> Thanks for the fantastic customer service and a special shout out to AWE Tuning for always standing by to assist. That cap DC suggestion was pure genius! :thumbup: I literally couldn't be happier with the end results. The car hangs with the big dogs for sure!


'cap DC' ??? What is that?


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

hightechrdn said:


> 'cap DC' ??? What is that?


Take leads off battery and clear capacitors.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

Take off the battery cables and touch them together for 20-30 seconds. It resets all the adaptations. I did this and the cold start hiccup went bye bye! It wasn't the tune at all but something was off and this took care of it. Remember, I have been one of the test cars for the tuning, so my car has gone through many, many flash events. The final GIAC stage 2+ file is solid as a rock. I've been through many tanks of various grade fuel without any differences noted between them. I am running the colder plugs but for kicks, I might switch back to stock and see if it makes a difference with this final tune. Anyway, it's all good! :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> You're (and most others if not all) also not making the same midrange torque as APR, so I'd expect to see less instances of misfires around 3000-4000 rpm.
> 
> Here is what our customers usually see. It's more than we advertise. Most are fine. Some had misfires. Less torque clears the issue. We offer software for both.
> 
> 467 ftlbs, stage 1.


Also, regarding misfiring due to higher power levels...you don't even offer a 100 octane file for the TT-RS (let alone program switching). To think you are able to make more power on pump gas than we are making on 100 octane is a pretty bold idea, considering we aren't seeing misfires even on our race gas file.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> you don't even offer a 100 octane file for the TT-RS


Thomas, we offer 100 octane files.


We have 91, 93 and 100 AKI files and 95, 98 and 104 RON files.

Torque/power is greatly increased due in part to ignition advance.


----------



## primetime21 (Feb 14, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Thomas, we offer 100 octane files.
> 
> 
> We have 91, 93 and 100 AKI files and 95, 98 and 104 RON files.
> ...


Phew... You know I'll want the 100 tune!


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Thomas, we offer 100 octane files.
> 
> 
> We have 91, 93 and 100 AKI files and 95, 98 and 104 RON files.
> ...


So you would need to completely reflash the car in order to ever use pump gas? Sounds like a bit of an inconvenience 

And more torque? But I thought the TT-RS is misfiring because of the copious amounts of torque you're making (on just pump gas). So much so that you must offer low output files to get rid of said misfires.

Not to mention none of these misfires with your software have occurred while utilizing a 100 octane file. So if you are already offering LO pump files to deal with misfires, a 100 octane file doesn't sound too promising.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> So you would need to completely reflash the car in order to ever use pump gas? Sounds like a bit of an inconvenience


I'm well aware! We have some customers who don't seem to care and run 100 all the time. The guy one post above yours was one of them on the B8 S4 before we released program switching and we've already flashed a couple others with 100 only. 

We don't use external devices for program switching, so it does make it quite difficult to implement on may different platforms. Our original method for MED9 simply would not work on memory limited ECUs so our staff had to rewrite all of the routines. The TTRS is currently in development for program switching. 



> And more torque? But I thought the TT-RS is misfiring because of the copious amounts of torque you're making (on just pump gas). So much so that you must offer low output files to get rid of said misfires.


On 100 much of the torque increase is from additional ignition advance. On 93 the discussion of more torque was related to more boost.


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> We don't use external devices for program switching, so it does make it quite difficult to implement on may different platforms. Our original method for MED9 simply would not work on memory limited ECUs so our staff had to rewrite all of the routines. The TTRS is currently in development for program switching.


Unless you are using an external device to actually load the maps, the process of writing the code for switching is largely the same. Not to say you don't know this, but it does seem to invalidate your argument. Regarding memory limitations, you made the same argument with the Golf R before magically finding more space within the ECU. 



> On 100 much of the torque increase is from additional ignition advance. On 93 the discussion of more torque was related to more boost.


Hmm, so now it's related to more boost? 



[email protected] said:


> ...in doing so *we did see single random misfires*, but they were not from a dip in rail pressure in the 3-4k range. These only occur with the stock turbo, and *don't occur with the higher boosting stage 3 turbocharger* setup. Stage III is easily able to trump Stage II+ boost levels without modification to the fueling system. 2.1 bar of boost, or 30.46 PSI wasn't a problem.


As I'm sure you've experienced in your own testing, torque increases are more of a byproduct of additional boost than advanced timing. So what I gather from what you're saying is your 100 octane file is the same low output boost maps but with more timing. From which you would expect a decent horsepower increase over pump gas (due to the advanced timing), but with minimal increases in torque.

So if you're limited with boost levels due to misfires, it would seem to discredit this statement:



[email protected] said:


> You're (and most others if not all) also not making the same midrange torque as APR


To illustrate what I am talking about, here is a TT-RS with a stock file, a pump gas file, and a race gas file. The pump gas and race gas files run the same amount of boost, just with more timing advance. So while adding boost in the move from stock to Stage 1 netted a huge torque increase, adding additional timing on top of that only resulted in a marginal torque increase (but a sizeable horsepower increase). This phenomena will hold true for nearly all forced induction vehicles.

Stock to Stage 1 (*more boost*, slight timing advance): *+59 wheel torque* +30 wheel horsepower
Stage 1 Pump to Stage 1 Race (same boost, *more timing advance*): *+11 wheel torque* +39 wheel horsepower


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Unless you are using an external device to actually load the maps, the process of writing the code for switching is largely the same. Not to say you don't know this, but it does seem to invalidate your argument. Regarding memory limitations, you made the same argument with the Golf R before magically finding more space within the ECU.


This does not invalidate my argument. 

As I mentioned before, we rewrote the way we preformed program switching on the Golf R ECU. We are still unfortunately limited by space, and were unable to add features available on other ECUs. 



> As I'm sure you've experienced in your own testing, torque increases are more of a byproduct of additional boost than advanced timing. [ . . . ] The pump gas and race gas files run the same amount of boost, just with more timing advance. So while adding boost in the move from stock to Stage 1 netted a huge torque increase, adding additional timing on top of that only resulted in a marginal torque increase. [ . . . ] Stage 1 Pump to Stage 1 Race (same boost, *more timing advance*): *+11 wheel torque*


You're a bit confusing Thomas. 

You've just stated the following:

- Your Pump and Race files run the same boost pressure. 

- Torque doesn't increase much from timing.

- Pump vs Race = +11 torque.

BUT your data clearly shows a 30-40 ft-lbs of torque difference at 4,880 RPM. 










That's a nice gain, and I hate pointing that out for you, but it does invalidate your argument. :laugh:

Anyways, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this argument, but :thumbup:.


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> You're a bit confusing Thomas.
> 
> You've just stated the following:
> 
> ...


The torque does not fall off as quickly with the 100 octane file, but like you said in your previous statement:



[email protected] said:


> You're (and most others if not all) also not making the same midrange torque as APR, so I'd expect to see less instances of misfires around 3000-4000 rpm.


And if you look at this range, where PEAK torque is, you see that the gains from advanced timing are minimal. This is also the range where you claim misfires become apparent, as peak torque is highest. So I don't see how your observation of holding more torque at the higher RPM's (outside of peak torque) is relevant.

As far as what I'm saying? You just previously acknowledged that you cannot run high boost because your file will misfire. Yet I am clearly showing you that there is a strong correlation between boost and torque.

So the idea that you are making more torque than our software, with less boost, is not valid. You are trying to pretend that adding more timing is validating your claims of producing more torque than any other tuner, despite the fact that you are forced to dial back boost due to misfires (not to mention your software is notorious for conservative timing maps) :facepalm:


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> The TTRS is currently in development for program switching.


Yes please!!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> As far as what I'm saying? You just previously acknowledged that you cannot run high boost because your file will misfire. Yet I am clearly showing you that there is a strong correlation between boost and torque.
> 
> *So the idea that you are making more torque than our software, with less boost, is not valid.* You are trying to pretend that adding more timing is validating your claims of producing more torque than any other tuner, despite the fact that you are forced to dial back boost due to misfires (not to mention your software is notorious for conservative timing maps) :facepalm:


Ok, so I now understand what all this back and forth discussion is about. 

Let me correct any misunderstandings. I never said we are making more torque with LESS boost. We're running a lot of boost in the mid range. There's room to increase boost further, but in our experience, going higher was causing misfires. 

From all I've seen, many others were not running as much boost as we were in the mid range. 

As far as "conservative" timing maps, I don't know what that means. If we're pulling timing during calibration, we don't add more. We also don't modify the knock sensors. So I don't know what you're talking about, but it sounds like it's a good thing, so, yeah, we're more conservative with timing...


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> From all I've seen, many others were not running as much boost as we were in the mid range.


You've contradicted yourself on three different things within the last few pages. With that being said, you must be running 29-30 psi on stock turbo then, no?


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

Great discussion guys... Threads like this make me much more interested in EPL or UnitedMotorsport tunes.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

JohnLZ7W said:


> Great discussion guys... Threads like this make me much more interested in EPL or UnitedMotorsport tunes.


I have no problem discussing our software with anyone. Most of our clients have indicated they enjoy the open and candid discussions. 

Sorry if that turns you off. We're not looking to change that at all so if need be you have other options. Likewise I mean no disrespect to you and I hope you will still consider us in the future and will used these discussions to learn a bit more about what we have to offer. :thumbup:


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

JohnLZ7W said:


> Great discussion guys... Threads like this make me much more interested in EPL or UnitedMotorsport tunes.


You are not alone sir.


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

lpriley32 said:


> You are not alone sir.


APR and GIAC aren't in an all our, name calling flame war so I think some healthy open debate is good for the TT-RS community. We aren't large enough in number to have magazines run comparison tests for us (please correct me if I am wrong on this). I only know of one magazine that even covers the Euro modding scene (European car) and there isn't much too that post merger. I only know of one other TT-RS in the local area to me and that is just because a black one was being prepped for delivery at the local dealer while I was in for service last week.

The bottom line is that the more constructive discussion we have on the forum, the better.


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

hightechrdn said:


> APR and GIAC aren't in an all our, name calling flame war so I think some healthy open debate is good for the TT-RS community. We aren't large enough in number to have magazines run comparison tests for us (please correct me if I am wrong on this). I only know of one magazine that even covers the Euro modding scene (European car) and there isn't much too that post merger. I only know of one other TT-RS in the local area to me and that is just because a black one was being prepped for delivery at the local dealer while I was in for service last week.
> 
> The bottom line is that the more constructive discussion we have on the forum, the better.


Seems pretty clear who's having problems with their tunes and who's not. Seems like this topic is specific to one tuner that's having serious issues.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

lpriley32 said:


> You are not alone sir.


I find it amusing when tuners start waving their gentleman sausages around without actually discussing the actual issues. Did APR ever really say what the root cause was with their tune? And how many times has GIAC jumped into an APR tune offering their services?


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

J662 said:


> Seems pretty clear who's having problems with their tunes and who's not. Seems like this topic is specific to one tuner that's having serious issues.


According to the people in the original thread it was affecting multiple tuners. (APR, GIAC, Stasis) APR just happens to be the most popular and had more people speaking up.

I'm now running the APR stage 2 Low Output file and haven't had any issues. I didn't try the non LO file for stage 2, but with the original stage 1 file I was getting random misfires that weren't easily replicable.


----------



## CC4U2NV (Apr 7, 2011)

Optimus812 said:


> I've been seeing some posts with people noticing occasional misfires when they have a flash tune installed. I've noticed this on mine occasionally too. After talking with Arin @ APR I decided to re-gap my spark plugs. Doing so seems to help with the misfiring. I also noticed the gaps on the plugs on my car varied from .25 to .28 with no consistency. I went ahead and gapped them all to .26. This is probably too low of a gap but I wanted to see if it helped. It did but still have random misfire/hesitation here and there.
> 
> 
> Dave


Go buy urself a set of Okada ignition coils and ull never have another misfire.


----------



## RisR32 (Aug 31, 2005)

JohnLZ7W said:


> gentleman sausages


:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## Doctor 911 (Jan 8, 2013)

I, for one, am not "turned off" by discussions such as these. And the fact that it is being conducted (and perpetuated, lol) by representatives of two great companies that play significant roles in the industry is even better. Call me a nerd, but I'm enjoying the explanations and perspectives on timing and boost these guys are giving, as long as they are objective. I believe that re-examination of logic can always bring to light flaws not previously seen and improve products for our "consumption," hopefully at the same price.


----------



## Doctor 911 (Jan 8, 2013)

...and the mention of "gentleman sausages" channels a Jeremy Clarkson-like presence into the conversation, which is always welcome when talking about cars lol


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2012)

JohnLZ7W said:


> Great discussion guys... Threads like this make me much more interested in EPL or UnitedMotorsport tunes.


The great thing about this community is that there are so many great options to choose from. With that being said, I would assume that people would appreciate any exchange of information that questions false statements.

And judging by what has been said previously in this thread, coupled with one company's software "fix", there are certainly many of said statements going around.


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> The great thing about this community is that there are so many great options to choose from. With that being said, I would assume that people would appreciate any exchange of information that questions false statements.
> 
> And judging by what has been said previously in this thread, coupled with one company's software "fix", there are certainly many of said statements going around.



Correct me if I misunderstand your tone/meaning:

You use "fix" in quotes to imply something to be imaginary, made up or otherwise invalidate it.

-Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2012)

Jefnes3 said:


> Correct me if I misunderstand your tone/meaning:
> 
> You use "fix" in quotes to imply something to be imaginary, made up or otherwise invalidate it.
> 
> -Jeffrey Atwood


Jeff,

I used the term "fix" because when someone asked what the root of the problem was, another vendor responded simply with "tuning." It was then acknowledged that the fix that this vendor provides is simply lowering power output. In my eyes, this is simply a means of covering up the cause of their issues, rather than actually fixing them.


----------



## primetime21 (Feb 14, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Jeff,
> 
> I used the term "fix" because when someone asked what the root of the problem was, another vendor responded simply with "tuning." It was then acknowledged that the fix that this vendor provides is simply lowering power output. In my eyes, this is simply a means of covering up the cause of their issues, rather than actually fixing them.


Thomas, I see all the 1/4 mile times in your sig... What has the TT-RS run? Please share... thanks!


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2012)

primetime21 said:


> Thomas, I see all the 1/4 mile times in your sig... What has the TT-RS run? Please share... thanks!


If I had times I'd be more than happy to. Unfortunately I haven't received any customer time slips. It seems that most TT-RS customers are more inclined to visit road courses and similar tracks.


----------



## primetime21 (Feb 14, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> If I had times I'd be more than happy to. Unfortunately I haven't received any customer time slips. It seems that most TT-RS customers are more inclined to visit road courses and similar tracks.


Gotcha... Understood, not alot of Audi guys in general go to the strip... Figured you or somone at AWE may have taken the shop car... Anyway, I plan to take mine stock and then with each mod along the way just like I did with the B8 S4... Planning some track days as well... Just need the car to be built and get here now... lol Thanks!


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2012)

primetime21 said:


> Gotcha... Understood, not alot of Audi guys in general go to the strip... Figured you or somone at AWE may have taken the shop car... Anyway, I plan to take mine stock and then with each mod along the way just like I did with the B8 S4... Planning some track days as well... Just need the car to be built and get here now... lol Thanks!


Looking forward to seeing your results! You'll enjoy the TT-RS coming from the S4. I was actually very surprised by how much I enjoyed driving that car.


----------



## primetime21 (Feb 14, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Looking forward to seeing your results! You'll enjoy the TT-RS coming from the S4. I was actually very surprised by how much I enjoyed driving that car.


Thanks! Actually, keeping the S4 as well, just have an empty garage spot to fill which is where the TT-RS comes in... Plan to go stage III on the S4 once the blower is available... Hoping to go 11.2 - 11.4 at 122+ on race gas... Best so far on stage II is 11.69... I am very excited to drive the TT-RS though... Even more excited to run some passes and road courses! Thanks again!


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> Jeff,
> 
> the 'fix' is simply lowering power output. In my eyes, this is simply a means of covering up the cause of issues, rather than actually fixing them.


Agreed. 

-Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

I concur. The conversation between APR and GIAC is a good learning experience for those who do not understand why they had this misfire issue in the first place, like me. Speaking of 1/4 mile runs, I posted a slip one here a little while ago 
http://forums.fourtitude.com/showthread.php?5886713-Track-day-today
I ran a 12.58 with stage 2 APR before I got the low output file. It was a hot day and I think the car would run low 12's with more practice. With that said, I would like to know the numbers on the low output file because I think the car is a little slower now. I have not had any miss fire issues since I got the low output file.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

Except apr still hasn't said what caused the misfires. They have a low output file for customers to try, they haven't said what the lower output is. They mention that higher boost causes problems but other tunes are running similar boost and similar torque without problems. There also doesn't seem to be a problem on 100 octane.
Thomas just seems to be sniping and I'm not sure that's really constructive.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

i made a lengthy post easily documenting misfires as soon as i filled up with crappy fuel and subsequently curing the misfires with new fuel, a couple others have tried my idea with success

i say the regular output file is on the edge and requires the best fuel you can find, LO file apr said is a bit weaker i guess allowing for fluctuations in fuel quality which makes sense to me

those tuners who say they don't misfire i would guess they have a more conservative tune, not as aggressive as the apr one. but then again, to prove if this is true or not 2 people need to do a side by side pull with different tunes...


----------



## primetime21 (Feb 14, 2013)

southpole12 said:


> I concur. The conversation between APR and GIAC is a good learning experience for those who do not understand why they had this misfire issue in the first place, like me. Speaking of 1/4 mile runs, I posted a slip one here a little while ago
> http://forums.fourtitude.com/showthread.php?5886713-Track-day-today
> I ran a 12.58 with stage 2 APR before I got the low output file. It was a hot day and I think the car would run low 12's with more practice. With that said, I would like to know the numbers on the low output file because I think the car is a little slower now. I have not had any miss fire issues since I got the low output file.


Nice! Thanks for sharing... based on the vids you drive fairly well... Times seem a little slower than I would have guessed... You mention a run with a 1.6x 60ft time but that you missed 3rd... That would have surely been a better run... Can you make the gopros non-private as I would like to watch them... Thanks!


----------



## turboniumboost (Feb 3, 2011)

Not trying to add fuel to the fire and maybe someone can enlighten me but GIAC says they haven't reduced power to fix the misfire issue but the graph posted here is quite a bit different then their site. 

Im not extremely technical so maybe I'm not understanding but please explain the huge torque dip between 3,500-4,500rpm, which coincidentally is where the misfire issue was correct?

My car is currently stock software but have a buddy with APR, would randomly have the misfire/pop. Took it to the shop that did it and they couldn't duplicate it, has since started getting gas elsewhere and has been fine since. 

*edit- looking at the dates the website one is newer but which does the consumer get when they purchase software?

*GIAC vortex "fixed" file?* big torque spike then big dip









*GIAC website advertised file?* nice, smooth, flat torque curve


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

JohnLZ7W said:


> Except apr still hasn't said what caused the misfires. They have a low output file for customers to try, they haven't said what the lower output is. They mention that higher boost causes problems but other tunes are running similar boost and similar torque without problems. There also doesn't seem to be a problem on 100 octane.
> Thomas just seems to be sniping and I'm not sure that's really constructive.


I think he's just calling them out cause APR isn't being transparent perhaps. Nothing wrong with speaking ones mind. 

Plus most of the thread is now specific to folks who are running APR software. I don't see anymore of the cars tuned with GIAC, with upgraded plugs having any issues. I know I'd be pissed if I was running software and the company came out with a band-aid file.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

Different cars, running different hardware, on different oct fuel, on different dynos and different coasts! The AWE figures are off my car and are comparisons of the impact of the original GIAC stage 2 tune (93 oct) vs stock tune (93 oct). The stock numbers are up slightly from a bone stock car because of the gains from the hardware (SwitchPath exhaust, cat-deletes and FMIC).

What's really crazy when you look at any of these, is how high the stock, and subsequently tuned, UM car is reading at the wheels on their dyno.:what: You really need to ignore the raw numbers and focus on the relative difference vs stock to get an appreciation for the real world performance bump you can expect over stock. All the tunes available appear to provide really nice improvements.

My car is noticeably more potent with the final new GIAC stage 2+ tune (butt dyno) but I haven't had it on the dyno after the new file was finalized for release. It sounds like GIAC may have done a dyno on one of the other tester's car out west though. We'll have to wait and see.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

J662 said:


> I think he's just calling them out cause APR isn't being transparent perhaps.


I think I've been fairly transparent this entire time. 

We run quite a bit of midrange boost compared to what I've seen from most other tuners. During development we noticed boosting higher would cause a single misfire in the 3-4k range so we lowered it for the production software. We've seen some reporting this single misfire while some aren't. Some say it's related to gas, some say it's related to spark plugs, some have it, some don't and some who have it don't seem to care. At this time we do have a lower boosting file which will clear up the misfire for those who want it. If anything changes, I'll just give everyone an update. : )


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2012)

turboniumboost said:


> Not trying to add fuel to the fire and maybe someone can enlighten me but GIAC says they haven't reduced power to fix the misfire issue but the graph posted here is quite a bit different then their site.
> 
> Im not extremely technical so maybe I'm not understanding but please explain the huge torque dip between 3,500-4,500rpm, which coincidentally is where the misfire issue was correct?
> 
> ...


The first dyno plot posted is a Stage 1 vehicle. Due to having more restrictive hardware, you can expect power to fall off quicker. The second dyno, with the more robust torque curve, is a Stage 2 vehicle with an upgraded and less restrictive exhaust (in addition to other upgraded hardware).

And we never released a file that we deemed as a fix. Rather, after developing the software for the RS3 we found new new bits of factory code that translated over to the TT-RS. This allowed us to revise our current TT-RS files and release a new file revision that allowed for more torque down low in addition to more power to redline. A few customers have received this revised file and have been vocal with their thoughts on it.


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2012)

JohnLZ7W said:


> Thomas just seems to be sniping and I'm not sure that's really constructive.


You're more than welcome to your opinions, but my intent certainly wasn't to merely snipe at someone. A direct response was made towards us, claiming that our software does not experience misfires because we are making less torque. As I know this to be false, I felt obligated to share my information.


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> You've contradicted yourself on three different things within the last few pages. With that being said, you must be running 29-30 psi on stock turbo then, no?


That is the lasting impression I got from the entire exchange. Not that anyone helped me understand anything about tuning this ECU but that you won because he contradicted himself. Just my opinion.


----------



## [email protected] (May 16, 2012)

lpriley32 said:


> That is the lasting impression I got from the entire exchange. Not that anyone helped me understand anything about tuning this ECU but that you won because he contradicted himself. Just my opinion.


As I responded to your previous questions, I am not going to come in here and give a tutorial on how to tune the TT-RS. Also notice that my question within your quote was ignored, despite the fact that it directly related to earlier claims.


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

primetime21 said:


> Nice! Thanks for sharing... based on the vids you drive fairly well... Times seem a little slower than I would have guessed... You mention a run with a 1.6x 60ft time but that you missed 3rd... That would have surely been a better run... Can you make the gopros non-private as I would like to watch them... Thanks!


I did not realize they were private, I will do that.


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> As I responded to your previous questions, I am not going to come in here and give a tutorial on how to tune the TT-RS. Also notice that my question within your quote was ignored, despite the fact that it directly related to earlier claims.


yeah, i guess my point was more that I don't agree with some opinions that this is a healthy discussion with educaitonal information as much as it is a pissing match. again, just my opinion.


----------



## derek8819 (Jan 29, 2013)

When are any of the tuners going to get a more advanced method of flashing like COBB uses. This sending in the ECU is BS.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 4, 2004)

derek8819 said:


> When are any of the tuners going to get a more advanced method of flashing like COBB uses. This sending in the ECU is BS.


Thats not the tuners fault. When bosch and siemens start making ecus with the same encryption level for the cars that Cobb tunes it would be the same scenario.


----------



## primetime21 (Feb 14, 2013)

southpole12 said:


> I did not realize they were private, I will do that.


Thanks! I see you seemed pretty excited... I'm gonna have to find a better way to mount the go pro as I want to see the tach. and a frontal view... With my s4 I use the sunroof to mount... Did you data log the passes? Do you have the slip from the 1.6 60 ft pass, curious on the 330 and even 1/8th time... Good stuff!


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

primetime21 said:


> Thanks! I see you seemed pretty excited... I'm gonna have to find a better way to mount the go pro as I want to see the tach. and a frontal view... With my s4 I use the sunroof to mount... Did you data log the passes? Do you have the slip from the 1.6 60 ft pass, curious on the 330 and even 1/8th time... Good stuff!


I don't have that slip. I will try a different mount next time to get the tach. Yea I was excited because I though I got a really good run in but by than i ran the car 5 times in an hour. I will try to get better next time


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> ...new file revision that allowed for more torque down low in addition to more power to redline.


The low and the high end are absolutely noticeable and very much loved!:thumbup:


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

If you mount the cam on the inside of the drivers window, kind of just over your shoulder yiou can get the gauge cluster and the front view at the same time


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

Quisp said:


> If you mount the cam on the inside of the drivers window, kind of just over your shoulder yiou can get the gauge cluster and the front view at the same time


Yeah that is what I was thinking. Next time I bring it to the track I will do that. Hopefully i can get a low 12 this time.


----------



## DrDomm (Feb 16, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> ...This allowed us to revise our current TT-RS files and release a new file revision that allowed for more torque down low in addition to more power to redline. A few customers have received this revised file and have been vocal with their thoughts on it.


And are these revisions that I've heard great things about (thanks, Michael) part of the new Stage 1 tune? And if so, is there a dyno plot available that will compare that to the original stage 1 and new stage 2. Is the upgraded intercooler needed for that new Stage 1 file?

BTW, I'm not turned off by a little open conversation between tuners. I'm glad you guys actually discuss this publicly.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

DrDomm said:


> And are these revisions that I've heard great things about (thanks, Michael) part of the new Stage 1 tune? And if so, is there a dyno plot available that will compare that to the original stage 1 and new stage 2. Is the upgraded intercooler needed for that new Stage 1 file?
> 
> BTW, I'm not turned off by a little open conversation between tuners. I'm glad you guys actually discuss this publicly.


Happy to help Domm and it was a pleasure to meet you! 

GIAC will need to chime in on Stage 1, as my car was already equipped with stage 2 hardware from AWE *before* we started the tuning development work.


----------



## DrDomm (Feb 16, 2003)

Black BeauTTy said:


> Happy to help Domm and it was a pleasure to meet you!
> 
> GIAC will need to chime in on Stage 1, as my car was already equipped with stage 2 hardware from AWE *before* we started the tuning development work.


Great meeting you as well, Michael. As I told you, since I'm 4 hours from AWE and 2-3 from an APR or United dealer...I don't want to make a decision I regret.

Not sure if I want to financially jump into the Stage 2+ arena all at once...that's a bunch of race tires.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Add me to the list of APR tunes with misfirings. Grrrr. Tuned TTRS today. 91 octane file, even though I live in a 93 octane area. Fresh tank of Chevron Supreme. Very noticeable misfiring in 6th @ WOT about 80MPH, 3000ish RPM's. The misfirings are more of an annoyance than anything. I expect a 60K vehicle to perform flawlessly. For me the word "tuning" implies something better, not worse. Yes the power is better, but I want it all... Elegance and power. 

I am willing to take a little less performance and have a perfectly smooth experience. 

I have read this entire thread and it seems like the MAJORITY of cars are experiencing similar problems. It does not seem to be 1% or even 10%. 

Having said all that I am sure APR is top notch. I don't mind spending the money to have the same smooth experience as when the car was stock. What is disconcerting to me is that it seems no one really understands the issue and therefore cannot speak to a real solution. If I knew it was spark plug gaps, octane, air flow, or any combination of things, I would have the issue resolved tomorrow.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

what about speed limiter, did you figure that one out yet


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

Williamttrs said:


> Add me to the list of APR tunes with misfirings. Grrrr. Tuned TTRS today. 91 octane file, even though I live in a 93 octane area. Fresh tank of Chevron Supreme. Very noticeable misfiring in 6th @ WOT about 80MPH, 3000ish RPM's. The misfirings are more of an annoyance than anything. I expect a 60K vehicle to perform flawlessly. For me the word "tuning" implies something better, not worse. Yes the power is better, but I want it all... Elegance and power.
> 
> I am willing to take a little less performance and have a perfectly smooth experience.
> 
> ...



If you are within your 30 day window just return it and look here:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?5994009-Quick-Review-TTRS-Tune-APR-To-United-Motorsports

I battled this problem for a year and then it really got bad at stage2. Hated the idea of spending money again on a tune but it was well worth it. Really can't express what a difference it made. 

Everybody seems to have it figured out except APR at this point to be honest. Just don't wait until your 30 day trial is gone.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

I remember when APR launched their software on the market. They basically hired a few "big mouth " to say APR is better than everything out there. There was no proof at all that the software was that good but just 2 guys saying it is. People rushed and both the software.
Now it seems that many have misfires and UM came with the solution becoming the new player.

IMO people should rely more on facts and less on words:
MRC --> fastest stage 1~2 DSG on 1/4 mile = 11.3s (really impressive)
Revo --> fastest stage 2 manual = 11.6s
Revo --> fastest stage 1 manual = ?s
Revo --> fastest RS3 stage ? = 11.8s
APR --> nothing notable on stage 1&2 apart from misfires & words
APR --> fastest stage 4 (with a theoretical 600+ bhp) = 11.3s
GIAC --> nothing notable
UM --> presumably "no lift shift" and "launch control" + removed APR missfires

Side by side race (what I know of):
Revo stage 1 convertible vs APR stage 2 coupe --> Revo clearly faster


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

i have read about people complaining about misfires with giac, revo had lots of limp modes and misfires too

those who went from revo and amd to apr are sounding like people going from apr to UM right now, i would like to see a side by side dyno apr vs um same day same dyno

the other problem tuners ran into 2011+ was the speed limiters, if you removed it completely it would come back after time @ 155mph, apr has apparently cracked that too recently and another german tuner, i wonder if UM has

i have apr right now, i am very happy, i had misfires only when using crappy fuel, i made a lengthy post about it

i never had limp or high rpm hesistation ever

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...shes-Tunes&p=79910535&viewfull=1#post79910535


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Certainly seems like APR put their intern on tuning the US TT-RS cars. They are suspiciously silent and don't appear willing to discuss the issue openly (for example, they won't share a comparison dyno between the low output file for misfires, and the regular file).

Disappointing.

I've been patiently waiting for the APR Stage 3 kit, but I'm not sure that I trust APR's TT-RS software tuning capability at this point. It's unfortunate, because their hardware looks amazing.


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

Marty said:


> Certainly seems like APR put their intern on tuning the US TT-RS cars. They are suspiciously silent and don't appear willing to discuss the issue openly (for example, they won't share a comparison dyno between the low output file for misfires, and the regular file).
> 
> Disappointing.
> 
> I've been patiently waiting for the APR Stage 3 kit, but I'm not sure that I trust APR's TT-RS software tuning capability at this point. It's unfortunate, because their hardware looks amazing.


if you're really waiting for their stage3 kit, why are you selling an apr coupon for less than it's worth???


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

Timster said:


> On the other hand, if UM wants to tap into all the folks that already have APR (and other) tunes, it would be a smart move to discount the product


the smart move is to keep the price where it is. just my 0.02


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

canuckttrs said:


> if you're really waiting for their stage3 kit, why are you selling an apr coupon for less than it's worth???


Because:

1) The gift certificate is only valid for ECU upgrades (not hardware kits like Stage 3), and

2) APR does not give you a credit for Stage 3 if you already own Stage 1 software. They also don't allow transfer of your tune to another car, so the Stage 1 is worthless if you go Stage 3.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

Timster said:


> On the other hand, if UM wants to tap into all the folks that already have APR (and other) tunes, it would be a smart move to discount the product


This. The market is so small for this in the first place. It isn't out of the ordinary to give incentives to get people to switch brands.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

LynxFX said:


> This. The market is so small for this in the first place. It isn't out of the ordinary to give incentives to get people to switch brands.


Agreed... I think UM should offer a large discount to those with other 3rd party tunes. But how could they confirm you had an APR reflash? I'm under the impression that the APR tune has to be removed by an APR dealer before it can be flashed by UM.


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

Speaking as someone who switched from APR to UM, I have to agree.
Everyone would like to pay less for something, but in the end, why would the company producing a superior product take the hit vs the company that sold you a product with a problem?

After driving on it for a while, I'd gladly pay $900 again to have my car working the way I want it.
Can't wait to get LC/NLS added now!


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

so the LC and NLS are included in the price 899/999 price of the tune? there is no additional cost for these features?


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Is there a graph of the UM tune that someone can point me to?


----------



## TRZ06 (Jan 20, 2013)

Can the stock clutch and drivetrain handle the amount of HP and TQ being added with the UM software?


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

I guess what it boils down to is that I have a tune that is ~90% of what UM's tune is. Still waiting for some real world comparisons to see what difference there really is. Am I impressed with what UM has to offer so far? Absolutely! Am I willing to drop another grand to make up the difference from APR's tune? No. APR and a couple other tuners had some issues, but UM is late to the party. 

I can understand the initial reaction from UM, why should they give any incentive? It comes down to brand loyalty. How many people here that got the APR tune had another APR tune in the past or a friend that had one? They have a pretty strong history. They just happened to drop the ball with the TT-RS tune, so this is the perfect time to try and poach some APR loyal's. There is a reason why Audi is currently running an incentive program if you are a current owner of a competitor's vehicle and are looking to purchase a new Audi. APR is still a juggernaut in the Audi tuning world. UM is an unknown to me.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

When apr first came out the reviews were like UM gets now

We will see how it comes out "in the wash"

I will believe UM is better when I see dynos, same day same dyno same octane


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

Croman - if you don't like UM pricing then don't buy. No need to whine and beg please for the love of god!!!

I'm totally with Jeff on this one and I have absolutely nothing to gain from it. If you want a discount, ask APR for one, you aren't happy with their tune not Jeff's! He has for nothing to do with your situation as much as you try to tell him to run his business. 
The tuning game is pay to play so you took the risk with apr and here you are. I also took the gamble with apr and got burned. Big deal, lesson learned, move on and either get something else or don't. 
Sorry for the rant I just get really annoyed with people who feel entitled to things because of their own twisted logic that revolves around themselves and their life problems.


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

You totally missed the point. 

As I said in my post, even if he does not offer any kind of sale for his tune, I think his post did him more harm than good. It is full of attitude about how good he thinks his tune is and we have all heard that before.

The rest of it was just my two cents on why I think he is missing an opportunity. I am allowed to give my opinion right? 

Also if I was selling something, I would want to know why someone (even if it was just one person) would want to buy or not want to buy my product. He can do whatever he wants with that info, even if its just ignoring it.


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

canuckttrs said:


> If you want a discount, ask APR for one, you aren't happy with their tune not Jeff's!.



Btw, do you know why cruise lines are offering huge sales and discounts right now? (Bigger than normal). Because people are hesitant to go on cruises due to all the screw ups with Carnival lately. Is it the other cruise lines fault that Carnival messed up? No, but that is the situation and they have to adjust because of it. 

Do not get me wrong, I am not saying he has to have a sale. I am just saying that due to the APR situation that a lot of people are hesitant to spend $900 on yet another tune to go to one that is unproven. Some people will even without a sale (heck, I may be one of them) but I can guarantee that many that are on the fence about it would for sure if he did. 

Not quite sure how that is whining but you are entitled to your take on it.


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

croman44 said:


> Btw, do you know why cruise lines are offering huge sales and discounts right now? (Bigger than normal). Because people are hesitant to go on cruises due to all the screw ups with Carnival lately. Is it the other cruise lines fault that Carnival messed up? No, but that is the situation and they have to adjust because of it.
> 
> Do not get me wrong, I am not saying he has to have a sale. I am just saying that due to the APR situation that a lot of people are hesitant to spend $900 on yet another tune to go to one that is unproven. Some people will even without a sale (heck, I may be one of them) but I can guarantee that many that are on the fence about it would for sure if he did.
> 
> Not quite sure how that is whining but you are entitled to your take on it.


Oh, i get that you want to save some coin since the money you spent on apr feels a bit wasted, I Just don't think it's fair to request Jeff to discount because of someone else's problem. 

IF Jeff needs the business i'm sure he would consider doing a discount (and to be fair he already has - given that his tune is so far trouble free and packed with more stuff than anyone else) but you also have to consider that for him to do that("if you have apr tune, i will give you discount") will be seen in a very negative light by APR( and who knows what kind of trouble they could create for him.) Just a few thoughts.


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

Oh I would not suggest a APR -> UM sale, just maybe a spring sale like most others offer. 

To me the bigger hurdle that Jeff has is trying to sell an unproven tune for more money than the other tunes. 

As I put in the other thread, a 30 day trial or a 30 day money back guarantee would help with that also.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

I think apr owes people refunds much more than um owes people conquest discounts. And if you don't know um's reputation you haven't searched enough. Its pretty common to come across a small independent shop that offers higher quality than established volume brands. Tunes aren't any different in that regard.
And chasing power is pointless at this level. The quality of the tune and how power is delivered is far more important imo


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

So when will we see v-box figures, 1/4 mile slips etc to back any of this up.

All we have so far is a dyno sheet claiming power levels that are unachievable on the stock turbo and two people making alot of noise.

Who actually wrote the code? And are the based in the US or the UK?


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

I have a Revo stage 3 software misfire free so I don't plan changing my software with UM but what croman44 says makes sense.
UM could attract the APR clients that have misfires + APR clients that have the low output file and no misfires but wish to use the full potential of their car + Revo, Giac, ... clients that have misfires + all the stage 1 & 2 who want the NLF & LC. If UM would offer something like 400~500 $ for those who already have a software on their car but would like to change over ... I think would attract lots and lots of clients and money. Revo had similar offers with extremely low prices.

I personally (if I were to start over) I would go only for those tuners that proved something on the street. Even if you dyno 2 cars in the same day you can do a trick to loose or win 20 bhp or more. On the 1/4 mile, or vbox intervals, ... it's harder to cheat.

Btw, 
Revo stage 2 + wmi & pump fuel: 100-200 Km/h 7.3s
Revo stage 3 + Loba 500P + wmi & pump fuel: 100-200 Km in 6.7s; 30-130mph in 9.9s


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Poverty said:


> So when will we see v-box figures, 1/4 mile slips etc to back any of this up.
> 
> All we have so far is a dyno sheet claiming power levels that are unachievable on the stock turbo and two people making alot of noise.
> 
> Who actually wrote the code? And are the based in the US or the UK?


And 2 people were making a lot of noise about APR!!! Wonder if you were one of them?


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

cipsony said:


> And 2 people were making a lot of noise about APR!!! Wonder if you were one of them?


Oh look the guy with TTRS that is faster than a enzo and mclaren f1 has showed up lmao


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Poverty said:


> Oh look the guy with TTRS that is faster than a enzo and mclaren f1 has showed up lmao


Indeed is faster!!! Proved faster!!! And a loooot faster than a car which misfires!!!


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

cipsony said:


> Indeed is faster!!! Proved faster!!! And a loooot faster than a car which misfires!!!


Slower than apr stage 3 though


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Poverty said:


> Slower than apr stage 3 though


And just imagine how great a UM re-tuned APR Stage 3 could be!


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

lpriley32 said:


> tldr...can you give me the cliff's notes please


UM is potentially leaving money on the table.

croman44 hit it on the head. Going with US numbers there are at most going to be 1000 TT-RS out there. 80% probably will never get a tune. There has already been a flood of tunes provided by APR, GIAC, Stasis, Revo etc. Those itching for a tune got one and most are happy with it and power gains across the tunes are fairly close. UM is last to arrive, created what seems to be a pretty solid tune a few new features, but they are still last. They can go after the new owners without a tune. If I was a new owner I would be looking closely at the the UM tune. The increase from stock is quite impressive. But the number of owners without tunes and ready to get one is at an all time low for the TT-RS. So if you want to maximize sales you have to go after people with other tunes. Now you are only looking at a marginal increase in performance over what those people currently have. This is software we are talking about. Your R&D and investment is done or close to it if you are still tweaking. Now your goal should be to get it into the hands of as many people as possible.



Jefnes3 said:


> It is difficult swallow: creating product only to be asked for a discount, if for no other reason than the customer is unsatisfied with another product.


That's the foundation of business. I write software for a living as well. I deal with the exact same issue. We are constantly poaching competitor customers for two reasons...we build a better product and we discount it to earn their business. That customer attention also keeps that customer with us for newer versions or new products. It shouldn't be difficult to swallow, it is business.



> Prove ourselves?


Kinda yeah. I had never heard of you until it was mentioned on this forum. I was actually handed APR brochures at two Audi dealerships when I was shopping. Another one mentioned a deal with Stasis. Went to Euromeet and APR had a huge booth, GIAC had another one, cars getting tunes installed, of course with discounts.  

Anyway we aren't trying to attack you at all. Hell this all started with trying to get you MORE business. cronman is right in that these last couple posts probably hurt you more than helped.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Poverty said:


> Slower than apr stage 3 though


I doubt that. :wave:
I wonder how badly the stage 3 misfires with more boost? LOL


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

eh, the last few posts haven't changed my opinion at all. I don't think anything has come across as cocky or arrogant. The price of the tune is actually very close to bottom of the list in terms of factors to consider when purchasing a tune for this car for me...especially if it is from 750-900. I'm much more concerned with the functionality of the software than I am $150. If I already had APR software and was getting these "misfires" I would probably pay just about any amount to get rid of them.


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

lpriley32 said:


> I'm much more concerned with the functionality of the software than I am $150.


That is part of my point. One of the problems is that we don't know the functionality of the software. Sure, we have statements telling us from Jeff on how great it is but we do not have a good pool of users to tell us how it is for them in real life. 

The first step is to get people setup with your product so that you can get the honest testimonials and the word of mouth flowing. Sometimes to do that you need to offer incentives to get the ball rolling. I am not saying he needs to do that, I just posted my opinion that I thought it would help and more than pay off to him in the long run.


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

Jeff's post did come off to me as cocky - and raising the price definitely makes me feel like I don't want this tune after all. I think I will take the wait and see approach. I'm banking on APR eventually getting their act together and come out with an upgrade that'll kick UM's tune, if it is, in fact better.



croman44 said:


> Jeff, I am going to be honest with you and tell you that I think this post hurt you more than it helped you.
> 
> Lets first talk about the statement of "UM offering a discount to switch devalues our work" section that you posted. I will be honest, I can sort of see where you are coming from here, but only in a stubborn sort of way. First, it is business policy used all of the time to offer discounts or have a "sale" in order to entice people to use your product. Why do you believe that devalues your product? When I see Audi offer incentives to switch from BMW, does that devalue Audi? I can tell you what it does, it helps bring them new customers and give them a chance to prove themselves and to create brand loyalty. Your comments just make it seem like you have a "I am better, so F you, pay more and like it or don't let the door hit you on the way out" attitude. I mean not only are you hesitant to offer a deal but you want to charge MORE than any other tuner. Also the statement about "why should customers that came first pay more", I can see where you are coming from but companies have sales ALL the time so I hate to say it but that is not a valid argument.
> 
> ...


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

croman44 said:


> That is part of my point. One of the problems is that we don't know the functionality of the software. Sure, we have statements telling us from Jeff on how great it is but we do not have a good pool of users to tell us how it is for them in real life.
> 
> The first step is to get people setup with your product so that you can get the honest testimonials and the word of mouth flowing. Sometimes to do that you need to offer incentives to get the ball rolling. I am not saying he needs to do that, I just posted my opinion that I thought it would help and more than pay off to him in the long run.


We do have a pool of users telling us that another tune is garbage though.


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

lpriley32 said:


> We do have a pool of users telling us that another tune is garbage though.


That is true, but after dumping 800 on a tune that turned out to be crap, I am sure you can understand the hesitation people may have before repeating the same thing. Users will just be a bit more cautious and want to hear more about the tune and testimonials before jumping on board.


----------



## Koa1 (Feb 21, 2012)

Timster said:


> Jeff's post did come off to me as cocky - and raising the price definitely makes me feel like I don't want this tune after all. I think I will take the wait and see approach. I'm banking on APR eventually getting their act together and come out with an upgrade that'll kick UM's tune, if it is, in fact better.


It's interesting how the written word can be interpreted so differently by readers. I didn't think Jeff's post was cocky at all. While Cronman may have some points for Jeff to consider, a private message to Jeff would have been more appropriate and possibly better received. Ironically, by making this public, Cronman shot himself in the foot.

BTW, there are still quite a few TTRS owners waiting for a proven tune before we risk our warranty. UM and GIAC are looking good right now and I see no reason for either to discount. 

Getting the tune to some reputable, respected, forum members who will put up real world numbers will do more to get me off the fence than a broad discount.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

cipsony said:


> I doubt that. :wave:
> I wonder how badly the stage 3 misfires with more boost? LOL


My car only ever misfired on Revo software 

Apr stage 3 on the first version kit has done faster times than what you claim, never mind the newer kit with the bigger turbo


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Poverty said:


> My car only ever misfired on Revo software
> 
> Apr stage 3 on the first version kit has done faster times than what you claim, never mind the newer kit with the bigger turbo


You're running APR UK software? Which differs in ECU type and code from the USversion, correct?aybe this misfire issue is just an issue with the US programming staff / interns.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

Afaik UK software is different to that of the US. UK software is tailored to the UK market as we have different needs to the majority of the US market it seems


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

Koa1 said:


> It's interesting how the written word can be interpreted so differently by readers. I didn't think Jeff's post was cocky at all. While Cronman may have some points for Jeff to consider, a private message to Jeff would have been more appropriate and possibly better received. Ironically, by making this public, Cronman shot himself in the foot.
> 
> BTW, there are still quite a few TTRS owners waiting for a proven tune before we risk our warranty. UM and GIAC are looking good right now and I see no reason for either to discount.
> 
> Getting the tune to some reputable, respected, forum members who will put up real world numbers will do more to get me off the fence than a broad discount.


I think I was a little bitter when I posted this. It just sucks that APR seems to have abandoned guys with their tune. Wish nothing but the best to Jeff and UM. Seems like thier tune is a decent option to what's currently out there. :thumbup:


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

May not be as powerful a tune but havent had any trouble with Stasis tune. Had problems when it went back to stock but getting reflashed now and should be back on the road wednesday. Not quite the power(wish they had a more powerful one) but have nothad any problems with misfireing until it went back to stock, then got misfires.


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

*jeff i have a question...*

your tune also has user boost control.
any access to fuel or timing to go along with that?

theoretically the tune is already close to maximum(as much as it can be for an off the shelf tune) for the fuel and timing maps. so i'm confused what this is really for. you already have a secondary map set for an alt octane correct?

i mean i suppose you could keep pushing boost on the dyno until you start seeing the ecu pull timing to make up the difference between a safe generic tune and something more accurate to your specific car/build. just wondering how you see or recommend this working.

also as long as i'm asking, i'm in the sf bay area and tomas sport tuning is listed as your distributor. can they flash the car without having to send the ecu to your shop for the original tune? i called them and left a msg but never heard back. 

thanks in advance,
sean


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

radio silence...


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

smack_ttrs said:


> radio silence...


i smell a troll


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

smack_ttrs said:


> radio silence...


No real silence guys. I'm aware some people have issues with the higher output file but the lower boosting file (which is essentially the same boost levels as others are producing) is running just fine. If you happen to have a stumble, grab this file and everything should be good. 

That said, we're looking into everything on our end now. If we need to release updated software, we will. I'll update everyone when I have reliable information. Everything else is pure speculation, and I'd rather not speculate on this issue.

:thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 4, 2004)

We have done quite a few APR TT-RS upgrades only 1 had the random misfire which was fixed with the update(says the car runs great and he notices no difference in power). 

I think some are overly concerned with this issue and think that every car has the issue which isn't the case. 

On a side note, the car we did the update on he said it actually was better with a change in fuel but wanted the update for peace of mind. Also not sure it really matters but I have been checking the plugs in every TTRS that comes in and they have all had the wildly erratic plug gaps which is somewhat bizarre.


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

canuckttrs said:


> i smell a troll


why would you assume i'm a troll? i was referring to my previous post were i asked jeff a question. since he had been responding to this thread every to every other day and i hadn't seen a response that was a little joke to bump the thread so he'd see it. 

sorry arin if you thought that was somehow directed towards you.

i went from the audi tuning methodology(back in 98 with my first tt) which is usually getting an off the shelf flash for a specific parts list/build then on to mistu evo land where the ecu was wide open and you were able to tune to your exact car and it was pretty eye opening. i've seen dozens of cars with the same exact parts and none of the maps were dead identical when finished. every car acts a bit different. yes there's definitely a ballpark and for an off the shelf tune you need to stay to the lower side of this for safety. 
so i was still wondering why you would have customer adjustable boost without access to timing /fuel. if it was to throw 100 in it and say no problem to run a couple more lbs. as the ecu can pull timing if it sees any det. that's great. but i thought the flash already has a alt octane tune on it. 
just curious what he saw as a use for the access.

thanks


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

btw the only reason i ask is that i just picked up an rs and am itching to start modding it. just trying to sort out where all the shops are at as far as issues and options go.


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

I think a big reason why some folks don't encounter the hesitation is that they don't drive their car as hard as folks that do experience the hesitation do. When I drive to work etc, or drive the RS normally, I too do not experience any hesitation. It's just when I open her up in certain gears, and at certain RPMs...


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

smack_ttrs said:


> i went from the audi tuning methodology(back in 98 with my first tt) which is usually getting an off the shelf flash for a specific parts list/build then on to mistu evo land where the ecu was wide open and you were able to tune to your exact car and it was pretty eye opening. i've seen dozens of cars with the same exact parts and none of the maps were dead identical when finished. every car acts a bit different. yes there's definitely a ballpark and for an off the shelf tune you need to stay to the lower side of this for safety.
> so i was still wondering why you would have customer adjustable boost without access to timing /fuel. if it was to throw 100 in it and say no problem to run a couple more lbs. as the ecu can pull timing if it sees any det. that's great. but i thought the flash already has a alt octane tune on it.
> just curious what he saw as a use for the access.
> 
> thanks


Your Evo 8/9/X runs an open loop fueling map after a crossing a specified (Table) throttle position & (load) value. During cruise and idle the closed loop fueling is operational. (The ECU will correct to achieve the target lambda) This means to hit your target AFR consistently... you need to datalog or dyno the car and make adjustments. Then you need to keep an eye on your tune... and get tuned seasonally. Also to note: the Evo uses a cheap narrow band o2 sensor, so the level of sensor accuracy is only good near stoich... doesn't help much when you're targing 11.5:1 AFR's on pump gas!

Bosch ME9 (and several other vw/audi ecu's) have closed loop fueling all the time. So your ECU will correct for any variation in manufacturing... and then some. So you don't need to get your car retuned every 3 months. (That's a good thing) They use a nice Bosch wideband sensor... used by everyone in the aftermarket for their wideband kits. 

Evo 8/9/X have a knock retard AFTER your knock event has happened. If you knock enough your stock ECU will estimate your octane at a lower value than normal, but most tunes and tuners will make your 2nd and 3rd ignition map the same as the first. So, if your tune is off with an Evo it will knock every time you travel to the same speed/load point. 

Comparing the Evo open source to the VW/Audi stuff is a far cry. The Evo stuff although widely tuned is done well by few, and understood *accurately* by none. I would take the Bosch ECU over the Evo ECU any day of the week. :thumbup:


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

RTErnie said:


> Your Evo 8/9/X runs an open loop fueling map after a crossing a specified (Table) throttle position & (load) value. During cruise and idle the closed loop fueling is operational. (The ECU will correct to achieve the target lambda) This means to hit your target AFR consistently... you need to datalog or dyno the car and make adjustments. Then you need to keep an eye on your tune... and get tuned seasonally. Also to note: the Evo uses a cheap narrow band o2 sensor, so the level of sensor accuracy is only good near stoich... doesn't help much when you're targing 11.5:1 AFR's on pump gas!
> 
> Bosch ME9 (and several other vw/audi ecu's) have closed loop fueling all the time. So your ECU will correct for any variation in manufacturing... and then some. So you don't need to get your car retuned every 3 months. (That's a good thing) They use a nice Bosch wideband sensor... used by everyone in the aftermarket for their wideband kits.
> 
> ...


ha i thought your name looked familiar from the evo forums. didn't you have a drag evo at one point?

first thanks for the quick rundown on the bosch ecu!

good to know the bosch ecu a closed loop 100% of the time. didn't know that. so i guess that somewhat helps answer the question which was why have adjustable boost without other ecu support. but i guess the ecu will just take care of it. but then it seems odd that you wouldn't just crank boost from the get go and let the car sort it out.


my main point was that it's just a very different mindset between euro cars and the dsm/evo tuning world. here a tune almost feels like throwing on a set of wheels. plug and play. not that that is a bad thing (especially for 99% of the people) but it's just different. i was exactly the same way when i had my first two tt's. didn't know any different. sent the ecu to hopen for an mtm tune. really was a chip then haha.

yes the tools may be a bit more archaic but the access is pretty great if you have the knowledge or a proper tuner to use it. 
and as someone that has run a car in a power/weight limited class, i was always spending way too much time on the dyno haha. and come on, who uses a narrowband for anything. also please don't dump all evo tuners into the same basket. there's no shortage of idiots out there but there are also some excellent tuners out there as well and i'm fortunate enough to have what i feel is one of the best at my disposal when needed. 

i'm a bit confused about how the bosch ecu deals with knock. you specified "after" in regards to the evo ecu so are you saying the bosch predicts knock and pulls timing before any det? or are you just saying that if you have a horrible tuner then the evo ecu won't be able to deal with it and the bosch will. 

i'm sure i'm coming off like a complete evo fanboy which is not the case at all lol. i think they're a great little car for the price with a huge amount of potential but that's all. 
i'm really looking forward to the rs and think it has great potential as well which is why i bought it.
i'm just going to miss some of the user accessibility i suppose.

also sorry this is so rambling, i've been trying to write this while working and finding it tough to keep any kind of train of thought going haha


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

Timster said:


> I think a big reason why some folks don't encounter the hesitation is that they don't drive their car as hard as folks that do experience the hesitation do. When I drive to work etc, or drive the RS normally, I too do not experience any hesitation. It's just when I open her up in certain gears, and at certain RPMs...


not me... hard is the only way i drive


----------



## TraderGuy (Feb 3, 2013)

tdi-bart said:


> not me... flat out is the only way i drive


Fixed it for you. 

flat out is the only way i drive

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

haha flat out why not


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> We have a car in house and we're actively looking into the complaints some customers have had. If necessary, we'll update a free software update.


Hi Arin, any updates on this?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Yes. We made good headway and are spooling the turbo faster now. The update should be a good upgrade for power as well as looking into the things others have mentioned.

The main calibrators working on it are out in Europe working on a few new cals for the row market and will be back in 2 weeks, then will be continuing on with the ttrs.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Yes. We made good headway and are spooling the turbo faster now. The update should be a good upgrade for power as well as looking into the things others have mentioned.
> 
> The main calibrators working on it are out in Europe working on a few new cals for the row market and will be back in 2 weeks, then will be continuing on with the ttrs.


Excellent, so maybe in 3 weeks or so we might have an updated file to flash?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

I believe so. I'll keep everyone posted.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

smack_ttrs said:


> good to know the bosch ecu a closed loop 100% of the time. didn't know that. so i guess that somewhat helps answer the question which was why have adjustable boost without other ecu support. but i guess the ecu will just take care of it. but then it seems odd that you wouldn't just crank boost from the get go and let the car sort it out.


Above a certain threshold (surge line on the compressor map) most boost doesn't give you any more power, just more heat. We call them "blow-dryer turbos". 



> i'm a bit confused about how the bosch ecu deals with knock. you specified "after" in regards to the evo ecu so are you saying the bosch predicts knock and pulls timing before any det? or are you just saying that if you have a horrible tuner then the evo ecu won't be able to deal with it and the bosch will.


Most ECU's use a bandpass knock controller chip. What that means is that the chip handles all the knock control and just tells the ECU once you've crossed a threshold. It's a binary, Yes we are knocking, no we are not, thing. At that threshold, you're close to engine damage. 

The Bosch ECU reads the knock sensor directly and uses an FFT transform to break down the sensor output. From that, it can measure even the tiniest amount of knock. Instead of retarding 5 degrees at a time (I think that's the EVO default.. might be 10), the Bosch can retard .1 degrees at a time until everything is beautiful.

It's a really elegant solution and it works quite well. Except for 100 octane tune with 93 fuel and WOT. That will knock enough to cause damage pretty much immediately.


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Above a certain threshold (surge line on the compressor map) most boost doesn't give you any more power, just more heat. We call them "blow-dryer turbos".


that's what i meant. just setting to max efficiency of the turbo and call it a day. but from your info below it sounds like there is still a limit to what the ecu can do to save the motor if something goes really wrong.




[email protected] said:


> Most ECU's use a bandpass knock controller chip. What that means is that the chip handles all the knock control and just tells the ECU once you've crossed a threshold. It's a binary, Yes we are knocking, no we are not, thing. At that threshold, you're close to engine damage.
> 
> The Bosch ECU reads the knock sensor directly and uses an FFT transform to break down the sensor output. From that, it can measure even the tiniest amount of knock. Instead of retarding 5 degrees at a time (I think that's the EVO default.. might be 10), the Bosch can retard .1 degrees at a time until everything is beautiful.
> 
> It's a really elegant solution and it works quite well. Except for 100 octane tune with 93 fuel and WOT. That will knock enough to cause damage pretty much immediately.


not quite that big of a hammer as the evo will do single degrees but having that extra resolution is great. just wondering if the bosch ecu is capable of per cylinder timing adjustments or just does an analysis of each cylinder but makes an overall adjustment.

the evo's fourth cyl is usually the problem hole but with the stock ecu you can't make any specific cyl adjustments


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

smack_ttrs said:


> that's what i meant. just setting to max efficiency of the turbo and call it a day. but from your info below it sounds like there is still a limit to what the ecu can do to save the motor if something goes really wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I appreciate the correction. I'm not a Japanese car guy. Me9 is still 10x the resolution.

Yes, the ME9 can and does do it per cylinder. I'm not a calibrator, but I was helping with TT-RS calibration last week. I forget which cylinder it was, but the TT-rs certainly has one that's more annoying than the others.

As for the limits of what the ECU can do.. it still has to hear the knock before it can do anything. If the fuel is within the tolerances of the calibration, knock will come on gently and slight retard will correct it before there is any issue.

WOT with 100 octane program and 91 octane gas however is a totally different situation. There will be nothing gradual about that. Except, perhaps, for the gradual melting of your pistons. The knock will be so severe right from the go that you'll likely damage something before the ECU even hears the knock that has already put a hole in something.

It's not an ECU or software limitation as much as it is one of physics.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> I appreciate the correction. I'm not a Japanese car guy. Me9 is still 10x the resolution.
> 
> Yes, the ME9 can and does do it per cylinder. I'm not a calibrator, but I was helping with TT-RS calibration last week. I forget which cylinder it was, but the TT-rs certainly has one that's more annoying than the others.
> 
> ...


 Bosch is 3/4 of a degree, Evo is 1/3 of a degree for ignition resolution as well as for knock retard. 

Also you're limited on the TTRS not by the surge line (left side of the compressor map), but by the choke flow line. That's why you see your boost taper (down) near redline. You're peak flow number and speed follow the line and eventually your mass flow stays the same, but your PR starts to drop. So you cannot achieve anymore boost.... What sean is referring to is running off the highest efficiency island on the compressor map. Your turbo is less efficient at compressing the air and generates the PR by heating the air instead. Not really a desired result. If you have enough Intercooler to bring the IAT's back down it works out alright. E85 with a large FMIC is a great solution to running turbo's on the choke flow line from peak torque to redline. 

Biggest problem with the TTRS in my opinion is the stock Intercooler. IATs easily reach 60deg C with ambient temps in the 70's F... that and the excessively small turbine wheel. 

Knock Control... 
Well most ECU's have knock filtering. Since 1 (or 2) knock sensors are fitted to an engine these days you have more cylinders than sensors... so the ECU knowing where TDC and what part of the cycle it's in knows exactly what cylinder is at TDC on it's compression stroke. The ECU filters the signal by crank angle before and after TDC. This way the ECU can identify which cylinder the knock is coming from. The ECU then filters the frequency of the noise of the signal. Knock occurs at a specific frequency for a specific bore size....and for that matter pretty much that specific engine. Wideband knock sensors are nice because you can dial in the specific frequency range... but those are prohibitively expensive... so anyway. So then you can filter newly angle and frequency filtered output by amplitude. The higher the spike in cylinder pressure from induced knock generates a larger amplitude signal(noise, the good, but bad kind... and not signal noise) This is tuned by setting a threshold to define what is actual knock...and what is NOT actual knock. Tuning this accurately requires an in cylinder pressure transducer... or by running the engine at load and speed with an assured zero knock... logging the "noise" on the signal. The baseline noise is other engine components making noise at the same frequency as a knock event. This background noise needs to be separated from our true knock signal. So you set a threshold of amplitude and consider anything above that specific line to register as knock. 

Now I said that to say this... if you set that threshold artificially low, then you will begin to pull timing when the amplitude of the knock signal is small. If you set it too high... you will knock and it won't register as an event. That being said... the Evo and the Bosch ECU pull knock based on their knock filtering maps. Some tuners may raise that threshold to reduce the amount of ignition retard they see and run the engine closer to the knock limit. I know in the Evo world its quite common to do this with the addition of twin plate clutches, built engines with loose PTW clearances, and high lift/high valve ramp rate camshafts due to the increased noise. 

The EVO ecu is not primative by any means. The stock ECU has supported over 1000whp on a 2.0L more than once. That being said I don't think you can get anywhere a near perfect calibration with an EVO ecu like you can with a Bosch controller. 

my 2 cents.


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

The stock intercooler is actually pretty good. 
The killer is engine bay temperatures,so if you don't want to get really high intakes,keep the car on the move above 80 mph for miles to cool it down. 
The same goes for larger intercoolers if the car has been standing, they just cool down quicker. 
Under wot runs there can be +20-25c difference between stock and Forge street,but at a constant 80 mph,it will only be a couple of C. 
These are figures you can't replicate on a dyno due to airflow. 
When traveling at high speeds the car doesn't have any intake temp issues.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

jaybyme said:


> The stock intercooler is actually pretty good.
> The killer is engine bay temperatures,so if you don't want to get really high intakes,keep the car on the move above 80 mph for miles to cool it down.
> The same goes for larger intercoolers if the car has been standing, they just cool down quicker.
> Under wot runs there can be +20-25c difference between stock and Forge street,but at a constant 80 mph,it will only be a couple of C.
> ...


 If you do back to back to back (3) 1-2-3-4 pulls to redline... your IAT's are 60deg C. That's not on a dyno, that's on the road.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

RTErnie said:


> If you do back to back to back (3) 1-2-3-4 pulls to redline... your IAT's are 60deg C. That's not on a dyno, that's on the road.


 Well sure but wouldn't that mostly happen if you were drag racing? On the track or in the canyons you're going to be keeping your speed up.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

JohnLZ7W said:


> Well sure but wouldn't that mostly happen if you were drag racing? On the track or in the canyons you're going to be keeping your speed up.


 On all the other turbo cars I work on... none of them get to 60 deg C IATs.... EVER.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

RTErnie said:


> Bosch is 3/4 of a degree, Evo is 1/3 of a degree for ignition resolution as well as for knock retard.
> 
> Also you're limited on the TTRS not by the surge line (left side of the compressor map), but by the choke flow line. That's why you see your boost taper (down) near redline. You're peak flow number and speed follow the line and eventually your mass flow stays the same, but your PR starts to drop. So you cannot achieve anymore boost.... What sean is referring to is running off the highest efficiency island on the compressor map. Your turbo is less efficient at compressing the air and generates the PR by heating the air instead. Not really a desired result. If you have enough Intercooler to bring the IAT's back down it works out alright. E85 with a large FMIC is a great solution to running turbo's on the choke flow line from peak torque to redline.
> 
> ...


 
I'm gonna listen to this guy.. he seems to know his sh1t.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 27, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I'm gonna listen to this guy.. he seems to know his sh1t.


 Most definitely.


----------



## Sylvain (Mar 17, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> For everybody else in the thread...
> 
> RTErnie = [email protected]
> 
> He's the full time calibrator at APR, the one all of you guys will really appreciate when the latest revision software gets released. Needless to say, he's good at his job and hopefully these statements help further the understand of the forum with regards to knock control and your TTRS :thumbup:


 Nice, could he explaim to me why i had limp mode with underboost code when running the TTRS LO file, and why my boost was only up to 1.2b? My dealer can't told me.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 27, 2012)

Sylvain said:


> Nice, could he explaim to me why i had limp mode with underboost code when running the TTRS LO file, and why my boost was only up to 1.2b? My dealer can't told me.


 He wasn't around when the first file was created, he is currently working on getting everything sorted. 

Underboost isn't a typical issue at all. If you have data logs send them to [email protected] and I'll take a look for you.


----------



## Sylvain (Mar 17, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> He wasn't around when the first file was created, he is currently working on getting everything sorted.
> 
> Underboost isn't a typical issue at all. If you have data logs send them to [email protected] and I'll take a look for you.


 Log sent, as i said in the mail, i'm not running APR map anymore.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

Sylvain said:


> Nice, could he explaim to me why i had limp mode with underboost code when running the TTRS LO file, and why my boost was only up to 1.2b? My dealer can't told me.


 Boost leak? When the car does underboost... it will put you into limp home mode. Buy a nice boost leak tester and check your car up to 30psi. I think you'll find that tool quite handy with a turbocharged engine.


----------



## Sylvain (Mar 17, 2013)

RTErnie said:


> Boost leak? When the car does underboost... it will put you into limp home mode. Buy a nice boost leak tester and check your car up to 30psi. I think you'll find that tool quite handy with a turbocharged engine.


 Just had my new map yesterday by MRC, fine tuned my car in real time with an emulator and datalogged about 300 variables while tuning it, in order to ensure no misfires or underboost were going to happen, no more boost leak  as it take 1.45bar now..; 

And no misfire, no limp, only good things.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

RTErnie said:


> Boost leak? When the car does underboost... it will put you into limp home mode. Buy a nice boost leak tester and check your car up to 30psi. I think you'll find that tool quite handy with a turbocharged engine.


 NOPE 
When I updated my IC the hose was not properly fit so it went off after a few wot's. The car didn't go into limp mode at all, just the car behaved like a NA engine 'till i fixed the hose.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Sylvain said:


> Just had my new map yesterday by MRC, fine tune, no more boost leak  as it take 1.45bar now..;
> 
> And no misfire, no limp, only good things.


 How do you find this map compared to the APR one (If you let aside the APR miss-fires and limp modes) ? 

I have a Revo stage 3 so I don't have any interest in promoting APR or MRC but I am just curious as MRC would have been the other choice for me seeing the performance of other cars.


----------



## Sylvain (Mar 17, 2013)

cipsony said:


> How do you find this map compared to the APR one (If you let aside the APR miss-fires and limp modes) ?
> 
> I have a Revo stage 3 so I don't have any interest in promoting APR or MRC but I am just curious as MRC would have been the other choice for me seeing the performance of other cars.


 Well, i'm probably not the best example here, but APR flash my car without any dyno, no logs (VCDS or other datalogging system), no A/F check. The can was running pretty hard but with troubleshoots we all know here. As they can't fix it and put a big checksum error in my stock program, i had to take my responsabilities. 

So MRC accept the deal, and made the best effort tune on my car. The hardware installed on my car was impressive, the tune with emulator with more than 300 variables dataloggers is very helpfull for avoid all problems we can have with other tunners. 

The car is now fine, push hard. I have the APR downpipe withe stock sport exhaust and Wagner Tuning EVO2 IC. 
Power is 413hp (Engine corrected ISO 1585, about 425hp DIN) and 601nm. I'll can tell you more in few days because mapping done yesterday.


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

RTErnie said:


> If you do back to back to back (3) 1-2-3-4 pulls to redline... your IAT's are 60deg C. That's not on a dyno, that's on the road.


 Never come anywhere close to that and That's with repeated runs to 170 mph +
I only see 60c when parked


On the move


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

jaybyme said:


> Never come anywhere close to that and That's with repeated runs to 170 mph +
> I only see 60c when parked
> 
> 
> On the move


 People leaving in Antarctica and Siberia should not be taken in consideration.  

I had the Forge street IC and it's not up to the job. It's better than the OEM one but still no where near a "normal" car. 
If you compare the Audi S3 cooling options and results with the TT RS you will understand what I mean (the engine being quite similar with just an extra cylinder).


----------



## derek8819 (Jan 29, 2013)

The S3 has a large intercooler like the TTS, I think they are the same actually. Do you think the OEM TTS intercooler is better from the factory than the TTRS and why would they do it that way?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

jaybyme said:


> Never come anywhere close to that and That's with repeated runs to 170 mph +
> I only see 60c when parked
> 
> 
> On the move


 What ambient temps are you running to 170mph in? 

What is your actual IAT during/after a 170mph run? 

Are you stock, stg1, or stg2?


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

I'm running stage 2,so holding 1.5 bar to roughly 5400 rpm. 
My intakes are roughly as follows. 
Normal driving low speed through towns +20c 
Cruising 85 mpg + 10 
cruising 100-150 mph +7-8 c 
Wot runs to 170 mph +20 to max +25c 
these don't really vary no matter what the ambient is. 
I went out last Sunday for some fun driving on the Autobahns and country roads. 
Managed to do a few runs in between traffic up to 180 mph gps and kept an on intakes. 
The max intake I saw on the Autobahns was 33c with ambients around 12.5c 
The highest I saw for the whole drive was 36c,when driving at 30 mph. 
sit in traffic and it will quickly rise to 45c. 
Like I said, I've had intakes constantly in view for nearly 2 years now, and the TT RS is very dependable on speed and air flow to the engine bay. 
It hates slow traffic and pretty much anything under 100 mph. 
Park the car and you need, at least 20 miles of fast driving with the oem cooler to get down to anywhere around +15c. 
I also have my doubts as to whether the sensors read actual air intake temperatures,or are heavily influenced by engine bay temps. 
For comparison,my R26 Megane tuned to 1.6 bar, will show intakes at around +3c under normal driving,so much lower than the TT,then under wot runs to 165 mph max +18c,so pretty much the same.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

jaybyme said:


> these don't really vary no matter what the ambient is.


 You understand how ridiculous this statement is right? 



jaybyme said:


> It hates slow traffic and pretty much anything under 100 mph.


 Guess what speed 99% of the TTRS population drives at for 98% of the time they're in their car? Yeah... under 100mph. So basically it's perfect for the 1% of drivers for 2% of the operating range.... 



jaybyme said:


> Park the car and you need, at least 20 miles of fast driving with the oem cooler to get down to anywhere around +15c.


 How is this helping your argument that the OEM intercooler works just fine?  

Sounds like you agree with me 100%. The stock intercooler is insufficient.


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

why ridiculous ? 
The fact is, if it's -20c ambient, under wot runs intakes will be around 0c 
if ambients are +30c intakes will max at +50c. the +20c remains the same. 
The bigger cooler does work much better than the oem at low speeds and in traffic,if I remember correctly,I often had intakes well above +25c ambient in town,but no matter what cooler you put on the car, intakes at normal highway speeds will be high in the TT RS,as the engine bay gets so hot after a while. 
If your driving in traffic and at slow speeds,why bother fitting the larger cooler,your not really going to notice the difference in performance dashing from one set of lights to the next. 
If your repeatedly pushing the car hard,then it will be worth it,all I can do is post the actual intake temperatures that I have seen. 
I know I won't rush out and buy a slightly bigger cooler that is restricted anyway by the position of the number plate,I'd sooner look at increasing engine bay cooling,and and an extra ram air flow.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

I will soon come with a proper intake for this car that will allow the air to flow much better than any intake from the market + the air will not get so hot before the turbo.


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

I'm going to try an additional air feed running from the front to the secondary inlet at the bottom of the air box. 
Hperformance claim it has benefits ?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

I've seen a lot of intake claims. 

... claims ...


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

jaybyme said:


> why ridiculous ?
> The fact is, if it's -20c ambient, under wot runs intakes will be around 0c
> if ambients are +30c intakes will max at +50c. the +20c remains the same.
> The bigger cooler does work much better than the oem at low speeds and in traffic,if I remember correctly,I often had intakes well above +25c ambient in town,but no matter what cooler you put on the car, intakes at normal highway speeds will be high in the TT RS,as the engine bay gets so hot after a while.
> ...


 or maybe thermal coatings and heat shields.  

I see what you mean by the differential will be about 20 deg C from ambient. I'll be looking into the IAT issues and attempt to isolate each contributor to the problem. Thanks for your patience and sharing your experiences. :thumbup:


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

No problem. 
It would be interesting to see some figures from the Forge race, or Wagner evo 2,but I'm not too happy about cutting away the bumper,if there are no proven benefits. 
Not sure what options you have in the US ? 
One thing is for sure,you can not get realistic intake temps on the dyno with the TT RS. 
When I was at APR in the UK I saw intakes of over 70c after many repeated runs,and power drop by 30 hp ,that would be impossible on the open road. 
Maybe not if you stayed under 30 mph,lol 
It's a sad fact, that unless some radical mods,or injection are done,the TT RS will run pretty high intakes. 
I've spent hours hunting down a cool video I done ,with the car at a steady 250 km/h gps, with intakes at only +7.5c ambient. 
Sadly I can't find it,so it must have been accidentally deleted,which is very annoying 
Did find one showing how easy it was to get well over 40 mpg(UK) at the UK speed limit though,which is pretty good for a 400+ hp car. 
I Think that's over 35 mpg US ?


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

I just dynoed the car (I have the wagner evo 2 & Aquamist). 
Ambient temperature inside the dyno room was ~28 grd --> It's already pretty hot here. 

I did a few consecutive runs and got the same result (with a variance of 1~2 hp) which is not bad I would say + this was after more than 1 hour of driving to cross the whole Bucharest.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

cipsony said:


> I just dynoed the car (I have the wagner evo 2 & Aquamist).
> Ambient temperature inside the dyno room was ~28 grd --> It's already pretty hot here.
> 
> I did a few consecutive runs and got the same result (with a variance of 1~2 hp) which is not bad I would say + this was after more than 1 hour of driving to cross the whole Bucharest.


 what power did you make.....


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

I'm sure you've posted elsewhere that aquamist makes a big difference,so should be the way to go for those after serious power. 
I also did three dyno runs with stage 1,and each run was virtually the same. 
The intakes were very high at APR, because they ran the car at different speeds for a long time logging the car. 
Cipsony. 
Do you know what your intakes are without injection at different speeds, and cruising at around 130 km/h ?


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

jaybyme said:


> I'm sure you've posted elsewhere that aquamist makes a big difference,so should be the way to go for those after serious power.
> I also did three dyno runs with stage 1,and each run was virtually the same.
> The intakes were very high at APR, because they ran the car at different speeds for a long time logging the car.
> Cipsony.
> Do you know what your intakes are without injection at different speeds, and cruising at around 130 km/h ?


 I didn't really tested during cruising as basically you don't have load on the engine so it's just a matter of time 'till the temps will go really low. 
I only tested at full wot when the air is getting really hot (in 3rd or 4th). 

Overall it is a considerable difference between Wagner EVO 2 and Forge street --> about 12grd lower temps with Wagner EVO 2 --> I don't have the number plate on the front grill. 

The cooling is pretty good with Wagner but there is room for improvement. Problem is that if you make a bigger surface IC (and less deeper) I don't know if enough air will go to the water radiator behind it + the IC should have a different design (different thickness in the routing pipes inside it) so it would route the air evenly and not just in the middle --> I really don't think any company would make such an IC just for a few TT RS owners.


----------



## Sylvain (Mar 17, 2013)

cipsony said:


> I didn't really tested during cruising as basically you don't have load on the engine so it's just a matter of time 'till the temps will go really low.
> I only tested at full wot when the air is getting really hot (in 3rd or 4th).
> 
> Overall it is a considerable difference between Wagner EVO 2 and Forge street --> about 12grd lower temps with Wagner EVO 2 --> I don't have the number plate on the front grill.
> ...


 I have the Wagner EVO2 on my RS, during tune on the dyno, at full wot in 5th gear with 20° ambiant temp, IAT was at 48°. I have the stock licence plate on the front grill, so i thing t° raise for 10% more than without it. 
For me, IC on front of other radiator is no a problem, if you see the cooling configuration on the Golf R, S3 or TTS, there is full front size IC, Clim radiator and water radiator, all same size!.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Sylvain said:


> I have the Wagner EVO2 on my RS, during tune on the dyno, at full wot in 5th gear with 20° ambiant temp, IAT was at 48°. I have the stock licence plate on the front grill, so i thing t° raise for 10% more than without it.
> For me, IC on front of other radiator is no a problem, if you see the cooling configuration on the Golf R, S3 or TTS, there is full front size IC, Clim radiator and water radiator, all same size!.


 That's why I say it can be improved. 
On another note: You had the licence plate + usually the best dyno fans will provide air of ~100-120 Km/h equivalent. If you dynoed the car in 5th gear you can imagine that on the street it's a different story. 

On the street, at full wot and without licence plate you can expect of something around + 15 grd (it depends of more factors like what boost is requested by the software, timing, fuel, how well it was cooled before, how hot is the engine and for how long it was run, ....) 

Imagine that you drive in town for 1 hour --> the interior of the IC is heated badly by the engine (and the pipes that connects it to the engine) --> this is totally different than starting the car and driving on highway till the engine reaches 80-90 grd and then doing a wot test.


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

If the Evo 2, would lower intakes by another 12c over the Forge street,then I would be running at negative intakes most of the time, and max + 13c after really,really pushing the car. 
On most wot runs,my intakes are only at +15c-20c 
You will have to take my word for it,but here's a picture at ambient - 7.5c cruising at just over 100 mph with intakes at 0C 
At these speeds intakes would initially drop by another couple of C under wot,then rise to around +15c. 
Then if wot runs were repeated, intakes would go to +20c 

I'll think I'll stick with the same IC and just try the extra air feed,then compare before and after.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

jaybyme said:


> If the Evo 2, would lower intakes by another 12c over the Forge street,then I would be running at negative intakes most of the time, and max + 13c after really,really pushing the car.
> On most wot runs,my intakes are only at +15c-20c
> You will have to take my word for it,but here's a picture at ambient - 7.5c cruising at just over 100 mph with intakes at 0C
> At these speeds intakes would initially drop by another couple of C under wot,then rise to around +15c.
> ...


 You should do a wot in 4th gear from ~2500-3000 rpm up to 7000 and show us the logs. First column should be the boost requested and real boost - then ambient temps - intake temps. I expect to see at least +25 (more likely +30) grd at high rpm. The wagner will drop 12 grd from your highest value. Of course that if you are cruising then it's a different story but cruising has no importance at all. 

Maybe you could do 2~3 consecutive runs.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

It's important to log the boost column as if the boost requested is too low then your measurements are not relevant at all.


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

I would have to ask if the tuner has any logs of our last runs, but I haven't got vagcom to log, I just go by the gauge figures. Normally runs are done from 100 kmh up to 280 through the gears. Or starting in 4th running to 270 in 5th.
It doesn't matter what I do, it would be hard to see above 25c at high speeds.
Maybe runs on track at lower speeds would be different.



On the move


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

cipsony said:


> It's important to log the boost column as if the boost requested is too low then your measurements are not relevant at all.


 Boost will be between 1.5 and 1.2 bar


On the move


----------



## Den2Bright (Apr 27, 2013)

The plugs did have something to do with this whole mess.


----------



## J9277655 (Mar 1, 2011)

Hey Guys, 

I just was at 034 Motorsport in CA getting my car re-flasshed to the APR "low output" Stage II file. 

There's a number of things I've noticed that I'm unhappy about. Curious if anyone else has experienced this. 


Immediately after the flash was uploaded through the OBDII port I noticed: 

1. At startup, the Infotainment screen between the tachometer and speedometer would say "No SDARS". This apparently relates to the Satellite radio. It quickly goes away and I don't notice any actual faults in the Sirius Radio system.... 

2. The left window no longer has the "one-touch" feature. Strangely, this only affects the LEFT window on the DOWN motion. It works fine going up...... The 034 guys tried re-programming it to no avail 

3. The car no longer has the higher idle during a cold startup. Is this the case for everyone?? I actually liked the loud startup in the morning, but also assume its important to get the proper fluids flowing and temps raised 


4. The flash itself.... The car is no longer misfiring (which I was having w/ the stage 1 flash) but the torque/boost seem to be very inconsistent from 1 pull to the next. The powerband is also not very linear. I'll be in 3rd doing a pull to redline.... sometimes the boost is full force at 4k, sometimes its 3k, and sometimes it's 5k! it also seems to be ON and then Off and then ON in the same pull.... very inconsistent.... 


Overall, I'm happy to have the flash because its a healthy bit of power gain over stock. That said, I was expecting a more OEM driving experience, just with more power all around. Curious what you all have experienced on these specific issues. 

Thanks, 
JB


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 27, 2012)

J9277655 said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> I just was at 034 Motorsport in CA getting my car re-flasshed to the APR "low output" Stage II file.
> 
> ...


 Cold start is purposely removed on many of our tunes, so that isn't going to be out of the norm. The windows will go back to the 1 touch feature if you hold the button after the window has gone up/down for 5 seconds. This happens when the ECU has lost power and has reset.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

J9277655 said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> I just was at 034 Motorsport in CA getting my car re-flasshed to the APR "low output" Stage II file.
> 
> ...


 You should go and get your money back until the trial period expires. Some didn't and now regret it. 
Stage 1 vs stock is just a bomb! The car should accelerate pretty hard without any hesitation. The TT RS is one of the cars that have a huge increase in power an torque with stage 1.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Cold start is purposely removed on many of our tunes, so that isn't going to be out of the norm.


 Why did you do that?


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

i have apr and still have the cold start...


----------



## J9277655 (Mar 1, 2011)

I've spoken to a few w/ the low output Stage II file who still have the cold start... 

Also, even after numerous attempts to reprogram the windows per your suggestion, it still does not work. Nate @034 Motorsport was working in figuring out this mystery bug for about 30 minutes....


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

cipsony said:


> NOPE
> When I updated my IC the hose was not properly fit so it went off after a few wot's. The car didn't go into limp mode at all, just the car behaved like a NA engine 'till i fixed the hose.


 When that happened to mine it went into limp, and I was on Revo software at the time


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

J9277655 said:


> Hey Guys,
> 
> I just was at 034 Motorsport in CA getting my car re-flasshed to the APR "low output" Stage II file.
> 
> ...


 Do you have a VAGCOM setup for logging or is 034 going to work on these issues for you? 

Also, have you driven enough for the adaptation routines to run and set new baselines for the various parameters? That may cause some issues with drivability until they ECU sorts itself out.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Poverty said:


> When that happened to mine it went into limp, and I was on Revo software at the time


 The software within the ecu have more maps inside (the part Keith was explaining on the private  

A map is basically a "Torque curve" --> a set of parameters that will be commuted based on the conditions (throttle position, rpm, temperatures, fuel determined quality, AFR, air quantity ...) --> In other words the ECU chooses what map to use based on these conditions. 

When the IC hose went off basically all the sensors were OK just the boost was much lower --> In order words, on full wot the engine requested a boost that was not met. 

NOW: 
1) The revo stage 1 & 2 map is requesting a high boost above 5000 rpm which is never met! The car requests about 1.5 bar at 7000 rpm but the actual boost is just about 1 ~ 1.1 bar. --> The car doesn't go into limp mode. 

2) With ANY software (even the stock one): If you are cruising the boost requested by the map is quite low. If you accelerate all of the sudden then the reaction of the ecu is the following: A different map is "switched" and the car requests a bigger amount of boost that in the initial phase is not met --> Even that the boost produced by the turbo is much smaller than the boost requested by the ecu (in the initial phase) the car doesn't go into limp mode. 

3) The fail safe systems that come with WMI instalations are working by cutting the boost --> The car doesn't go into limp mode as you can imagine when the fail safe is triggered. 

So basically I explained you 3 situations that are similar to when a IC hose went off (aka no boost) yet the car is not going into limp mode. 

Limp mode is triggered by elements that could damage your engine: miss fires, too much boost, extremely lean AFR, ... and not something that would make no harm to the engine. I don't even think that the maps within the ecu are having a "minimal value of boost" parameter.


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

Why would a tuner map the car to request 1.5 bar above 6000 rpm 
The turbo has no chance in meeting the request,so what's the point ? 
I'll have to ask what mine requests,but I'm pretty sure that the differences between boost requested, to actual boost, and over boost were the reasons the car would go into a sort of safety mode with earlier maps. 
By the end of the week,I should have done over 2000 km testing with my latest map,and so far everything is good. 
In my case,it's only taken nearly 2yrs and loads of different maps :banghead:


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

jaybyme said:


> Why would a tuner map the car to request 1.5 bar above 6000 rpm
> The turbo has no chance in meeting the request,so what's the point ?
> I'll have to ask what mine requests,but I'm pretty sure that the differences between boost requested, to actual boost, and over boost were the reasons the car would go into a sort of safety mode with earlier maps.
> By the end of the week,I should have done over 2000 km testing with my latest map,and so far everything is good.
> In my case,it's only taken nearly 2yrs and loads of different maps :banghead:


 I correct my statement: only 1.4 bar  

Why not requesting 1.4 bar? The turbo is not making it anyway and the other parameters adjust accordingly.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

It's a problem if you request too much at lower rpms.


----------



## Sylvain (Mar 17, 2013)

cipsony said:


> Limp mode is triggered by elements that could damage your engine: miss fires, too much boost, extremely lean AFR, ... and not something that would make no harm to the engine. I don't even think that the maps within the ecu are having a "minimal value of boost" parameter.


 No on my RS, the reason i had to remove the APR Stage 2 LO file is the limp mode at 3000rpm when the ecu ask 1.55bar but real boost was 1.2bar. Here, nothing could be damage, but each time, the error code with MIL was Underboost.


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

I wonder why it was only hitting 1.2 bar at 3000 rpm ?


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Sylvain said:


> No on my RS, the reason i had to remove the APR Stage 2 LO file is the limp mode at 3000rpm when the ecu ask 1.55bar but real boost was 1.2bar. Here, nothing could be damage, but each time, the error code with MIL was Underboost.


 Are you sure is not something else that is causing the low boost?


----------



## Sylvain (Mar 17, 2013)

cipsony said:


> Are you sure is not something else that is causing the low boost?


 I'm now with MRC map, nothing else, i have 1.45bar and great power !


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Sylvain said:


> I'm now with MRC map, nothing else, i have 1.45bar and great power !


 So basically it was not from low boost, meaning the turbo is ok and no hose jumped or any leak or any hardware problem.


----------



## Sylvain (Mar 17, 2013)

cipsony said:


> So basically it was not from low boost, meaning the turbo is ok and no hose jumped or any leak or any hardware problem.


 I think a mistake in the N75 map. The boost map ask 2550mbar but boost reach only 2200.


----------



## J9277655 (Mar 1, 2011)

Does everyone with the Stage II APR flash (Low Output) have a high idle at cold startup? Curios why mine does not and it sounds like many others do...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

J9277655 said:


> Does everyone with the Stage II APR flash (Low Output) have a high idle at cold startup? Curios why mine does not and it sounds like many others do...


 Are you sure it's removed? Have you tried starting up after letting the car sit over night? I had someone check the files and I don't believe the cold start delete is available on any of them at the moment, only upon request.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

J9277655 said:


> Does everyone with the Stage II APR flash (Low Output) have a high idle at cold startup? Curios why mine does not and it sounds like many others do...


 I have never really paid attention to the idle RPMs but on a cold start I do get a really nice *bark*. 

What RPM range is considered high for idle? I'll check when I start it tomorrow.


----------



## J9277655 (Mar 1, 2011)

Hi Arin, 

Yes - The car has sat over night Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Each time to no avail. 

To couple this w/ the other mystery electronic problems I wrote previously.... I'm really not too happy. I'm looking forward to your solution.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

LynxFX said:


> I have never really paid attention to the idle RPMs but on a cold start I do get a really nice *bark*.
> 
> What RPM range is considered high for idle? I'll check when I start it tomorrow.


 1200 rpm for about 90 seconds and then drops down to 700 or so.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

J9277655 said:


> Hi Arin,
> 
> Yes - The car has sat over night Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Each time to no avail.
> 
> To couple this w/ the other mystery electronic problems I wrote previously.... I'm really not too happy. I'm looking forward to your solution.


 The tuning software does not alter the Satellite radio in any way shape or form. They are controlled by totally separate controllers. You may simply need to clear all fault codes from all controllers. This is a standard procedure by all tunings. This even includes Audi when they flash a car. 

As for the windows not going up and down with the flick or your finger, this is also something we do not alter with our software. When the battery is disconnected and reconnected, the car is in a low power mode. Low power mode conserves power every way possible, and it does so by turning off things like auto windows up and down. This feature will come back over time if it was not disabled in the MFD, or if your battery is not on its way out. 

I don't know what to say about the cold start but it is something we can optionally turn off. However, after asking engineering, it does not appear we've turned it off at all. It's only there to warm the catalyst during emissions. If you've removed the catalyst, it's not really doing anything beneficial for you other than making your cold starts really loud and annoying.


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

Arin, IMO i would like the Cold Start Idle back in the new update your about to release, at least possibly have it as an option. Speaking of the Update how's is that looking. 

Thanks


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

rp5311 said:


> Arin, IMO i would like the Cold Start Idle back in the new update your about to release, at least possibly have it as an option. Speaking of the Update how's is that looking.
> 
> Thanks


 Removing it shouldn't be an issue because according to engineering, it's not removed. It will only be available as an option if someone wants it removed. I will confirm all of this during the launch of the update. 

The update's looking good. Hopefully I'll have more information next week. :thumbup:


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

Mine is disabled for some reason and thank you for the update, we all eagerly awaiting. 

Thanks again...


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

rp5311 said:


> Mine is disabled for some reason and thank you for the update, we all eagerly awaiting.
> 
> Thanks again...


 Need to do a comparo someday.


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

Black BeauTTy said:


> Need to do a comparo someday.


 No doubt about that and can't wait to finally meet.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

rp5311 said:


> Mine is disabled for some reason and thank you for the update, we all eagerly awaiting.
> 
> Thanks again...


 I'll get to the bottom of it. PM sent.


----------



## carl44 (Nov 23, 2012)

Its interesting that you can trigger random misfires 1s and 2s when you get on and off the gas or low load but 0 under WOT. i guess really what counts is under load because the engine is under max stress. Ive run this test three times and its consistent. .am i correct? i shortened up the log for posting. the car has a stock tune 1200 miles if you have a vagcom run the same log with a tune and compare. thanks carl 

Group A:	'014 total Group B:	1	2	3 Group C:	4	5 
Engine Speed	Engine Load	Misfire Counter	Misfire Misfire Counter	Misfire Counter	Misfire Counter	Misfire Misfire Counter	Misfire Counter Misfire 
126.8	1040	30.8	0	Enabled	126.55	0	0	0	Enabled	126.67	0	0 Enabled 
127.19	1200	32.3	0	Enabled	126.92	0	0	0	Enabled	127.07	0	0 Enabled 
127.58	1360	30.1	0	Enabled	127.31	0	0	0	Enabled	127.44	0	0 Enabled 
127.95	1480	29.3	0	Enabled	127.7	0	0	0	Enabled	127.83	0	0 Enabled 
128.35	1600	21.8	0	Enabled	128.1	0	0	0	Enabled	128.22	0	0 Enabled 
128.74	1680	19.5	0	Enabled	128.47	0	0	0	Enabled	128.61	0	0 Enabled 
129.13	1720	18	0	Enabled	128.86	0	0	0	Enabled	128.99	0	0 Enabled 
129.5	1760	14.3	0	Enabled	129.25	0	0	0	Enabled	129.38	0	0 Enabled 
129.89	1800	13.5	0	Enabled	129.64	0	0	0	Enabled	129.77	0	0 Enabled 
130.28	1840	12.8	0	Enabled	130.02	0	0	0	Enabled	130.16	0	0 Enabled 
130.67	1880	13.5	0	Enabled	130.41	0	0	0	Enabled	130.53	0	0 Enabled 
131.05	1880	15	0	Enabled	130.8	0	0	0	Enabled	130.92	0	0 Enabled 
131.44	1880	15	0	Enabled	131.19	0	0	0	Enabled	131.32	0	0 Enabled 
131.83	1920	15	0	Enabled	131.57	0	0	0	Enabled	131.71	0	0 Enabled 
132.22	1920	15	0	Enabled	131.95	0	0	0	Enabled	132.08	0	0 Enabled 
132.6	1960	20.3	0	Enabled	132.35	0	0	0	Enabled	132.47	0	0 Enabled 
132.99	1960	21.8	0	Enabled	132.74	0	0	0	Enabled	132.86	0	0 Enabled 
133.38	2000	22.6	0	Enabled	133.11	0	0	0	Enabled	133.25	0	0 Enabled 
133.77	2040	18.8	0	Enabled	133.5	0	0	0	Enabled	133.63	0	0 Enabled 
134.14	2040	15	0	Enabled	133.89	0	0	0	Enabled	134.02	0	0 Enabled 
134.53	2000	14.3	0	Enabled	134.28	0	0	0	Enabled	134.41	0	0 Enabled 
134.92	1960	14.3	0	Enabled	134.66	0	0	0	Enabled	134.8	0	0 Enabled 
135.32	1920	13.5	0	Enabled	135.05	0	0	0	Enabled	135.17	0	0 Enabled 
135.69	1880	13.5	0	Enabled	135.44	0	0	0	Enabled	135.56	0	0 Enabled 
136.08	1800	13.5	0	Enabled	135.83	0	0	0	Enabled	135.95	0	0 Enabled 
136.47	1760	13.5	0	Enabled	136.21	0	0	0	Enabled	136.35	0	0 Enabled 
136.86	1760	19.5	0	Enabled	136.6	0	0	0	Enabled	136.72	0	0 Enabled 
137.24	1720	21.1	0	Enabled	136.99	0	0	0	Enabled	137.11	0	0 Enabled 
137.63	1720	23.3	0	Enabled	137.38	0	0	0	Enabled	137.5	0	0 Enabled 
138.02	1800	32.3	0	Enabled	137.75	0	0	0	Enabled	137.89	0	0 Enabled 
138.41	1920	36.1	0	Enabled	138.14	0	0	0	Enabled	138.27	0	0 Enabled 
138.78	2040	36.1	0	Enabled	138.53	0	0	0	Enabled	138.66	0	0 Enabled 
139.17	2160	34.6	0	Enabled	138.93	0	0	0	Enabled	139.05	0	0 Enabled 
139.56	2280	33.8	0	Enabled	139.3	0	0	0	Enabled	139.44	0	0 Enabled 
139.96	2440	37.6	0	Enabled	139.69	0	0	0	Enabled	139.81	0	0 Enabled 
140.33	2640	42.9	0	Enabled	140.08	0	0	0	Enabled	140.2	0	0 Enabled 
140.72	2880	49.6	0	Enabled	140.47	0	0	0	Enabled	140.6	0	0 Enabled 
141.11	3200	52.6	0	Enabled	140.85	0	0	0	Enabled	140.99	0	0 Enabled 
141.5	3520	55.6	0	Enabled	141.24	0	0	0	Enabled	141.36	0	0 Enabled 
141.88	3920	72.9	0	Enabled	141.63	0	0	0	Enabled	141.75	0	0 Enabled 
142.27	4680	125.6	0	Enabled	142.02	0	0	0	Enabled	142.14	0	0 Enabled 
142.66	5760	181.2	0	Enabled	142.4	0	0	0	Enabled	142.53	0	0 Enabled 
143.05	6720	151.9	0	Enabled	142.79	0	0	0	Enabled	142.91	0	0 Enabled 
143.42	6160	13.5	0	Disabled	143.17	0	0	0	Enabled	143.3	0	0 Disabled 
143.82	4760	75.2	0	Disabled	143.57	0	0	0	Disabled	143.69	0	0 Disabled 
144.19	4640	162.4	0	Enabled	143.94	0	0	0	Enabled	144.07	0	0 Enabled 
144.58	5080	185.7	0	Enabled	144.31	0	0	0	Enabled	144.44	0	0 Enabled 
144.95	5560	182	0	Enabled	144.71	0	0	0	Enabled	144.83	0	0 Enabled 
145.35	6000	185	0	Enabled	145.1	0	0	0	Enabled	145.22	0	0 Enabled 
145.74	6480	173.7	0	Enabled	145.47	0	0	0	Enabled	145.61	0	0 Enabled 
146.13	6880	152.6	0	Enabled	145.87	0	0	0	Enabled	145.99	0	0 Enabled 
146.5	6280	13.5	0	Disabled	146.26	0	0	0	Enabled	146.38	0	0 Disabled 
146.89	5480	23.3	0	Disabled	146.64	0	0	0	Disabled	146.77	0	0 Disabled 
147.28	4840	128.6	0	Enabled	147.02	0	0	0	Disabled	147.16	0	0 Enabled 
147.68	5040	191.7	0	Enabled	147.41	0	0	0	Enabled	147.53	0	0 Enabled 
148.05	5280	184.2	0	Enabled	147.8	0	0	0	Enabled	147.93	0	0 Enabled 
148.44	5520	185.7	0	Enabled	148.19	0	0	0	Enabled	148.31	0	0 Enabled 
148.83	5720	187.2	0	Enabled	148.56	0	0	0	Enabled	148.71	0	0 Enabled 
149.22	6000	184.2	0	Enabled	148.96	0	0	0	Enabled	149.08	0	0 Enabled 
149.6	6200	179.7	0	Enabled	149.35	0	0	0	Enabled	149.47	0	0 Enabled 
149.99	6400	174.4	0	Enabled	149.74	0	0	0	Enabled	149.86	0	0 Enabled 
150.38	6600	170.7	0	Enabled	150.11	0	0	0	Enabled	150.26	0	0 Enabled 
150.77	6760	168.4	0	Enabled	150.51	0	0	0	Enabled	150.63	0	0 Enabled


----------



## carl44 (Nov 23, 2012)

*The log was run in 1st 2nd and 3rd to 6700*

sorry for the two posts carl


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

JohnLZ7W said:


> 1200 rpm for about 90 seconds and then drops down to 700 or so.


 I checked the idle after a cold start over the past 2 days and it always idles at 900 rpm for me. 

*APR Stage 2 LO file


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

LynxFX said:


> I checked the idle after a cold start over the past 2 days and it always idles at 900 rpm for me.
> 
> *APR Stage 2 LO file


 That's not how it should be. John's description is how it should be...or should I say...that's how Audi thought it should be.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

Black BeauTTy said:


> That's not how it should be. John's description is how it should be...or should I say...that's how Audi thought it should be.


 Hmm, it isn't a big deal to me but I'll be sure to check again when APR releases the new stage 2 file.


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

LynxFX said:


> Hmm, it isn't a big deal to me but I'll be sure to check again when APR releases the new stage 2 file.


 Arin is aware of the issue and is looking into this for us.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Black BeauTTy said:


> that's how Audi thought it should be.


 It's there for lighting off the catalyst quickly for emissions. That's about it.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

That's what I figured.


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

*WOT and cold start*



carl44 said:


> Its interesting that you can trigger random misfires 1s and 2s when you get on and off the gas or low load but 0 under WOT. i guess really what counts is under load because the engine is under max stress. Ive run this test three times and its consistent. .am i correct? i shortened up the log for posting. the car has a stock tune 1200 miles if you have a vagcom run the same log with a tune and compare. thanks carl
> 
> 
> carl44 said:
> ...


----------



## carl44 (Nov 23, 2012)

my car is stock. Ive done a total of 12 logs that run a average of 9-20 minutes. the cylinders do vary but the general pattern is the same. by going from enabled to disabled to enabled you can trigger them (1s ans 2s)almost 100% of the time at lower rpm . the tech @ the dealer said they see the same with their equipment-- for whats its worth. carl


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Yes. We made good headway and are spooling the turbo faster now. The update should be a good upgrade for power as well as looking into the things others have mentioned.
> 
> The main calibrators working on it are out in Europe working on a few new cals for the row market and will be back in 2 weeks, then will be continuing on with the ttrs.


So, 3.5 weeks passed since this post. Is there anyone here with the new software flashed on his car?


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

cipsony said:


> So, 3.5 weeks passed since this post. Is there anyone here with the new software flashed on his car?


It hasn't been released yet. We are all waiting for when Arin gives us an update. As soon as it is released I'm set to go down to the tuner to get it applied.


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

I am going on a 7-Car aggressive road trip in 8 days. I was hoping it would be out by then. Not looking so good. 

Heck, I even offered to test the new tune for them. 7 cars, 4000 miles of windy curvy roads with a lot of spirited driving over 10 days. Sounds like a good test to me, unfortunately that is a nogo also.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

cipsony said:


> So, 3.5 weeks passed since this post. Is there anyone here with the new software flashed on his car?


Working on it this coming week.


----------



## OldKenzo (Aug 14, 2012)

RTErnie said:


> Working on it this coming week.


I am stoked for this update. I had been running Stage 2 + APR DP problem free until I had to flash back to stock to get my dealer to replace my faulting instrument cluster. I’ve sorely missed my Stage 2 boost and am tired of the seeing the 02 sensor CEL on my dash


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

croman44 said:


> I am going on a 7-Car aggressive road trip in 8 days. I was hoping it would be out by then. Not looking so good.
> 
> Heck, I even offered to test the new tune for them. 7 cars, 4000 miles of windy curvy roads with a lot of spirited driving over 10 days. Sounds like a good test to me, unfortunately that is a nogo also.


That sounds very fun. I would like to do that sometime. I too offered to let APR use my TTRS as a test car for the update. I even offered to drive from Houston to APR, but there was just silence.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

RTErnie said:


> Working on it this coming week.


What does that mean? Do you have the inside scoop on the new flash?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Williamttrs said:


> That sounds very fun. I would like to do that sometime. I too offered to let APR use my TTRS as a test car for the update. I even offered to drive from Houston to APR, but there was just silence.


We have a vehicle here so we didn't need another. It's being worked on this week and will hopefully be ready soon.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

is the new soft expected to have more power than the original non-lo files?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

tdi-bart said:


> is the new soft expected to have more power than the original non-lo files?


Yes


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Yes


There is already a company in germany that is getting ~460 bhp out of a stage 2 (no meth, no race fuel). Do you think you will get similar figures?

I have to search for the dynos.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Yes


gr8

when you said also with faster spooling, was it because right now it spools sometimes fast other times slow? or?

plz don't forget about move over the speed limiter fix 

and hopefully some new dyno graphs we see


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

cipsony said:


> There is already a company in germany that is getting ~460 bhp out of a stage 2 (no meth, no race fuel). Do you think you will get similar figures?
> 
> I have to search for the dynos.


The problem is that dynos very so drastically that the only real useful info is the increase over stock they are getting. Not some random number made on a random dyno. I'd like to see before and after dyno plots of the 460 car. I think the car runs out of fuel before you can truly hit that number. We shall see though


----------



## linuxrc (May 12, 2013)

Does anyone know if REVO has similar issues as APR? I like the idea of having a dongle and switching tunes when I want without a PC. Interested to know if Stage 1 REVO is working.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

linuxrc said:


> Does anyone know if REVO has similar issues as APR? I like the idea of having a dongle and switching tunes when I want without a PC. Interested to know if Stage 1 REVO is working.


Don't think there is a thread filled with people complaining about Revo missfires like this one about APR. 
Probably the ones that have missfires with Revo are less than 5 (including the fake ones) 

But you should guide more about the results of each company and at this point MRC & Revo are well over APR (proven with facts not an in-house dyno)


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

Cipsony
there's still not a huge number of people posting with either,especially MRC.
It would be good to get more honest feedback instead of all the my map is better than your map ****.
I've seen a few vids etc from the TTshops revo car, Skippy's Revo Rally car,and yours but not a lot else really.
I think all tuners,no matter where they are, have had problems tuning the TTRS/RS3,and once problems are sorted,power and performance will be very similar between all the big tuners.
THE ECU has plenty of little surprises though. 

Checkout the RS3 video I posted !


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

- I've also seen a revo stage 1 cabrio vs Apr stage 2 coupe (Revo faster).
- MRC DSG stage 1 11.3s - 1/4 mille (vbox & drag strip)
- Revo RS3 stage 2 & meth 11.5s - 1/4 mille (drag strip)
- Revo RS3 stage 2 11.8s - 1/4 mille
- Revo TT RS manual stage 2 11.6s - 1/4 mille
- Revo TT RS manual (mine) 6.7s 100-200 Km/h & 9.9s 30-130 mph
- APR stage 1 & 2 (mainly nothing apart from stage 4 which I don't really care as there are other faster & cheaper solutions)

Actually it is about one map being "faster" than the other, and if APR would come with a better software (PROVEN) for my car I will change my map instantly.
It is about going for the best performance for the money and if the map is causing any problems then the tuner should fix it in 1~2 weeks maximum or refund.
I'm not saying that Revo or MRC are better than APR ... figures do.


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

Like I said just a couple of cars.I'm sure once problems are solved,there will be plenty of APR cars posting times and videos.
Your not taking into account,weight savings and fuel on some of those times,so it's hard to compare.
I'm sure mine performs pretty well,wouldn't be able to touch your 100-200 km/h time though,but it will be in the 7's I would suspect,going by speedo timing.
As long as I think the car can hit 200 km/h in 12 secs or under,I would be happy.
Not to mention that the speed limiter is fully switched off.
I hope to still try the APR map again .
If I can get my other ECU back and working,I will most probably pop in to see them next time I'm in the UK
I certainly don't mind testing maps and giving feedback,I've pretty much been doing that anyway for the last two years


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

jaybyme said:


> I think all tuners,no matter where they are, have had problems tuning the TTRS/RS3,and once problems are sorted,power and performance will be very similar between all the big tuners.
> THE ECU has plenty of little surprises though.


Exactly! They are all going to perform more similarly than differently in real life. The reported dyno numbers are nearly meaningless...too many variables to be truly informative from a comparative standpoint.


----------



## mad chemist (Aug 25, 2012)

jaybyme,

I've been running MRC S1 for the last 1.5 yrs. Only issue was a slight hick-up going full throttle @ max TQ (3000 rpm). I think this was worse when outside temp was < 10 °C (50 °F) but I also suspected a dodgy batch of Momentum 99 fuel (US 94 octane).










I got good delta from just S1 with the MRC map. Dyno attached.

Mad.

p.s. car has been running fine most of the time, with no engine lights/limp modes


----------



## Sylvain (Mar 17, 2013)

412ps on ISO1585 is excellent, i have the same numbers but in MRC S2 (Downpipe + Wagner IC EVO2)!!
If you ant to compare with other dyno in DIN numbers, you have about 425hp.

Car is running very fine vs all APR Stages i've test, no more limp mode...


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

The power figures are pretty much the same for tuners across Europe.
Allowing for dyno differences.fuel and intake mods
Stage 1 = 400-420 ps
Stage 2 = 430-450-ps
There can be bigger differences in torque though, depending on how the tuner has mapped the car.
Also the speed limiter is not fully open on some,and comes back completely on others after a while.
There could be a lot of tuned cars driving around with the speed limiter,as many obviously don't have the chance to regularly go above 160 mph.
It's amazing also how many negative comments you see in forums about Audi ABT,or MTM cars,which should really have no problems


----------



## Sylvain (Mar 17, 2013)

jaybyme said:


> The power figures are pretty much the same for tuners across Europe.
> Allowing for dyno differences.fuel and intake mods
> Stage 1 = 400-420 ps
> Stage 2 = 430-450-ps
> ...


Numbers i see here in France:
Stage 1: 395-410hp
Stage 2: 415-430hp, but most often 425-428. Never saw more than 430hp here, and we have pretty good fuel (RON98).

It's easy to tell a dyno get more HP, just change the trans. lost value manually and you have higher numbers..


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

This I just found on youtube 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iQ3hx9UU2A

I raced against a stage 2+ focus RS and I can say the TT should be a lot more faster.


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

I've seen a few videos with the Sitech Focus's,I believe most have 530-560 ps,so they will be fast.
on this one he claims 550 hp for the focus.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjndfsBnnE
Sylvain
A lot of the cars tested in Germany are running 102 octane,so there could be a few extra ps gained there.
On an old stage 1 map,mine had 405 ps tested in the UK on the day,but was only boosting at around 1.3bar then


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

tdi-bart said:


> gr8
> 
> when you said also with faster spooling, was it because right now it spools sometimes fast other times slow? or?


Changes were made to the calibration to allow for the turbo to spool faster. 



> plz don't forget about move over the speed limiter fix


That's already taken care of. 



linuxrc said:


> Does anyone know if REVO has similar issues as APR? I like the idea of having a dongle and switching tunes when I want without a PC. Interested to know if Stage 1 REVO is working.


As far as I'm aware, many tuners have reported the same hickup, including the one you mention and severa of the one that say they "fixed it".



cipsony said:


> Don't think there is a thread filled with people complaining about Revo missfires like this one about APR.
> Probably the ones that have missfires with Revo are less than 5 (including the fake ones)


Sales volume and actual power produce are things to consider in this case. The cars that were having the problem were producing more midrange torque than the others. 

And we're not the only one running into this. Even some MRC customers say the same thing. Example:



Facebook said:


> Harrison Crecraft
> Do APR offer switchable maps for the TT RS? Can you guys flash cars mapped and encrypted by others back to stock?
> Like · · Unfollow Post · April 23 at 5:59am via mobile
> 
> ...


So it's not just APR that had the problem, although we do sell A L O T of software, so you'll probably hear about things related to APR more often than others. 



> But you should guide more about the results of each company and at this point MRC & Revo are well over APR (proven with facts not an in-house dyno)


Interestingly enough I have data proving the exact opposite. Here's one, Stock, revo, APR - same day, back to back.













cipsony said:


> Actually it is about one map being "faster" than the other, and if APR would come with a better software (PROVEN) for my car I will change my map instantly.


Hopefully we'll have something for you to try soon, and I do hope you will try it!

Engineering has spent quite a bit of time working on a few things and in the end, I'm sure many people will be really pleased with the results. We took a different approach, pulled our collective EE and calibration department together, and started to dig into better ways of making big power.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Engineering has spent quite a bit of time working on a few things and in the end, I'm sure many people will be really pleased with the results. We took a different approach, pulled our collective EE and calibration department together, and started to dig into better ways of making big power.


Hey Arin, do we have an ETA for when the updated tune will be released, now that you guys are knee deep into it?


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

LynxFX said:


> Hey Arin, do we have an ETA for when the updated tune will be released, now that you guys are knee deep into it?


I am leaving for my trip in 4 days.. so hurry!!!


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

LynxFX said:


> Hey Arin, do we have an ETA for when the updated tune will be released, now that you guys are knee deep into it?


I just got back form the dyno room. Looking good so far. Maybe we can offer it at Sowo?


----------



## rp5311 (Jun 28, 2012)

Arin, anything being done on the Idle issue?


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> I just got back form the dyno room. Looking good so far. Maybe we can offer it at Sowo?


Well Arin that sounds fantastic. My down pipe should be in any day now and I hope I will be able to say it was worth the wait! My biggest hope has been that APR wants to pull out every stop for this tune and produce something beyond what was expected. Bring it on!:thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Williamttrs said:


> Well Arin that sounds fantastic. My down pipe should be in any day now and I hope I will be able to say it was worth the wait! My biggest hope has been that APR wants to pull out every stop for this tune and produce something beyond what was expected. Bring it on!:thumbup:


It already is. Compared to others. No contest! Anyone who's "switched" can switch back, for free, and confirm or deny my statements. 

More on that later.


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

Glad things seem to be getting sorted out with the APR Tune. Looking forward to the fix, and eventually stage II


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> It already is. Compared to others. No contest!


:facepalm:


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

Looks like it will be worth my while popping into APR MK on my next trip to the UK.
If I can get my other ECU up and running,I would have two maps to compare back to back,which might help testing.
Nice little extras on my current map,are the open exhaust valve in S mode,so I can make some nice noises changing up and down in town.
Also the really nice sound it makes under load when changing up with the Stronic.
Would be nice if APR could also include these in their Stronic maps.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

jaybyme said:


> Looks like it will be worth my while popping into APR MK on my next trip to the UK.


That would be excellent.

I've seen some "lofty" numbers out there and now having seen some it back to back, it's amusing. Heck, its all right in the data anyone can log and share too. So I'm down for the comparison and I'd love to hear real feedback.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> Hopefully we'll have something for you to try soon, and I do hope you will try it!
> 
> Engineering has spent quite a bit of time working on a few things and in the end, I'm sure many people will be really pleased with the results. We took a different approach, pulled our collective EE and calibration department together, and started to dig into better ways of making big power.


If it's for the loba & I can change maps then I'm willing to try.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

cipsony said:


> Don't think there is a thread filled with people complaining about Revo missfires like this one about APR.
> Probably the ones that have missfires with Revo are less than 5 (including the fake ones)
> 
> But you should guide more about the results of each company and at this point MRC & Revo are well over APR (proven with facts not an in-house dyno)


more bull from cipsony

Revo and MRC have issues too.

I used to have the revo file.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

cipsony said:


> If it's for the loba & I can change maps then I'm willing to try.


Oh, I'm sorry to hear. We will not have software for this platform. Hopefully you'll be able to test it out on a friends car?


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

What is "loba?"


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

uprated turbo,which allows the engine to reach about 500 hp


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

Poverty said:


> more bull from cipsony
> 
> Revo and MRC have issues too.
> 
> I used to have the revo file.


Pov
like I said in a few posts, I think most tuners have had problems,I think it just depends who wants to post about them. 
When I had problems with my first few Siemoneit maps,it seemed that I was the only one in the world with the problem.The truth was more like I was the only one to say openly I had problems.
I can understand if you testing maps that are not let on general release to keep quiet,but noz if the maps have been on sale for 2yrs


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

Black BeauTTy said:


> :facepalm:


AWE was not tested... (edit) or GIAC


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

RTErnie said:


> AWE was not tested.


Huh? I didn't say anything. The face palm was in reference to the continued over confidence you guys display. I was hoping you learned some humility through all this but apparently not.


----------



## linuxrc (May 12, 2013)

Spoke to someone about getting a flash done for my car yesterday. They said the company they use to flash isn't done with their product testing etc. not knowing the answer to this I asked if a dealer would detect the ECU change even if I had someone revert it back to stock before taking it in for service. He said the way they do it he's pretty sure they can't. Anyone chime in on this?


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

linuxrc said:


> Spoke to someone about getting a flash done for my car yesterday. They said the company they use to flash isn't done with their product testing etc. not knowing the answer to this I asked if a dealer would detect the ECU change even if I had someone revert it back to stock before taking it in for service. He said the way they do it he's pretty sure they can't. Anyone chime in on this?


I have been told the opposite and I can tell you for a high degree of certainty that if they have to crack open the ECU box (which is likely) that there will be evidence that it has been opened. IMO you need to get comfortable with the larger issues of modifying your car. It is often said that you have to pay to play. This is a crude way of saying that if you want to change your cars specs, then you are likely to have some additional pluses and minuses. The pluses are more performance. The minus are the cost of the modifications and the cost to repair things when something goes wrong and the cost of your time to figure this stuff out and the hassle of maybe having to fight with the dealer about things that may or may not have failed as a result of something you did. 

Personally, I prefer to just be straight up with everyone, including the dealer. I invite them to have a discussion with me if they think something I did will void some element of my warranty. I also make it my job to understand the laws that deal with this topic. This is much more desirable than trying to cover my tracks and feeling like I have somehow done something wrong, which of course is a bit bizarre when you think about the fact that it is YOUR car that you have every right to do whatever you want with it. Just my $.10 - $.08


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

We need to clarify, software vs visual detection.

Visual: Yes of course, if they physically look they can tell if the ECU has been opened up.

Software: With the APR tune they can NOT detect if it has been flashed using their diagnostic/scanner tools at the dealership.

I have actual experiences to back up these claims..

1. So when I first started noticing the misfires on my car it was during a road trip out to Maine. I took my car to the dealership there to get my 5000 mile service done and while I as there I asked them to take a look at the car due to the misfires. The guy I was working with was a modder himself so I felt pretty open with him. He asked if I had it tuned and I told him yes, but that their scanner should not detect it. He said "oh they will detect it, they do a deep scan" blah blah blah. Well when I went back to pick up my car he flat out told me "you were right, they could not detect anything".

2. So now that I have my Q5 also, I have been talking to my dealer (and my service guy in St Paul, MN is very tuner friendsly) about putting a AWE/GIAC tune on the Q (APR does not have one yet for the 3.0T on the Q5). Even though the dealership had been doing them in the past and he was going to do my Q5 a few weeks ago, he told me that he could not do it at the moment because Audi is really cracking down on modded vehicles. That he has had 2 vehicles in the last week marked with some code that puts them in the system as modded. I asked him if it was in my record that my TTRS had been modded and he just said "you have APR, it can not detect it... and I know nothing".

But this brings up another point since there is so much discussion about all the different companies doing tunes for the TTRS. What other companies like APRs are undetectable via the software scans at the dealership? To me, this is a HUGE selling point of the APR tune.


----------



## gengo (May 13, 2013)

I'm confused, how did the dealer in part 2 of your story know you had an APR tune? This story makes it sound like they CAN detect it but your dealer was covering for you. Can you clarify?




croman44 said:


> We need to clarify, software vs visual detection.
> 
> Visual: Yes of course, if they physically look they can tell if the ECU has been opened up.
> 
> ...


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

As I said, he is tuner friendly and even helps me with ideas and installs when he can. I talk to him openly off the record about my car and he takes care of me.

That being said, he can not control it if the scanner detects a modded ecu and marks it in the system. Luckily for me, they can not detect the APR tune and he is not going to tell them.


----------



## OldKenzo (Aug 14, 2012)

croman44 said:


> We need to clarify, software vs visual detection.
> 
> Visual: Yes of course, if they physically look they can tell if the ECU has been opened up.
> 
> ...


This is true. I had a similar experience, though I had flashed my car back to stock from APR stage 2. The dealer could not tell it had ever been flashed and told me so. They said it passed their scan tool, though name of I cannot recall at the moment (SDN?)


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

AFAIK, this is more a function, or lack there of, of the ecu and not the tune itself. I have GIAC and have been told the same thing by my dealer. They can't detect it and it does not trigger the auto TD1 code in the system.


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

That is good to know because it would suck if that became a deciding factor in choosing tunes


----------



## gengo (May 13, 2013)

I heard directly (over the phone) from a major tuner that Audi can detect software changes to the ECU. To the best of my recollection, the tuner explained that any tune will change the amount of available memory, and that flashing back to stock does not rectify this change. Whether Audi regularly does this check or which dealerships have the tools/training to perform it was not mentioned.


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

if all of this is true then there is no risk/reward factor here and the "pay to play" saying is irrelavent as your warranty will still be in tact as there would be no way for them to detect that a modified ecu caused any problems if they can not tell that an ecu has been modified. 

I'm not saying any of your statements are not true...I just find it hard to beleive that Audi would have no way to detect this.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

Not necessarily. One drive of a tuned car will tell the tech it is tuned just based on boost and the fact that his toupee is in the back seat! The ability to switch to stock will eliminate this, as the boost is reduced to OEM levels. The memory check is able to be handled by the tune, as it is a reported value.


----------



## linuxrc (May 12, 2013)

I have read in a few places that audi is requesting that dealerships plug the car into their scanners for pretty much anything and that if the system finds the ECU was tampered with that a TD1 code would flag the car which would make warrantee services a problem because audi will refuse to refund the dealership for the warrantee work. This may or may not be accurate I don't know. Having said that, let me ask a noob question. Can I buy a backup ECU and program it to factory specs for the car and use that when I visit my dealership? I don't even know the cost of one but I would pay 2-3k for the ECU if it meant that I could use my performance ECU and swap in the spare. Is that even doable? Is it worth it?


----------



## jibbed (Dec 3, 2011)

TD1 code is only able to be flagged (from what I can gather) in later model chassis designs with the newer Siemens ECU's. I don't *think* the Bosch stuff is affected. 

I'm 99% sure they can't detect with their automagic software any TT based stuff, I'm pretty sure it's just the A4/5/6 etc.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

jibbed said:


> TD1 code is only able to be flagged (from what I can gather) in later model chassis designs with the newer Siemens ECU's. I don't *think* the Bosch stuff is affected.
> 
> I'm 99% sure they can't detect with their automagic software any TT based stuff, I'm pretty sure it's just the A4/5/6 etc.


The TTRS ECU can't automatically flag a TD1 code but they can still manually attach it to the record for your VIN.


----------



## linuxrc (May 12, 2013)

Anyone hear if APR is close to finishing their tune?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

linuxrc said:


> Anyone hear if APR is close to finishing their tune?


The update's in beta right now. I'll post up an official release when it's ready. Thank you!


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> The update's in beta right now. I'll post up an official release when it's ready. Thank you!


What? Did I misunderstand something last week. I thought you were introducing the updated tune last weekend. I was hoping to see something official today or tomorrow.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 4, 2004)

Williamttrs said:


> What? Did I misunderstand something last week. I thought you were introducing the updated tune last weekend. I was hoping to see something official today or tomorrow.


Without going back and reading it again I thought i remember(correct me if I'm wrong) him saying it won't be ready in time for SoWo(this past weekend) but hopefully the following weekend


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> I just got back form the dyno room. Looking good so far. Maybe we can offer it at Sowo?


Did you? We are dying out here. (First World Problem)


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Yeah, I ended that with a question mark because I wasn't sure it would be ready yet. 

Engineering is working on something else related to the tune which I think you guys will really like. They want to do it as a single launch to save you guys the headache of multiple trips to the dealers. Anyways, I think everyone will be pleased in the end because so much time and effort is being poured into this from both the EE's and the calibration team (as well as my marketing department whip which demands MORE MORE MORE free features!) :laugh:

You guys have been excellent with the patience and I'm truly humbled by everyones understanding.


----------



## TTRS (Oct 21, 2011)

*Better tune + more features and no more $*

= much more patience and a happy customer here. Just give us a periodic update ~ every week or two.


----------



## linuxrc (May 12, 2013)

Looking forward to what APR will be bringing to the table!


----------



## TTRS (Oct 21, 2011)

*Perhaps I'm lucky*

My Stage 1 tune is simply awesome, I've never had a problem. Nothing but press your back into the seat power, even in California desert heat.

I'm awaiting their full feature Stage 2 before I go in for Stage 2 programming. The car has an FMIC and a turbo-back just waiting for the final programming . . .


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

I think what it comes down to is how tune friendly your tech or dealership is and whether or not they are really trying to find it or are more of the thinking that it doesn hurt them if the car is tuned, they get paid for the service work they perform and if it istuned then they dont work on it and wont get the money for it either.
I beleive that if they were trying to see if a car was tuned there wouldbe a few possible methods to use, most of which have already been mentioned(ecu condition, memory used, etc.)
There are definitley benefits to having a good relationship with the service dept(and tipping seems to help this a lot)


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Quisp said:


> I think what it comes down to is how tune friendly your tech or dealership is and whether or not they are really trying to find it or are more of the thinking that it doesn hurt them if the car is tuned, they get paid for the service work they perform and if it istuned then they dont work on it and wont get the money for it either.
> I beleive that if they were trying to see if a car was tuned there wouldbe a few possible methods to use, most of which have already been mentioned(ecu condition, memory used, etc.)
> There are definitley benefits to having a good relationship with the service dept(and tipping seems to help this a lot)


Tipping. Seriously! I have never heard of tipping at a dealership. Does anyone else do this or were you just kidding? I think I am pretty aware of situations in which tipping is appropriate or not and this has never occurred to me for a car dealership. I am being totally serious. Am I suppose to tip they guy who brings my car back to me? I guess he is something like a valet. Or am I suppose to tip someone else. It would feel very strange to walk up to my SA and hand him ten bucks. I think he would point me to the cashier area.


----------



## TTRS (Oct 21, 2011)

*Tipping*

I worked a dealership as a mechanic. Those people who got extra attention from me were those who clearly care about cars/performance (it is evident from how they treat their machine). When those people then, after paying their bill and examining my work, located me and gave me a tip, they got what they wanted/needed from me in the future. The tips got better and they would also only permit me to work on their cars. Warranty covered? If it was time/mileage appropriate - always. YMMV.

Added:
$10 would be insulting, $20 for general, as much as $100 for significant work or skilled work when they do extras without billing for the hours above flat rate.


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

i killed a turbo on track in my old 225ttr and my service writer took care of me. he could have easily refused warranty since the car was so modded. 
went next door to bevmo and grabbed a couple case of different german beers for him and the boys.

treat people right and they'll treat you right.


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

i gave $100 once for engine rebuild under warranty, which shouldnt have been under warranty  but they didn't know that


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

Wasnt aware of tipping advisors or techs until I heard it on a bmw forum. Gave it a try and they werent surprised or anything, apparently i was late in the game. Service got much better after that. i dont tip if the service was not good or I got the could not duplicate response or the run aorund(like the brakes). 
I also tip the person that handles the loaners and it has made a lot of difference there too. Last two times he told me not to bother filling it up when i bring it back and he alwys gets me into a decnt car. Doesnt have to be a huge tip to show someone that you appreciate what they did to help you out and in many cases that gesture makes a lot of difference. I know they get paid regualr pay not like waiters or waitresses but the auto service didnt cost(under warranty) and the loaner was free, so if the whole thing cost $30 in tips, and i get a little extra consideration next time, it is worth it to me.
SA are very aware of it, trust me. Never unsderstood why they always ealked me to the car and shook my hand when i picked up the car. they would go out of their way to come over and it wasnt cuz we were buddies. A lot of them expect it. 
The mercedes tech who discovered my last car had been wrecked and the seller said it was never in an accident saved me a ton of money and enabled me to return a mercedes cls 63amg to a shady dealership. He was not allowed to accept tips, we had to set it on his toolbox and walk away. I gave him a nice tip for that because it was another mercedes dealer that sold me the car and I wouldnothave expected them to turn in another dealership but they were very honest and hjelpful getting that done. SOmething like that is more than you would expect. He took us back in the service area and while the car was oin the lift pointed out everythig that had been replaced and let me take photos while it was up in the air. You dont see techs like that everywhere and that is why i dont mind tipping. At first i thought was ridiculous but not so much anymore.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

TTRS said:


> I worked a dealership as a mechanic. Those people who got extra attention from me were those who clearly care about cars/performance (it is evident from how they treat their machine). When those people then, after paying their bill and examining my work, located me and gave me a tip, they got what they wanted/needed from me in the future. The tips got better and they would also only permit me to work on their cars. Warranty covered? If it was time/mileage appropriate - always. YMMV.
> 
> Added:
> $10 would be insulting, $20 for general, as much as $100 for significant work or skilled work when they do extras without billing for the hours above flat rate.


I am truly shocked that I did not know this. In high-school and college I worked as a waiter and I vowed to always be aware of tipping etiquette and be generous. An average waiter gets 20% from me. 

So help me understand exactly how this works. Lets assume that everyone was just amazing. Should I go around and give a tip to the SA, valet, car wash guy and mechanic? Or do I just hand it to the SA and tell him who to give it to? What if the SA is just so so and the mechanic is great. How do I get to the mechanic. 

So how do you determine the tip. If I come in for warrenty work that takes 3 hours of labor, how do I calculate a good tip, great tip, average tip? 

What if I just drop in for a free car wash? My dealer provides free handwashes. 

What if it is non-warranty work? Should I tip differently than in warranty work?

I really appreciate the comment that $10 would be insulting. I get that. It is worse than not leaving anything. Nothing irriated me more as a waiter when someone would leave thier change or $1. Once I even followed a customer out to the parking lot to give him the change he "forgot." As you can tell I am hyper sensitive about this topic. Now I am thinking about how much bad Karma I have from 20 years of not tipping mechanics.

Does this same rule apply to all shops, or just dealerships? 


There needs to be an Emily Post for car enthusiasts.


----------



## TTRS (Oct 21, 2011)

*Turn the table*

What would _you_ appreciate for providing the same "above standard" service?

Recently I gave my car to a valet who said, "With your permission, may I park this in our preferred area in front here (gesturing to the row of sport/luxury cars in public view), rather than under the canopy?" I gave my permission. I could see the car from my seating. They carefully wiped it down with spray show car prep after parking it. When I gave them my valet slip to recover my car, they wiped it down again and said thank you. They guy who parked/wiped my car got $20, the guy who helped wipe it down got $10. Worth it to me because they exhibited concern for, and took care with my car. They were clearly appreciative of my tip and will remember me on my return.

Added . . .
Regardless of whether I might be comfortable that a tip will be passed on, the value of the tip is often equalled by the personal delivery. I'm telling them I appreciate, and chose to reward the service provided. I'll wait 10 minutes to pass on a tip to someone who deserves it. I have asked for the person who worked on the car to meet me, since they don't let you into the shop until they see that you are an "associate". Once they see you in that light, they welcome you into their world. It is rewarding when, arriving for scheduled maintenance, the "wrench" walks out and joins the SA, says hello, explains that my car is his priority, If I'm waiting it will be done immediately, if not (wink or head nod here) I'll be pleased with the service on my return. I was treated right again, and tipped. They never got to my car after I tipped them. However, when I arrived home and opened the trunk I found racing posters from the SA, a hat from parts (I had bought some accessories - they gave me wholesale pricing, so I dropped some of the savings back to him), and a set of front pads from the mechanic that he "had laying around, and thought I might need someday". I know that the hard $ value of the discounts and "favors" exceeded the tip from my previous visit. I'm chagrined now that my last tip was probably inadequate. Tip what you believe recognizes the service. Go back if you later feel that it was not enough (that will really surprise them!)


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

TTRS said:


> What would _you_ appreciate for providing the same "above standard" service?
> 
> Recently I gave my car to a valet who said, "With your permission, may I park this in our preferred area in front here (gesturing to the row of sport/luxury cars in public view), rather than under the canopy?" I gave my permission. I could see the car from my seating. They carefully wiped it down with spray show car prep after parking it. When I gave them my valet slip to recover my car, they wiped it down again and said thank you. They guy who parked/wiped my car got $20, the guy who helped wipe it down got $10. Worth it to me because they exhibited concern for, and took care with my car. They were clearly appreciative of my tip and will remember me on my return.


Sure I get that. Your situation is I think a little easier to figure out because it is about courtesy and respect. Handing someone $20 for being respectful is very different than recognizing someone for rebuilding your engine. I have no clue how to calculate something like this. 

I think most people realize that valet's work for tips and there is a natural setup here. The valet meets you and takes your car. Then the valet brings the car back to you and has direct contact with you. More times than not I only have contact with the SA and maybe a valet type person (but I never thought of this person as the same kind of valet as in other situations). I think I will start a new thread on this because I feel like I have hijacked the thread. Sorry about that!


----------



## gengo (May 13, 2013)

I can't speak for Audi, but major warranty repairs typically have to get approved from a corporate representative. The shop may be "friendly" to mods, but ultimately they may not be in a position to get a major repair (like a blown engine) authorized.





Quisp said:


> I think what it comes down to is how tune friendly your tech or dealership is and whether or not they are really trying to find it or are more of the thinking that it doesn hurt them if the car is tuned, they get paid for the service work they perform and if it istuned then they dont work on it and wont get the money for it either.
> I beleive that if they were trying to see if a car was tuned there wouldbe a few possible methods to use, most of which have already been mentioned(ecu condition, memory used, etc.)
> There are definitley benefits to having a good relationship with the service dept(and tipping seems to help this a lot)


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

gengo said:


> I can't speak for Audi, but major warranty repairs typically have to get approved from a corporate representative. The shop may be "friendly" to mods, but ultimately they may not be in a position to get a major repair (like a blown engine) authorized.


This is true. They might send someone down from HQ to inspect


----------



## carl44 (Nov 23, 2012)

and this is a thread about misfires? carl


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

carl44 said:


> and this is a thread about misfires? carl


My bad. Started new thread about the other subject.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Man, I love torque and so does a properly calibrated TTRS. 








:thumbup:


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

Love the teasers!


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 27, 2012)

:thumbup:


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

are the dotted lines the old file?


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

tdi-bart said:


> are the dotted lines the old file?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

tdi-bart said:


> are the dotted lines the old file?


No, it's a competitors software. But, UMmm, i'm not going to say which one. :laugh:


----------



## 311-in-337 (Feb 19, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> No, it's a competitors software. But, UMmm, i'm not going to say which one. :laugh:



Nice! :thumbup:


----------



## tdi-bart (Feb 10, 2011)

i thought they claimed they didnt limit torq to eliminate misfires...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

tdi-bart said:


> i thought they claimed they didnt limit torq to eliminate misfires...


Yeah, all smoke and mirrors. Boost is limited but even still I got competitor code to misfire. Such a joke especially after all of the trash talking.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

It's ok guys, all those that went UM, luckily you will be able to revert back to the superior map FOC, so no crying into your cereals over breakfast please


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

Poverty said:


> It's ok guys, all those that went UM, luckily you will be able to revert back to the superior map FOC, so no crying into your cereals over breakfast please


:facepalm: did i just log into audizine by mistake?


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

canuckttrs said:


> :facepalm:


Don't feel bad, UM have only done what Revo did. Torque sucked on that map too, and it still dropped into limp mode and misfired like a bitch.

I wonder what UM will have to say for themselves....


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

canuckttrs said:


> :facepalm: did i just log into audizine by mistake?


Says the guy who has been banging on about this UM tune telling everyone to get it, only for it to turn out to be a low powered and weak map. 

Hey guys, how would you like to pay 800 to be slower, and still have misfires.

No wonder we never saw any real data from UM.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Graph looks amazing! This will be well worth the wait. Having said that, it is fair to bring up that this is at least APR's second stab at this thing and as far as I know UM has only had one go at it. Now it is time for UM to respond. 

I also wonder if APR will be introducing all the other bells and whistles they have on some of their other tunes. I would love to have a race map, 93 map and 91 map.


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

The graph is all great and all, but honestly it does not mean anything to me until I am able to get the fixed tune. 

I am to the point that I do not even want to drive my car because I am tired of being reminded that its broken. The road trip I just got done with was the ultimate in frustration because I knew I should be blowing the doors off of everyone but between the misfires and the hesitations it was embarrassing. 

Hopefully it's not too much longer, "soon" is turning into a long time


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

croman44 said:


> The graph is all great and all, but honestly it does not mean anything to me until I am able to get the fixed tune.
> 
> I am to the point that I do not even want to drive my car because I am tired of being reminded that its broken. The road trip I just got done with was the ultimate in frustration because I knew I should be blowing the doors off of everyone but between the misfires and the hesitations it was embarrassing.
> 
> Hopefully it's not too much longer, "soon" is turning into a long time


sorry to hear your fustration. hope you get some satisfaction soon and let that baby rip :thumbup:


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

new graphs posted by Arin look pretty impressive. Are they stage I?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

Williamttrs said:


> I also wonder if APR will be introducing all the other bells and whistles they have on some of their other tunes. I would love to have a race map, 93 map and 91 map.


Your clutch won't handle 100 octane. 93 octane had to turn the boost down so your clutch can survive. Maybe we can do a reduced torque 100 octane file. Say limited to 450lb-ft... Would you guys be interested in that?


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> Yeah, all smoke and mirrors. Boost is limited but even still I got competitor code to misfire. Such a joke especially after all of the trash talking.


Where's the data to back up all these claims?


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> No, it's a competitors software. But, UMmm, i'm not going to say which one. :laugh:



Please do, because that is not UM.


-Jeffrey Atwood

A Pic to Represent a comparison of our TT-RS software to a competitors


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

Poverty said:


> Says the guy who has been banging on about this UM tune telling everyone to get it, only for it to turn out to be a low powered and weak map.
> 
> Hey guys, how would you like to pay 800 to be slower, and still have misfires.
> 
> No wonder we never saw any real data from UM.


What the heck is your issue? Talk about Fanboi for APR! I like APR and have an APR Stage 2 tune on my mk6 GTI, but I go with the product which actual works at the time I want/need to make a purchase. Childish comments like yours aren't good for the VAG community. It really needs to stop.

1. Arin hasn't said whether the dyno graph is showing GIAC, Revo, UM, or ???
2. The only misfire issue which I had for about a day with my UM Stage 2 tune was caused by old plugs. With a new set of OEM plugs and coils, the only pop that I get is when shifting as the car rips down the road.
3. If it is even a UM tune, what Stage and what settings for boost and octane? Which DP and exhaust is installed? Any other mods to the car?
4. I have personally been told the reason for the misfires by UM. It was off the record and I won't repeat it, but I can vouch that they weren't "reducing" mid range torque/power to eliminate the issue.
5. Competition is good for the VAG community. If APR produces a tune which has more power, then UM can improve theirs if they want the sales and believe the increase can be done safely. That helps all of us in the end.
6. I am not personally insulted if APR has a good tune. I will be glad for those running APR tunes when they release one that works across all of their customers.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

RTErnie said:


> Your clutch won't handle 100 octane. 93 octane had to turn the boost down so your clutch can survive. Maybe we can do a reduced torque 100 octane file. Say limited to 450lb-ft... Would you guys be interested in that?


You bet I would be interested. Surely you don't mean that past 450 lb ft that the clutch would burn up immediately? If 475 lb ft meant that my clutch would have 1/2 its normal life, I would be fine with that. I expect to replace my clutch sometime within the first year of ownership. I just don't want an unpredictable and catastrophic failure. That just takes the fun out of everything.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Marty said:


> Where's the data to back up all these claims?


It's all coming. Name the date you want. 




Jefnes3 said:


> Please do, because that is not UM.
> 
> 
> -Jeffrey Atwood


Yikes! Jeff, why are you so defensive?

Maybe I should even share our existing software vs the competitor too. Results look similar (more torque, same horsepower) imagine that! Just what we said all along.


:laugh:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

hightechrdn said:


> 4. I have personally been told the reason for the misfires by UM. It was off the record and I won't repeat it, but I can vouch that they weren't "reducing" mid range torque/power to eliminate the issue.


  

Misdiagnosis.

Perhaps the better term was "limiting."


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

this is great news....when the 473821347894170 people on this forum alone complaining about their crappy APR tune get the new one and rave about how great it is...I might then consider letting them play with my ecu...until then...no thanks.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

lpriley32 said:


> this is great news....when the 473821347894170 people on this forum alone complaining about their crappy APR tune get the new one and rave about how great it is...I might then consider letting them play with my ecu...until then...no thanks.


Exactly...


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

Very happy for all of those who stuck it out and will hopefully have their issues resolved.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

Nice to see APR continue to brag while their customers still have broken cars. Don't worry guys, I'm sure the flash will be available in 2 weeks.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

JohnLZ7W said:


> Nice to see APR continue to brag while their customers still have broken cars. Don't worry guys, I'm sure the flash will be available in 2 weeks.


Ouch!


----------



## crackkills (Mar 10, 2007)

I cannot believe the childish behavior that was and continues to be represented by APR. APR should thank whichever tuner, we will go with UM, for raising the bar and bringing out the tune that had many, many happy customers with little to no issues.

Let us not forget that many members on various forums were told by APR that the issue was not the tune but the car. I recall many members going out and spending money on "hardware" to only continue to have the issues. 

Now APR has supposedly solved an issue that they denied for many, many months and are now bashing the competition. Competition is good. It is what makes free market capitalism work. It has now worked in favor of APR. Being professional is about admitting your mistakes, learning form them and becoming better. Not by finger pointing, blaming and belittling others. That is the response of an insecure teenager. Not befitting of a company with a global brand and vast resources. 

If I owned APR, I would be very disgusted and take time to pull the individuals that made these types of posts into my office and let them know that this is not how I would want my brand to be represented. And if other tuners behaved like that you rise above it and don't use that as an excuse.

We all in the TT RS community will benefit. Thanks for reading my rant.


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

Arin is implying the dyno graphs are a comparison between UM and APR. Jeff is saying that the dynos Arin posted are not his tune....hmmm someone is *lying* here...


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

Timster said:


> Arin is implying the dyno graphs are a comparison between UM and APR. Jeff is saying that the dynos Arin posted are not his tune....hmmm someone is *lying* here...


opcorn:


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

JohnLZ7W said:


> Nice to see APR continue to brag while their customers still have broken cars. Don't worry guys, I'm sure the flash will be available in 2 weeks.


APR pays people to come out here and trash talk the competition. My problems with apr were as a customer who had problems with their tune that is still not fixed from what I have seen. C'mon APR, show some class and just fix the issues without being jerks.


----------



## Koa1 (Feb 21, 2012)

crackkills said:


> I cannot believe the childish behavior that was and continues to be represented by APR. APR should thank whichever tuner, we will go with UM, for raising the bar and bringing out the tune that had many, many happy customers with little to no issues.
> 
> Let us not forget that many members on various forums were told by APR that the issue was not the tune but the car. I recall many members going out and spending money on "hardware" to only continue to have the issues.
> 
> ...


Agree


----------



## 311-in-337 (Feb 19, 2003)

Timster said:


> Arin is implying the dyno graphs are a comparison between UM and APR. Jeff is saying that the dynos Arin posted are not his tune....hmmm someone is *lying* here...



I doubt anyone is lying. Are we forgetting that these graphs are from different dynos on different days, on different cars?

I personally don't mind the bickering. Seems like friendly competition to me.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

311-in-337 said:


> I doubt anyone is lying. Are we forgetting that these graphs are from different dynos on different days, on different cars?
> 
> I personally don't mind the bickering. Seems like friendly competition to me.


APR lying?! ... never! :laugh:

I trust them when they say "Our map is better than the competition"


----------



## 311-in-337 (Feb 19, 2003)

cipsony said:


> APR lying?! ... never! :laugh:
> 
> I trust them when they say "Our map is better than the competition"




Lol...okay, well saying "Our map is better than the competition", is subjective.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Yikes! Jeff, why are you so defensive?
> 
> Maybe I should even share our existing software vs the competitor too. Results look similar (more torque, same horsepower) imagine that! Just what we said all along.
> 
> :laugh:


Arin, how are you doing?

as i told you before, it was a pleasure to have met you at Sowo. I was just browsing through vortex and saw this...

i have a proposal for this whole situation: why dont we do a series of tests to see whats what, and put he truth on the table.

Obviously someone is making false claims, and its either You (APR) or UM.

My proposal is simple: USP motorsports down here in florida is both an APR dealer and a UM dealer, they also have a dyno.

Why dont we get a TTRS stage 2 or so, and flash it with both softwares and dyno. if you want, i'll pay for the dyno, as i am interested in the results.

What do you say? The flash part is "easy" because the car's owner wont be keeping the software for loinger than the 3 runs.

You in? Oh, i already have a friend with a TTRS stage 2.


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

thygreyt said:


> Arin, how are you doing?
> 
> as i told you before, it was a pleasure to have met you at Sowo. I was just browsing through vortex and saw this...
> 
> ...


great idea. :thumbup:


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

thygreyt said:


> Arin, how are you doing?
> 
> as i told you before, it was a pleasure to have met you at Sowo. I was just browsing through vortex and saw this...
> 
> ...


Great idea indeed. 
Same car, same dyno, same day and conditions ... different software's.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

That's a great idea. I think our Stage 2+ software is quite fantastic as is, and the updated file is putting out even more torque so I know our customers will enjoy the free update. I'm completely down with a controlled and accurate back to back teste against our competitors. If you would like to hash out the details, and keep me in the loop, feel free to send me an email at [email protected].

Thank you!


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> That's a great idea. I think our Stage 2+ software is quite fantastic as is, and the updated file is putting out even more torque so I know our customers will enjoy the free update. I'm completely down with a controlled and accurate back to back teste against our competitors. If you would like to hash out the details, and keep me in the loop, feel free to send me an email at [email protected].
> 
> Thank you!


Why not hash out all the details in this thread so that it can be here for all to see? If anyone is being a butt head, then we will all know. If everyone is acting like adults, then we will also know.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

crackkills said:


> I cannot believe the childish behavior that was and continues to be represented by APR. APR should thank whichever tuner, we will go with UM, for raising the bar and bringing out the tune that had many, many happy customers with little to no issues.
> 
> Let us not forget that many members on various forums were told by APR that the issue was not the tune but the car. I recall many members going out and spending money on "hardware" to only continue to have the issues.
> 
> ...


+1 Yep! 

A good debate and childish behavior do not have to coincide. Though the childish behavior seems to motivate people to do something, there is a better way. Competition for the sake of competition is better. Don't you sleep better at night when you know that you did not personally attack the character of someone? Isn't it enough to say that "your stuff is good, but I figured out a way to do it even better?" Isn't this the kind of behavior you were taught in your family, school and church? Why have you forgotten all that stuff? Being an free human being gives you the right to be mean, but that does not mean that you SHOULD be mean. You have the freedom to be nice too.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

hightechrdn said:


> What the heck is your issue? Talk about Fanboi for APR! I like APR and have an APR Stage 2 tune on my mk6 GTI, but I go with the product which actual works at the time I want/need to make a purchase. Childish comments like yours aren't good for the VAG community. It really needs to stop.
> 
> 1. Arin hasn't said whether the dyno graph is showing GIAC, Revo, UM, or ???
> 2. The only misfire issue which I had for about a day with my UM Stage 2 tune was caused by old plugs. With a new set of OEM plugs and coils, the only pop that I get is when shifting as the car rips down the road.
> ...


Ive been in the vagscene for quite a while now have had 3 different remaps on my TTRS alone, and I think im pretty versed to bull**** thats fed from certain tuners. But anyway, lets address your points.

1.Yes he has, its a UM comparison

2. that sounds familiar to when I had my revo map. Me and my buddy where at the revo HQ every other month as they sold us more spark plugs to attempt to fix the misfires. "There is a new revision of spark plugs, come in" 

4. How do you know to believe what they say, how do you know they are correct, did you see any data to back this up? Looking at the graph, backin off the boost midrange is exactly what they did. Reminds me of my revo tune, that made pitiful torque also when setup so as to try and rid the misfires.

5. Agreed

6. Again agreed, I only buy what works the best.



canuckttrs said:


> APR pays people to come out here and trash talk the competition. My problems with apr were as a customer who had problems with their tune that is still not fixed from what I have seen. C'mon APR, show some class and just fix the issues without being jerks.


Big claim, so where is your proof? Or is it just yet another cheap shot of yours with nothing to back it up.



311-in-337 said:


> I doubt anyone is lying. Are we forgetting that these graphs are from different dynos on different days, on different cars?
> 
> I personally don't mind the bickering. Seems like friendly competition to me.


Exactly!


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

thygreyt said:


> Arin, how are you doing?
> 
> as i told you before, it was a pleasure to have met you at Sowo. I was just browsing through vortex and saw this...
> 
> ...



I did this in the UK.

Same dyno, 3 different runs and software, although on different days.


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

Wow.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

Looking forward to seeing this comparison go down. I don't think there has been one done yet on the TT-RS. Of course I'm more looking forward to getting the updated stage 2 map.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

LynxFX said:


> Looking forward to seeing this comparison go down. I don't think there has been one done yet on the TT-RS. Of course I'm more looking forward to getting the updated stage 2 map.


Same day comparisons were posted before. 

Here's stock, Competitor and APR (APR is the one with more torque).


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

Poverty said:


> 2. that sounds familiar to when I had my revo map. Me and my buddy where at the revo HQ every other month as they sold us more spark plugs to attempt to fix the misfires. "There is a new revision of spark plugs, come in"


If you already heard this from REVO why is acceptable that APR said the same exact thing?


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

lpriley32 said:


> If you already heard this from REVO why is acceptable that APR said the same exact thing?


I believe almost everyone recommended checking the spark plugs to see if they were at fault. Many did believe they were, especially after some stated replacing them cured the issue. The "misfire" will and has affect everyone making awesome midrange torque with higher boost pressure. The caveat being not every car experienced it, but everyone with a high sample group of vehicles, driven in many different conditions across many different driving styles would eventually bring it up. As far as I'm aware I don't know of anyone going to the lengths we have to solve the issue. Limiting boost pressure will cure it, and this is an option we did offer at one point, but it in our opinion that's not the real solution. We've found the cause, and the solution, which is what you'll get in the update. So have your cake and eat it too.  :thumbup:


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)




----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I believe almost everyone recommended checking the spark plugs to see if they were at fault. Many did believe they were, especially after some stated replacing them cured the issue. The "misfire" will and has affect everyone making awesome midrange torque with higher boost pressure. The caveat being not every car experienced it, but everyone with a high sample group of vehicles, driven in many different conditions across many different driving styles would eventually bring it up. As far as I'm aware I don't know of anyone going to the lengths we have to solve the issue. Limiting boost pressure will cure it, and this is an option we did offer at one point, but it in our opinion that's not the real solution. We've found the cause, and the solution, which is what you'll get in the update. :thumbup:


I'm not bashing APR for suggesting it...I'm simply asking why Pov finds it acceptable that APR did when apparently that road had already been traveled to no avail...


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

lpriley32 said:


> I'm not bashing APR for suggesting it...I'm simply asking why Pov finds it acceptable that APR did when apparently that road had already been traveled to no avail...


I didnt know about any of that, all I know is that after I switched from revo to APR my misfires disappeared and I gained a chunk of power everywhere.

What I have noticed though in the UK, that some cars seem to misfire more than others even when on the same software, driving the same roads at the same time.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Poverty said:


> I didnt know about any of that, all I know is that after I switched from revo to APR my misfires disappeared and I gained a chunk of power everywhere.


Know how frustrating that was during this whole diagnosis? You're not the only one too!

Customer has misfire on competitors software. Switches to APR's higher output file. Misfires gone. :screwy:


----------



## ray_huge (May 30, 2013)

So when exactly will this tune be available? I've been sitting on the side lines for some time now.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

ray_huge said:


> So when exactly will this tune be available? I've been sitting on the side lines for some time now.


I'd like to type up the formal release for it but I'm about to grab a plane for Wuste. I'll be back Monday. I'd like to release next week if possible.


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

Poverty said:


> 1.Yes he has, its a UM comparison



This is convenient: arin more or less announces he has UM software.
his words/typos chosen to imply, then have Poverty back it up... 
all deniable of course.

~now apr has a 'fix', and shortly after has 'new' launch control
and no lift shift features... for golf R and TTRS and other FSI cars :sly:

if arin/poverty made all this up: then why make drama with a pile of lies...

This would not be the 1st time apr has tried snooping UM code, that I know of.

lol @ 'too busy getting on plane'. customers that have waited for how long....
I guess a few more days does not matter. 


None of this matters at the end of the day... 

I don't know why I bother.:banghead:


-Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Jefnes3 said:


> This is convenient: arin more or less announces he has UM software.
> his words/typos chosen to imply, then have Poverty back it up...
> all deniable of course.
> 
> ...


What a joke.

Jeff, you didn't fix the issue. I suggest you get our file and prove it to yourself.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Same day comparisons were posted before.
> 
> Here's stock, Competitor and APR (APR is the one with more torque).


Thanks, the image posted before was cropped unless I missed the full one earlier in the thread. 

It will still be interesting to see a second data point from another car. More the better. 

Sounds like I'll be able to install it the week of the 10th. :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

LynxFX said:


> Thanks, the image posted before was cropped unless I missed the full one earlier in the thread.
> 
> It will still be interesting to see a second data point from another car. More the better.
> 
> Sounds like I'll be able to install it the week of the 10th. :thumbup:


Excellent! I can't wait to see how you like it.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

Jefnes3 said:


> This is convenient:  arin more or less announces he has UM software.
> his words/typos chosen to imply, then have Poverty back it up...
> all deniable of course.
> 
> ...


I havent backed anything up, ive interpreted what everyone else has.

Im just a customer, I dont know any of the inside dealings.

If a car is fast its fast, UM just hasnt proved that, all we have heard is about apparently "fixing" the misfire, when that turns out to be inaccurate aswell.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> As far as I'm aware I don't know of anyone going to the lengths we have to solve the issue.


That doesn't mean it hasn't been done by others long before now. I'm glad you finally did the necessary work to tune it correctly though. Those customers with the APR tune have been unbelievably patient and understanding about it. At the very least you should be sending every one of them a free T-shirt!


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

Jefnes3 said:


> I don't know why I bother.:banghead:
> 
> -Jeffrey Atwood


Just keep working hard and post the facts. :thumbup:


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

canuckttrs said:


> Just keep working hard and post the facts. :thumbup:


+1

lets see some facts.

v-box figures would be nice.


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> What a joke.




Plenty of time to insult me, but not any time for paid customers. :thumbup:



-Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

Thank you APR customers for waiting for this new V2 release and being patient with us as we worked towards the solution. Without vwvortex forum member's help we would have not been able to recreate the problem. I think you'll all be very pleased with the new release and hope you guys are looking forward to the Stage 3 kit like I am. :thumbup:

100 octane numbers coming tomorrow :beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

Jefnes3 said:


> Plenty of time to insult me, but not any time for paid customers. :thumbup:
> 
> -Jeffrey Atwood


I'm working on the TTRS right now to get 100 octane numbers. Arin really is on the APR plane right now... flying to Vegas for Wuste. 

Jeff,
I challenge you to a back to back comparison of your latest TTRS Stg2 file against the APR TTRS stg 2 at USP Motorsports. Same day, same car, our Stage 2 calibrations. 

I know that you have not fixed the misfire problem. So, if you decide to throw boost at your tune to try to keep up with my tune, you're going to misfire. If you leave the boost low to prevent the misfire, you're going to lose terribly. 

So given the two options you have by accepting the APR dyno challenge... I suspect you're going to mis-direct and make personal attacks and say something that you won't/can't/shouldn't/couldn't/don't need to/etc.... Some convenient excuse. 

I'm calling you out.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

RTErnie said:


> I'm working on the TTRS right now to get 100 octane numbers. Arin really is on the APR plane right now... flying to Vegas for Wuste.
> 
> Jeff,
> I challenge you to a back to back comparison of your latest TTRS Stg2 file against the APR TTRS stg 2 at USP Motorsports. Same day, same car, our Stage 2 calibrations.
> ...


Okay! The gauntlet is thrown. Come on boys and girls... all we need is a little participation and we can put this 19 page thread to rest. 

Logistically I guess someone will have to use their existing UM tune or send in their ECU for UM to put the map on. Then that tune can be run. After the run, the APR tune can over write the UM tune on site. Or if UM has a test ECU, they could overnight it to the shop and two different ECU's could be swapped out.


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

"Thank you APR customers for waiting for this new V2 release and being patient with us as we worked towards the solution. Without vwvortex forum member's help we would have not been able to recreate the problem. I think you'll all be very pleased with the new release and hope you guys are looking forward to the Stage 3 kit like I am."


Translation into English...:laugh:

Thank you APR customers for waiting for this new V2 release and being patient with us as we tried to deny any shortcomings of our work and then finally tried to figure out a fix that was better than the band-aid LO file we pushed on you to fix an issue that we still don't acknowledge is real. Without vwvortex forum member's whining publicly about so called misfires, limps and hesitations, we would have had a better spring and would not have had to devote resources to recreate the problems that some cars, under some conditions, while driven oddly, experienced. I pray to God this new file works and that you'll all be happy with it and this thread can be stopped!


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

All we need is a APR customer and a UM customer to meet up at USP and do this. As long as both cars are stage 2 with the same mods it should work fine.

I have my graphs from my own Revo vs APR experiment done at a independant (albeit are also a revo agent) VAG tuning specialist and the difference was comical. I'll see if I can dig them out.


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

Poverty said:


> I havent backed anything up, ive interpreted what everyone else has.
> 
> Im just a customer, I dont know any of the inside dealings.
> 
> If a car is fast its fast, UM just hasnt proved that, all we have heard is about apparently "fixing" the misfire, when that turns out to be inaccurate aswell.


Where do you get this crap which you post?

For the record: My UM Stage 2 TT-RS is not misfiring!

It only misfired when I had old (~19k mile) plugs in the engine. When I took the old plugs out, one plugs was opened up well out spec. The electrode on that plug (and others) was visibly wore down, causing the gap to go out of range. This wasn't caused by the UM tune, before someone starts in and misrepresents what I am saying here. The plugs were run all on the stock tune, I got the UM Stage 2 tune installed and then replaced the plugs, all within a couple of hundred miles.


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

*Challenging APR*

APR - I have a challenge for you!

As I already mentioned, UM told me what problem they had found causing the issue with the misfires in the TT-RS tunes at the Water by the Bridge meet in Louisville, KY. I challenge you to privately tell me the reason which APR has found for the misfires. I will publicly post on Vortex whether both companies have identified the same root cause or not. I will not post any details of the root cause on this forum or divulge the info to anyone privately.

I am not affiliated with either company and will sign a NDA, if it comes down to it to make sure I don't spill proprietary information from either company.

APR is saying that UM hasn't found the root cause, by having an independent 3rd party (me) compare the info from each company, we can put this accusation to rest. 

NOTE: Per other posts on this thread by APR, the cause of the misfires is not he amount of low-mid range torque, at least not directly. Limiting/lowering/reducing the low-mid range torque output only masks or sidesteps the problem (ex: APR "LO" Stage 2 tune file). 

So are you up to the challenge APR?


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

does everyone recall this statement by APR:

"I have a very, VERY hard time believing that. I know I'm going to get accused of all sorts of things for saying this, but, UM isn't big enough to do everything in house.

DSG, along with the full line of Audi and VW cars for all boxcodes? There is NO WAY they're doing that without 3rd party tools.

I know the amount of work required to build a write a flashing/extraction routine for a new ECU. I did it for the S6/S7/S8 Ecus. I don't care how good a programmer you are, you're not going to write something like that in an afternoon."

looking forward to the next mythbusters session


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

hightechrdn said:


> Where do you get this crap which you post?
> 
> For the record: My UM Stage 2 TT-RS is not misfiring!
> 
> It only misfired when I had old (~19k mile) plugs in the engine. When I took the old plugs out, one plugs was opened up well out spec. The electrode on that plug (and others) was visibly wore down, causing the gap to go out of range. This wasn't caused by the UM tune, before someone starts in and misrepresents what I am saying here. The plugs were run all on the stock tune, I got the UM Stage 2 tune installed and then replaced the plugs, all within a couple of hundred miles.


Visibly worn down....right, elaborate please I'm intrigued.

Also show me where we have data from UM about their performance. No back to back independent rolling road figures, and no v-box figures.

What we do have is a not too pleased UM customer who is jumping ship.

Also under what conditions of driving would you expect to have misfires? In the UK we all know generally under what situation the car would be most likely to start missing on a tune, and the rough ballpark speeds also.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

hightechrdn said:


> APR - I have a challenge for you!
> 
> As I already mentioned, UM told me what problem they had found causing the issue with the misfires in the TT-RS tunes at the Water by the Bridge meet in Louisville, KY. I challenge you to privately tell me the reason which APR has found for the misfires. I will publicly post on Vortex whether both companies have identified the same root cause or not. I will not post any details of the root cause on this forum or divulge the info to anyone privately.
> 
> ...


Really scientific.

So say both companies come up with a different answer. Are you even qualified enough in the subject as to ascertain who is more likely to be correct?

Lets stick to what matters.

1. Power, lots of it.
2. On the road performance to backup Dyno claims via v-box
3. No misfires.


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

No offense hightechrdn but there are too many reasons to list on why that is the most ridiculous idea ever


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

Poverty said:


> Also show me where we have data from UM about their performance. No back to back independent rolling road figures, and no v-box figures.


Can you please point me to the v-box data for the apr stage 2 tune?

thanks


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

So yeah, this is getting interesting.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

hightechrdn said:


> APR - I have a challenge for you!
> 
> As I already mentioned, UM told me what problem they had found causing the issue with the misfires in the TT-RS tunes at the Water by the Bridge meet in Louisville, KY. I challenge you to privately tell me the reason which APR has found for the misfires. I will publicly post on Vortex whether both companies have identified the same root cause or not. I will not post any details of the root cause on this forum or divulge the info to anyone privately.
> 
> ...


I have UMs binary. They did not fix the problem.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

canuckttrs said:


> Can you please point me to the v-box data for the apr stage 2 tune?
> 
> thanks


Vagoc.co.uk TT section.

Now where's UM v-box data in return?


----------



## Optimus812 (May 5, 2012)

The whole riff between APR and UM is cute and all, but I just want to see more power and some highway pulls from 4th gear with no misfires! That's what gets be excited  Look forward to the updated tune hopefully with launch control. 

If you need another comparison car (in cali) I can take video or whatever with mine. 


Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

RTErnie said:


> I'm working on the TTRS right now to get 100 octane numbers. Arin really is on the APR plane right now... flying to Vegas for Wuste.


Yup. We have over 75 people working for us and we don't operate out of our moms basement. When Arin leaves APR to support fun filled events for our customers, the operation doesn't shut down. I'll work all weekend and be back Monday morning ready to go again with the rest of the crew while others continue to work all week long.

June and July are going to be fun. 

Taking back off. Ttyl


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

Poverty said:


> Vagoc.co.uk TT section.
> 
> Now where's UM v-box data in return?


link please. i've never been on that site. thanks.


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

RTErnie said:


> I have UMs binary. They did not fix the problem.



Send it to me if you have it.

[email protected]

I'm calling you out.


-Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

so, we agree that everyone wants to see a back to back dyno on the SAME CAR, SAME DAY, no BS, just numbers.

off the shelve tunes. i already contacted a ttrs stage 2 owner who is more than happy and excited to do this.

Im new on the TTRS, i am from the vw mkv crowd. Anyways, can the TTRS be port flashed or does the ecu needs to come out?

if ecu needs to be out to flash, how can i get 2 ecus with the sw? i have vag com and can/will find out the ecu info from the car.

Arin/APR fanbois, less smack more facts, and by it i mean: lets keep it civil! why name calling? why make unsupported claims?

If one is better than the other, lets allow the numbers to show it. Lets keep egos, companies and everythng else out.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

Jefnes3 said:


> Send it to me if you have it.
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> ...


I'll send you enough information so that you know that I know. ill let you know when I'm back at work. 

Deleted tune specific comments to respect your privacy.


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

Poverty said:


> Really scientific.
> 
> So say both companies come up with a different answer. Are you even qualified enough in the subject as to ascertain who is more likely to be correct?
> 
> ...


1. UM - Check
2. Not my job, but sure haven't seen that type of data from APR either. 
3. UM - Check


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

croman44 said:


> No offense hightechrdn but there are too many reasons to list on why that is the most ridiculous idea ever


Why? It is APR's word vs UM's and neither is going to post up the root cause which they theorize is the issue. I could at least confirm whether UM and APR are actually referring to the same root cause or not. 

I don't know when the APR tune 'reliably' misfires! Thank goodness I didn't have to live with that behavior out of my $60k+ car. With worn out plugs, the UM Stage 2 tune misfired/popped between 3k-4k RPM at WOT. Road speed didn't really matter as it did this in multiple gears. With new plugs, my car isn't misfiring or popping under acceleration and I can't speak to the conditions other tunes have issues. My current UM tune doesn't have any issues which I can identify.

Here is the bottom line for me:

1) By going with United Motorsports, I was able to drive my TT-RS to SoWo 2013, hit some great back roads, and had no drivability issues, CEL's, etc. I had great power and a wonderful time with my son and friends at the event.

2) APR didn't deliver a working/problem free tune in time for SoWO 2013. I wasn't going to spend $900 and have misfires on a 1k mile round trip drive. I don't care what dyno results APR or any other TT-RS tuning vendor has NOW, UM had a good tune when I needed it.

3) No one knows what power the NEW APR tune will put down. WHEN it is finally released, we can all see some independent dyno numbers. Remember that UM can also update their tune like APR has had to do. Not sure why people would think that UM can't respond with an update. If APR has found some addition power down low, UM can work on their tune to match/beat APR's results.

4) It is sad to see some APR tune owners act out like I have seen on this thread. TT-RS owners with UM tunes haven't been calling out forum members with APR tunes and calling them stupid for staying with a tune that doesn't run properly? It really seems like some in the APR camp have a chip on their shoulder. When did this forum devolve into nut swinging and attacks on fellow forum members?

5) Guess what, other than the vendors, all of the TT-RS owners on this thread simply wrote a check or swiped a card for their tune. Some pulled their own ECU's out, but most probably paid a shop to do even that simple work. Trying to make other people feel stupid, inferior, etc over what they bought, is ridiculous. The people doing the actual coding are the only ones which really have skin in the game in terms of which tune is "better" than the other.

(Arguing with people on the Internet is the biggest waste of time ever to plague mankind.)


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

This back and forth stuff is ridiculous. 

As a community we should not be divided by what tune we have in our car, instead we should be grouping together and celebrating each others cars. We are but a handful of people in the world that own this car and we should be banded together.

I could understand tuners giving each other a hard time and razzing each other in a friendly rivalry but the insults back and forth does not do anyone any good, all it does is divide the community. 

Personally, I want all tuners to put out excellent products because in the end that causes others to push the bar and advances what is available for all of us.

So, can we please stop with the insults? Can we stop with the UM vs APR camps and acting like we are superior than other TTRS owners cause we have "xxx" tune? 

I just want us all to enjoy our cars


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

I've tried to be as civil as possible through this whole debacle, but I can't resist.



Timeline / Summary for those new to the thread:




APR Users: We have misfires and other problems.
APR: No, you don't it's all in your head or your car.
APR Users: No, it's happening all the time.
APR: Nope, we have a car, we know it's just you. Try Gas,Plugs, Prayer
APR Users: Nope, not working, still have problems.
APR: Have you seen our Stage3 development?
APR Users: Help?
APR: Our tune is so awesome, way more powerful than the others, live with it.
Other Vendors: Hey guys, we offer tunes that don't have these problems
APR: There was no problem, you guys are full of ****.
Other Vendor Users: Nope, we don't seem to have the problem.
EX APR Users: Yeah, no problems here, runs great now.
APR: Just kidding guys, there is a problem, and we're fixing it.
----LONG TIMELINE HERE---
APR: HEY GUIZ, SURPRISE, Not only was there a problem, we have now fixed it better than everyone else, WE ROCK.
General Public: :banghead:
APR: WE KICK ASS, HELL YEAH EVERYONE ELSE SUCKS ASS, HELL YEAH
General Public: :facepalm:


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

Black BeauTTy said:


> Translation into English...:laugh:
> 
> Thank you APR customers for waiting for this new V2 release and being patient with us as we tried to deny any shortcomings of our work and then finally tried to figure out a fix that was better than the band-aid LO file we pushed on you to fix an issue that we still don't acknowledge is real. Without vwvortex forum member's whining publicly about so called misfires, limps and hesitations, we would have had a better spring and would not have had to devote resources to recreate the problems that some cars, under some conditions, while driven oddly, experienced. I pray to God this new file works and that you'll all be happy with it and this thread can be stopped!


Translation:


It didn't happen on our car. It didn't happen in Alabama in the summertime when we tuned these originally. We don't have access to unlimited cars or unlimited climate variations.

Also, has been stated again by a UM customer, the spark plugs from the VW/Audi factory are regularly crap and frequently a source of problems. We went through the diagnostic procedures and finally determined that it was a more widespread problem than originally understood. We went back to the drawing board and re-did the tune.

In the process, aside from the calibration resources, I through a bunch of software engineering time at it to come up with new features and new ECU extensions that will end up being the envy of everybody.

Was everything right with the initial release? Apparently not. But, we've listened to what people said and busted out butts to find and fix the issues and do better.

Of course, all of this is just hot air until the update comes out. Trust me when I say that when it does, this entire conversation will be OVER.

As for the UM stuff, Jeff and his band of customers were the most vocal and never failed to take any opportunity to take every shot they could at us. We don't need to try very hard to get access to a competitors flash. We get the chance all the time. So, one day when the chance arose, I extracted a UM ecu before we switched the customer to APR. (We also dyno'd the car before switching it to APR software, hence the comparison graph)

The update was nearly complete when that happened. Mostly, I just wanted to have it so we could have unquestionable proof of how they "fixed" those things. We'd suspected all along, but evidence goes a long ways.

So, without further ado, here's some snippets from UMs TT-RS flash:

Hex:


```
00AD3100004556432E4556432E000000000000000042444D32474F01822700002FAD3100005461673A556E69746564204D6F746F7273706F72740000000000000000
```
Converted to Ascii:


```
..1..EVC.EVC.........BDM2GO..'../.1..Tag:United Motorsport........
```
Wait.. WAIT.. EVC? BDM2GO? I thought UM made all their own tools?

Hex:



> 3880008588ADEEBD2C0500FE4081001038800042A0ADEEFE54A5D5BE4803BD5E416C6C20636F646520616E64207475696E696E67206D6F64696669636174696F6E733A20436F7079726967687420556E69746564204D6F746F7273706F7274204C4C432032303133


Ascii + Disassembly:



> seg001:00477000 38 80 00 85 li r4, 0x85 # 'à'
> seg001:00477004 88 AD EE BD lbz r5, -0x1143(r13)
> seg001:00477008 2C 05 00 FE cmpwi r5, 0xFE
> seg001:0047700C 40 81 00 10 ble loc_47701C
> ...



In the interest of not starting TOO much of an argument, I'm not going to post any more than this, nor will I explain what any of this does or where it's called from or returns to. I removed the branch instructions so it's just a random blob of meaningless code.

Now, I'm really not trying to be confrontational here. I want what everybody wants. More power, more fun and less problems. We're busting butt to deliver that in spades. I have a hard time sitting down though and getting raked across the coals when we don't deserve it. We'll gladly accept the licks we deserve. Yes, our TT-RS tune had a misfire issue under certain conditions. We're atoning for that. But, that's all we're atoning for.

We also mode more midrange torque and more HP. We'll continue to do that and never apologize for it.

The rest of this is to settle the petty parts of the debate so we can get to the good stuff.

As for the dyno competition, APR is 100% in. Let's do this thing and settle all of it once and for all.


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

i have a bone stock rs that i'll be throwing a downpipe and 100 cell cats onto as soon as the midpipes are done. i have a um and apr dealer within 20 minutes of an independent mustang dyno(that i already posted stock numbers from) that i'm more than willing to test both tunes with. 
i think for simplicity's sake i would do the um tune first since the ecu would need to be sent in. then once those pulls are done i can run over to 034 motorsport and have them dump the new tune into the car.
if this seems satisfactory to both tuners i'll make this happen.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

smack_ttrs said:


> i have a bone stock rs that i'll be throwing a downpipe and 100 cell cats onto as soon as the midpipes are done. i have a um and apr dealer within 20 minutes of an independent mustang dyno(that i already posted stock numbers from) that i'm more than willing to test both tunes with.
> i think for simplicity's sake i would do the um tune first since the ecu would need to be sent in. then once those pulls are done i can run over to 034 motorsport and have them dump the new tune into the car.
> if this seems satisfactory to both tuners i'll make this happen.


Deal.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

Jefnes3 said:


> Plenty of time to insult me, but not any time for paid customers. :thumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> -Jeffrey Atwood


Arin is a marketdroid.. he doesn't tune or write code or any of that. All of his time is spent 
1. updating the website
2. taking pictures
3. making videos
4. getting reckless driving tickets
5. fighting the good fight against those that slander us


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Arin is a marketdroid.. he doesn't tune or write code or any of that. All of his time is spent
> 1. updating the website
> 2. taking pictures
> 3. making videos
> ...


That's it?


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> That's it?


I've been told you make a mean casserole FWIW.


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

Black BeauTTy said:


> Translation into English...:laugh:


Seriously LOL


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

croman44 said:


> I could understand tuners giving each other a hard time and razzing each other in a friendly rivalry but the insults back and forth does not do anyone any good, all it does is divide the community.


There is no back and forth. The majority of the banter is coming from Ernie and Arin and some APR customers. I've seen [email protected] respond to some specific accusations from APR but I have not seen them instigate anything. The whole thread shows a lack of professional behavior from APR and I know if I posted in this manner on my employer's behalf I'd be looking for a new job.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> In the process, aside from the calibration resources, I through a bunch of software engineering time at it to come up with new features and new ECU extensions that will end up being the envy of everybody.


Looking forward to hearing more about these!

And Arin, why do we have to get all of our Stage 3 updates and pictures from a UK customer? :screwy:


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

Marty said:


> Looking forward to hearing more about these!
> 
> And Arin, why do we have to get all of our Stage 3 updates and pictures from a UK customer? :screwy:


Very soon.. very soon.

Because our stage 3 has been taken apart more than it's been together recently. Writing install manuals, double and triple checking fitment of everything, etc...


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

hightechrdn said:


> Why? It is APR's word vs UM's and neither is going to post up the root cause which they theorize is the issue. I could at least confirm whether UM and APR are actually referring to the same root cause or not.
> 
> I don't know when the APR tune 'reliably' misfires! Thank goodness I didn't have to live with that behavior out of my $60k+ car. With worn out plugs, the UM Stage 2 tune misfired/popped between 3k-4k RPM at WOT. Road speed didn't really matter as it did this in multiple gears. With new plugs, my car isn't misfiring or popping under acceleration and I can't speak to the conditions other tunes have issues. My current UM tune doesn't have any issues which I can identify.
> 
> ...


+1 on 1 thru 5, with a double +1 for #5.

I am hoping for a great tune from APR, but I could absolutely do without all the animosity back and forth. Arn't we all enthusiasts? Don't we all think the TTRS is a cool car? Lets recognize the fact that we all agree on virtually every fundamental concept. As Jack said in "Mars Attack!" "Cann't we all get along?" (I think this was right before Congress was vaporized)


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

smack_ttrs said:


> i have a bone stock rs that i'll be throwing a downpipe and 100 cell cats onto as soon as the midpipes are done. i have a um and apr dealer within 20 minutes of an independent mustang dyno(that i already posted stock numbers from) that i'm more than willing to test both tunes with.
> i think for simplicity's sake i would do the um tune first since the ecu would need to be sent in. then once those pulls are done i can run over to 034 motorsport and have them dump the new tune into the car.
> if this seems satisfactory to both tuners i'll make this happen.


GREAT OFFER. Please, please, please do it. Jeff?


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

JohnLZ7W said:


> There is no back and forth. The majority of the banter is coming from Ernie and Arin and some APR customers. I've seen [email protected] respond to some specific accusations from APR but I have not seen them instigate anything. The whole thread shows a lack of professional behavior from APR and I know if I posted in this manner on my employer's behalf I'd be looking for a new job.


This is 100% correct.


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Was everything right with the initial release? Apparently not. But, we've listened to what people said and busted out butts to find and fix the issues and do better.



I do believe this is the first time I have heard someone from APR actually admit that their tune may not be perfect. +1 for APR...that is the first +1 in my book...so you have a long way to go...but it is a start!


----------



## willlangford (Nov 30, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> Wait.. WAIT.. EVC? BDM2GO? I thought UM made all their own tools?


Jeff has answered this before.. but here it is again for you;



Jefnes3 said:


> To clarify:
> 
> 1. In house flashing tools: YES
> 2. In house extraction tools: YES
> ...




And also....



[email protected] said:


> Arin is a marketdroid.. he doesn't tune or write code or any of that. All of his time is spent
> 1. updating the website
> 2. taking pictures
> 3. making videos
> ...





[email protected] said:


> That's it?


You forgot his person attacks. Just for poops and giggles...



[email protected] said:


> Willlangford,
> 
> I’m glad to see you’re so heavily involved in the Golf R forum considering you don’t even own a Golf R. I can sure count on you to take any positive APR accomplishment and find fault in it, any way possible. No matter we have over 100 people running and enjoying the kit - 1 report of a very specific issue demands the attention of the entire Internet! Are we in contact with this guy? Who cares – that information’s unnecessary. This is the Internet! Assume the worst! Hold the press! Shut down production!!! How dare we continue to post until it’s resolved?
> 
> ...


PS .. the owner of APR stands behind his employees talking like this being the face of the company. Now if this isn't marketing, I don't know what is. :beer:


----------



## Koa1 (Feb 21, 2012)

JohnLZ7W said:


> There is no back and forth. The majority of the banter is coming from Ernie and Arin and some APR customers. I've seen [email protected] respond to some specific accusations from APR but I have not seen them instigate anything. The whole thread shows a lack of professional behavior from APR and I know if I posted in this manner on my employer's behalf I'd be looking for a new job.


 Yep. I've followed this from the very beginning, on Quattroworld and here. I've never owned an Audi before and never "tuned" a car because where I'm from, it's pretty much a bunch of dorks and nerds who are into this s**t. Anyhoo, I bought the damn car and somewhat caught the tuning bug. It's an expensive car for me, so I thought there'd be some high quality aftermarket support for it like there is for BMW. Then APR and their disrespectful nerd herd comes along, makes a horrible product, denies it forever, causing one guy to ditch the car out of frustration, and generally just acts completely unprofessional. Is this what happens to people whose mommies buy them their cars? There is no way I will ever purchase anything from APR after seeing this crap. Thank you Arin for acting like an idiot and saving me from the mistake of supporting a company of Ass****s! Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

Lets just wait for the data, anything else is stupid.

All we have is some UM people with no misfires, and some with. Those without i wonder if they even drive their car hard enough to realise. Usually it's high speed prolonged WOT runs which causes it around 130-160mph from my experiences.

all we have so far is a UM Vs APR Dyno comparison and it doesn't look good for UM. But lets arrange a independent day. APR is game, but it doesn't look like UM wants to play along. Makes one wonder.

I'm sure we all tune to go fast. I do anyway, that's why I'm on my third remap.


P.S

No misfire issues from us UK APR users. Our annual 30-130mph and vmax event is coming soon, means we will have more v-box data from a variety of cars with a variety of different tune.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Poverty said:


> Lets just wait for the data, anything else is stupid.
> 
> All we have is some UM people with no misfires, and some with. Those without i wonder if they even drive their car hard enough to realise. Usually it's high speed prolonged WOT runs which causes it around 130-160mph from my experiences.
> 
> ...


Hold on. The challenge has just been made. It has not even been 12 hours. Lets give UM some time to consider the logistics. I hope we can make this work. For the record, I think we are going to find two very good tunes. At this point I would be surprised if APR does not edge out UM, but that will just open the door for UM create a V2.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Poverty said:


> Vagoc.co.uk TT section.
> 
> Now where's UM v-box data in return?


Where exactly on vagoc? Link?


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Williamttrs said:


> For the record, I think we are going to find two very good tunes. At this point I would be surprised if APR does not edge out UM, but that will just open the door for UM create a V2.


Are you serious?
Do you think that one is getting more power and then the other comes with v2 & more power ... and so on? Do you think the TT RS is an endless resource of power?

There is only one way if you want more performance for your current configuration: Go and have someone to make a custom map. A big company like APR is making a generic map that in the end should work perfectly on all cars (no matter if you have a milltek downpipe, OEM deccated exhaust, forge IC, ... or whatever configuration). Such a map will always be "slower" than a custom map build specifically for your car.

At least (from what I understood) UM map provide 2 options for adjusting the fuel and boost in steps --> which, if you adjust properly I'm sure you will get better results than a generic map that works on all cars (keep in mind that I don't have APR nor UM on my car and never did).

Another thing: If you want better performance for your car then you don't want a high level of torque / boost / power in the mid range --> if you want PM and I will explain you why.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

thygreyt said:


> Arin, how are you doing?
> 
> as i told you before, it was a pleasure to have met you at Sowo. I was just browsing through vortex and saw this...
> 
> ...


This still look to me the better test.
I would do 3 consecutive tests once the OIL reaches 90grd without any pause in between --> To see how the engine / map reacts to heat-soak. The 3rd run would be the most relevant one as this would be closer to a run on the street.

What I discovered is that higher boost in the midrange = more power on the dyno but less performance on the street.


----------



## NamJa (Jul 31, 2012)

Thank god my RS is stock; from what I've read here (and I have no dog in this fight) I'd never buy anything from APR primarily because they seem to be such dicks and everything is "just around the corner".


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> That's it?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAY27NU1Jog


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

Poverty said:


> Lets just wait for the data, anything else is stupid.
> 
> All we have is some UM people with no misfires, and some with. Those without i wonder if they even drive their car hard enough to realise. Usually it's high speed prolonged WOT runs which causes it around 130-160mph from my experiences.
> 
> ...


you have completely missed the point. who cares who goes by faster by tenths of a second...the issue is to make a product that works. If you don't do that then the issue to step up and say you made a mistake and figure it out...help the people that support your company. Don't act like a bunch of arrogant, cocky jerks as if your **** doesn't stink.

you are worried about a tenth of a second when the product doesn't even function properly...


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

lpriley32 said:


> you are worried about a tenth of a second when the product doesn't even function properly...


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

I still contend that ALL the various tunes available will be more similar than different in terms of real world performance...a little more of this or that at certain rpms doesn't mean a damn thing at the end of the day. This car is spectacular and I'm a proud owner and member of the community. I agree with others, the splintering of us based on what tune we have is nuts. 

I'm glad APR is fixing their tune and I'm sure the car owners having issues can't wait to get it and start enjoying their cars fully again. Beyond that, nothing else matters. Let's move on!:beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

lpriley32 said:


> you have completely missed the point. who cares who goes by faster by tenths of a second...the issue is to make a product that works. If you don't do that then the issue to step up and say you made a mistake and figure it out...help the people that support your company. Don't act like a bunch of arrogant, cocky jerks as if your **** doesn't stink.
> 
> you are worried about a tenth of a second when the product doesn't even function properly...


I agree with you. Making a product that works is absolutely the first job.

However, our point all along has been that we DID that already. We make more power and more torque across the entire band with the current tune. We also, in most cases, run trouble free. (To our knowledge, the misfires occur in about 10% of our tuned TT-RS's) We're also fairly comfortable saying that they also happen to our competitors tunes to some extent. 

The TT-RS in general has misfire issues. Between certain design elements in the power train and VW's inability to consistently install good spark plugs, lots of people have had misfires with lots of tunes.

To be honest, I don't really like arguing and I certainly don't like saying anything negative about other people's hard work. But, when people lie about their product or about ours, I can't resist. When that UM car was here, Arin and I drove it. We got it to misfire the first time we made a 4th gear pull going uphill. Then, we dyno'd it. It made less torque and less power. Then, we logged it. It ran less boost. Just like we've been saying it would.

Back to point

As I've said before, we acknowledge that the misfire issue is more prevalent than it should be. We got our hands on a Stage 2 car and sorted it out. While we were at it, we decided to go back and up the ante.

I know this has been said a hundred times, but the wait will be worth it. We appreciate our customers and their patience with this. You won't be disappointed.


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

You can really tell the corporate culture at apr when employees are behaving this way in a public forum. I really wonder if their tune would have been looked at and fixed (so they say) if it wasn't for other tuners giving us options.


----------



## JLourieR32 (May 3, 2011)

APR is the new HPA. Targeting the dumbest of customers. When you're customers are a bunch of f**king idiots they'll never be able to put one and one together to get two.

Lets look at an interesting series of events:
APR posts some dyno plot that shows their 'new' tune vs some competitor they all but flat out say is UM. It's easy to make a UM car look like sh!t, turn boost and octane down to the lowest levels and have at it on the dyno.

APR claims to have a fix for the 'misfire' at the SAME TIME they now have a UM binary. Of course they have to cover their tracks... so they launch a smear campaign about how all of UM's stuff is smoke and mirrors, no real fix, etc. (no real fix? why is it that many cars that had misfires before don't on UM software, and aside from ONE guy with trashed plugs is the only UM customer reporting anything about misfires?) APR dealers are now telling customers No Lift Shift and Launch Control are coming... Hmm, where do you think they got that code from? Next thing you know they'll magically have user adjustable settings too.

Even with UM's code, APR *STILL* can not make the same levels of power. That is f**king laughable. Look at the post from UM when the software was released. Stage 1 car, 475 ft/lbs of torque. *Congrats APR, you steal the #1 tuner's code and still come up short? That takes a special kind of stupid.* Though, that's not really surprising given the kind of responses I see coming out APR employees.

I've fired people for less stupidity than you all demonstrate on a GOOD day. How anyone can even consider purchasing an APR product is BEYOND me.

I feel like I'm stuck watching one of terrible movies my wife loves on Lifetime.


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

JLourieR32 said:


> I've fired people for less stupidity than you all demonstrate on a GOOD day. How anyone can even consider purchasing an APR product is BEYOND me.


:thumbup::beer:


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

JLourieR32 said:


> APR is the new HPA. Targeting the dumbest of customers. When you're customers are a bunch of f**king idiots they'll never be able to put one and one together to get two.
> 
> Lets look at an interesting series of events:
> APR posts some dyno plot that shows their 'new' tune vs some competitor they all but flat out say is UM. It's easy to make a UM car look like sh!t, turn boost and octane down to the lowest levels and have at it on the dyno.
> ...



Well someone has just made themeselves look silly by obviously not understanding how dynos work, and how figures are achieved

Lol at user adjustable settings. Every tuner has this now, Revo was actually taken to court by APR for taking this software from them. Learn your VAG history, APR was one of the first of not the first to offer switching.

Google it if you don't believe me.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

lpriley32 said:


> you have completely missed the point. who cares who goes by faster by tenths of a second...the issue is to make a product that works. If you don't do that then the issue to step up and say you made a mistake and figure it out...help the people that support your company. Don't act like a bunch of arrogant, cocky jerks as if your **** doesn't stink.
> 
> you are worried about a tenth of a second when the product doesn't even function properly...


I agree. 

You must have missed the reasons why I left Revo for APR. With Revo stage 2 I made 400lbft and 400hp, plus it misfired and had limp mode problems. 

I changed to APR, car felt faster, no more misfires and so I took it back to the same Dyno. The car made 430hp and 450lbft, with no misfires. I can run my car from 0-190mph indicated with no issues. 

So therefore, I'm happy, as are the numerous other people in the UK who left Revo for APR.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

JLourieR32 said:


> APR is the new HPA. Targeting the dumbest of customers. When you're customers are a bunch of f**king idiots they'll never be able to put one and one together to get two.
> 
> Lets look at an interesting series of events:
> APR posts some dyno plot that shows their 'new' tune vs some competitor they all but flat out say is UM. It's easy to make a UM car look like sh!t, turn boost and octane down to the lowest levels and have at it on the dyno.
> ...


I have to resist the urge to feed the trolls.... DON'T DO IT!

I've been very clear about everything we've done. We've also been clear about what the competition is doing. We've disclosed more than anybody.


----------



## JLourieR32 (May 3, 2011)

Poverty said:


> Well someone has just made themeselves look silly by obviously not understanding how dynos work, and how figures are achieved


Says the guy with APR's d!ck so far up his ass he can't even ... well, I'll let you use your own imagination there. Shove off.

Both companies have say day / same car dyno plots. The difference is, one is legit and the other, well, isn't.


----------



## JLourieR32 (May 3, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> The TT-RS can't make 475 Ft Lbs of torque. The clutch gives out at 450. Or are you now going to try to tell me that a tuner can change the clutch with software?


Contradictory information much? How are you guys holding more than 450 then?

Keep talking in circles dumbass. You're just proving my point(s).

EDIT: Also, in your TUNED feature, you tell us the car is on a stock clutch ...


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

JLourieR32 said:


> Says the guy with APR's d!ck so far up his ass he can't even ... well, I'll let you use your own imagination there. Shove off.
> 
> Both companies have say day / same car dyno plots. The difference is, one is legit and the other, well, isn't.


Now who's the fanboi?


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

JLourieR32 said:


> Says the guy with APR's d!ck so far up his ass he can't even ... well, I'll let you use your own imagination there. Shove off.
> 
> Both companies have say day / same car dyno plots. The difference is, one is legit and the other, well, isn't.


And you still haven't got a clue.

Every heard of a Dyno that maybe reads high???

Car A makes 450hp on Dyno A.

1 hour later You then take car A to Dyno B.

Car A now only makes 400hp on Dyno B.

Has car A now all of a sudden magically lost 50hp?


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

JLourieR32 said:


> Contradictory information much? How are you guys holding more than 450 then?
> 
> Keep talking in circles dumbass. You're just proving my point(s).
> 
> EDIT: Also, in your TUNED feature, you tell us the car is on a stock clutch ...


Yep.. because it was 475 Ft Lb. where it slipped. I checked again after I made the post.

And please stop the insulting bit. You guys rail and rail and rail on us.. and then we're "unprofessional" when we respond. I'm really tired of that crap. If you want decorum and constructive threads, then you guys need to stop acting like children.


----------



## JLourieR32 (May 3, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> Now who's the fanboi?


If you guys 'won' by 8 to 12 ft/lbs and same HP, I'd believe it. When you are trying to tell me you won by 50+ ft/lbs, that is just flat out wrong. Period.


----------



## JLourieR32 (May 3, 2011)

Poverty said:


> And you still haven't got a clue.
> 
> Every heard of a Dyno that maybe reads high???
> 
> ...


You're so stupid you can't even make a legit point. I'm not talking about car one making x on dyno A and y on dyno B. Keep up, would you? I guess that is expecting too much from an APR customer. :banghead:


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

JLourieR32 said:


> If you guys 'won' by 8 to 12 ft/lbs and same HP, I'd believe it. When you are trying to tell me you won by 50+ ft/lbs, that is just flat out wrong. Period.


I didn't tell you anything. We put the car on the dyno and ran it. I reflashed the ECU. We ran it again.

Arin posted the picture.

Simple as that. You can take from it what you will.


----------



## JLourieR32 (May 3, 2011)

[email protected] said:


> I didn't tell you anything. We put the car on the dyno and ran it. I reflashed the ECU. We ran it again.
> 
> Arin posted the picture.
> 
> Simple as that. You can take from it what you will.


I'm sure. After turning down all the settings. We're not idiots.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

JLourieR32 said:


> You're so stupid you can't even make a legit point. I'm not talking about car one making x on dyno A and y on dyno B. Keep up, would you? I guess that is expecting too much from an APR customer. :banghead:


So what you are saying is that, you actually believe UM's tune makes 475lbft?


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

JLourieR32 said:


> I'm sure. After turning down all the settings. We're not idiots.


And there you go with the accusations.

We didn't turn down anything. I don't even know how to turn down a UM tune.. I've never cared.

It's fine.. we've challenged Jeff to a dyno-off by an independent shop on a mustang dyno on the same day using the same car.

I suspect though, even with that done, people will still try to find some excuse to ignore the facts.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

JLourieR32 said:


> I'm sure. After turning down all the settings. We're not idiots.


Do you even own a TTRS? All I read from you is insults :laugh:


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

Poverty said:


> Do you even own a TTRS? All I read from you is insults :laugh:


still waiting on that link for apr v-box numbers poverty. please and thank-you.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

Poverty said:


> Do you even own a TTRS? All I read from you is insults :laugh:


Of course! And I don't insult people

Oh wait.. you were talking to him. Nevermind.


----------



## JLourieR32 (May 3, 2011)

Poverty said:


> So what you are saying is that, you actually believe UM's tune makes 475lbft?


I do. Given I've driven extensively a car with both tunes. If you abused the clutch, it would indeed slip.



[email protected] said:


> And there you go with the accusations.
> 
> We didn't turn down anything. I don't even know how to turn down a UM tune.. I've never cared.
> 
> ...


What you call accusations, the rest of us call fact. There is no way that car made that little power unless SOMETHING was changed. The math simply doesn't add up.

I'm sure when they dyno results are in, you'll see the same thing that was seen with the Golf R stuff. Same HP, torque +- 10 or 12 ft/lbs with UM making damn near the same figures on less boost.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

canuckttrs said:


> still waiting on that link for apr v-box numbers poverty. please and thank-you.


I've told you where to look. Now where's some data for me.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

JLourieR32 said:


> I do. Given I've driven extensively a car with both tunes. If you abused the clutch, it would indeed slip.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So in your mind, a stock turbo Ttrs with a UM map is a 475lbft car. Have you driven any other cars with a claimed 475lbft of torque from the factory out of interest?

What's UM's big turbo kits like?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

Poverty said:


> I've told you where to look. Now where's some data for me.


APR v-box numbers coming after lunch.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

cipsony said:


> This still look to me the better test.
> I would do 3 consecutive tests once the OIL reaches 90grd without any pause in between --> To see how the engine / map reacts to heat-soak. The 3rd run would be the most relevant one as this would be closer to a run on the street.
> 
> What I discovered is that higher boost in the midrange = more power on the dyno but less performance on the street.


The suggestion for the Florida test is a good one. However, the two cars can not be flashed on site. UM requires that the ECU be sent to them. It seems to me whoever has the least logistical problems with this constraint will be the best place to perform the test. The testing conditions are easy enough to spell out. As along as they are identical, we should get a good comparison.


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

[No message]


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

Williamttrs said:


> The suggestion for the Florida test is a good one. However, the two cars can not be flashed on site. UM requires that the ECU be sent to them. It seems to me whoever has the least logistical problems with this constraint will be the best place to perform the test. The testing conditions are easy enough to spell out. As along as they are identical, we should get a good comparison.


I contacted UM to see if they have a spare ECU... or if there is an option B to do this.


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

Poverty said:


> I've told you where to look. Now where's some data for me.


You would have a smidge more credibilty Poverty if you weren't so arrogant and rude. Your answer is go search yourself. rofl.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

cipsony said:


> Are you serious?
> Do you think that one is getting more power and then the other comes with v2 & more power ... and so on? Do you think the TT RS is an endless resource of power?
> 
> There is only one way if you want more performance for your current configuration: Go and have someone to make a custom map. A big company like APR is making a generic map that in the end should work perfectly on all cars (no matter if you have a milltek downpipe, OEM deccated exhaust, forge IC, ... or whatever configuration). Such a map will always be "slower" than a custom map build specifically for your car.


Yes I am serious! I disagree and you have no proof of your assertions. I chose my words carefully. I did not say that power is "endless." I said "edge out." It is very likely there is an incremental amount of power yet to be taped.


----------



## crackkills (Mar 10, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Yep.. because it was 475 Ft Lb. where it slipped. I checked again after I made the post.
> 
> And please stop the insulting bit. You guys rail and rail and rail on us.. and then we're "unprofessional" when we respond. I'm really tired of that crap. If you want decorum and constructive threads, then you guys need to stop acting like children.


What? Your stage 3 car held that power on a stock clutch but the same stock clutch couldn't hold the 475ft lbs of torque on your new tune? :screwy:


----------



## JLourieR32 (May 3, 2011)

Poverty said:


> So in your mind, a stock turbo Ttrs with a UM map is a 475lbft car. Have you driven any other cars with a claimed 475lbft of torque from the factory out of interest?
> 
> What's UM's big turbo kits like?


From the factory ... nothing comes to mind for a car, I've had my share of diesel pickup trucks. I've also had my fair share of rides / seat time in other cars that have significantly more than that. TT Gallardos, Vipers, Ford GT, etc.

Comparing a car with 900 ft/lbs vs one with a little more than half of that is hard... but I'd say the numbers match up to where they should be.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

JLourieR32 said:


> I do. Given I've driven extensively a car with both tunes. If you abused the clutch, it would indeed slip.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So you're calling me a liar? Seriously?

I'm sorry that the numbers are what they are.. but there's no smoke and mirrors here. 

Indeed, we will see.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Here is a link from Vagoc when i posted Vbox data & movies and everything ... still the APR paid guys constantly attacked as they were not able to mach the times even with a stage 3. Everything started with a 100% unbiased review.

If one is having time and in the mood for a read:
http://www.vagoc.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?t=12345

This reading is good for those who still believe in APR.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

Williamttrs said:


> The suggestion for the Florida test is a good one. However, the two cars can not be flashed on site. UM requires that the ECU be sent to them. It seems to me whoever has the least logistical problems with this constraint will be the best place to perform the test. The testing conditions are easy enough to spell out. As along as they are identical, we should get a good comparison.


1 car. Start with the UM flash, then overwrite with APR.

We can either do that at an APR dealer (plenty to choose from), or, if it's close, Arin and I will come down there and I'll flash it personally.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

crackkills said:


> What? Your stage 3 car held that power on a stock clutch but the same stock clutch couldn't hold the 475ft lbs of torque on your new tune? :screwy:


Our stage 3 car didn't hold that power on a stock clutch. Past 475, it slipped like a punk in the rain.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

JLourieR32 said:


> Says the guy with APR's d!ck so far up his ass he can't even ... well, I'll let you use your own imagination there. Shove off.
> 
> Both companies have say day / same car dyno plots. The difference is, one is legit and the other, well, isn't.


This is not helpful in the slightest. Just for the record Sean and the rest of the APR guys, the vast majority of us have avoided the personal attacks. One outburst from a frustrated member does not validate all past and future flames.

Let me just restate where we REALLY are right now. APR says they are ready, willing and itching to have a fair comparison of their tune to UM. This is GREAT! Now lets hear from UM. If we can focus on this one thing, then we will settle a lot. The banter back and forth is now in re-runs as old as "The Brady Bunch"


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

Williamttrs said:


> This is not helpful in the slightest. Just for the record Sean and the rest of the APR guys, the vast majority of us have avoided the personal attacks. One outburst from a frustrated member does not validate all past and future flames.
> 
> Let me just restate where we REALLY are right now. APR says they are ready, willing and itching to have a fair comparison of their tune to UM. This is GREAT! Now lets hear from UM. If we can focus on this one thing, then we will settle a lot. The banter back and forth is now in re-runs as old as "The Brady Bunch"


Amen... let's do this thing.


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

Williamttrs said:


> This is not helpful in the slightest. Just for the record Sean and the rest of the APR guys, the vast majority of us have avoided the personal attacks. One outburst from a frustrated member does not validate all past and future flames.
> 
> Let me just restate where we REALLY are right now. APR says they are ready, willing and itching to have a fair comparison of their tune to UM. This is GREAT! Now lets hear from UM. If we can focus on this one thing, then we will settle a lot. The banter back and forth is now in re-runs as old as "The Brady Bunch"


So now that APR has stolen coding from UM, you are fine with the fact that APR comes out guns blazing, critiquing, attacking and NOW wants to compare tunes, that's good with you? This situation is so ridiculous it strains belief. 

Does UM have no IP in this situation? If so, he would certainly have a claim against APR and their underhanded tactics.


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

the more APR talks the more likely I am to keep my money in my pcoket and my ecu stock...so good on all of ya fellas for making this such an easy decision!


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> 1 car. Start with the UM flash, then overwrite with APR.
> 
> We can either do that at an APR dealer (plenty to choose from), or, if it's close, Arin and I will come down there and I'll flash it personally.


this is exactly what i offered up and the reason i figured the um tune would need to be first.
i would also be not using a dyno from either the um or apr shops.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

canuckttrs said:


> So now that APR has stolen coding from UM, you are fine with the fact that APR comes out guns blazing, critiquing, attacking and NOW wants to compare tunes, that's good with you? This situation is so ridiculous it strains belief.
> 
> Does UM have no IP in this situation? If so, he would certainly have a claim against APR and their underhanded tactics.


Get over yourself. We had ours done before we got theirs. Besides, there's nothing in there worth stealing. Yay, lets copy a lower power map!


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> Get over yourself. We had ours done before we got theirs. Besides, there's nothing in there worth stealing. Yay, lets copy a lower power map!


:facepalm:


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

smack_ttrs said:


> this is exactly what i offered up and the reason i figured the um tune would need to be first.
> i would also be not using a dyno from either the um or apr shops.


I think it would be best id apr is out of it, and i mean te company.

That way we can be absolutely impartial in te situation, otherwise claims of special software and such can arise

Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

canuckttrs said:


> You would have a smidge more credibilty Poverty if you weren't so arrogant and rude. Your answer is go search yourself. rofl.


You and UM would have some credibility if you actually posted some data. So car there is nothing, not even a video.
Is it that hard for you to jump into your car and record your speedo on some runs?

I've provided more data already than anyone with UM code or UM themselves. But UM is best right? 

Lets talk once UM cars put down some vbox/drag strip/video runs.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

lpriley32 said:


> the more APR talks the more likely I am to keep my money in my pcoket and my ecu stock...so good on all of ya fellas for making this such an easy decision!


Enjoy your stock (boring IMO) car


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

canuckttrs said:


> So now that APR has stolen coding from UM, you are fine with the fact that APR comes out guns blazing, critiquing, attacking and NOW wants to compare tunes, that's good with you? This situation is so ridiculous it strains belief.
> 
> Does UM have no IP in this situation? If so, he would certainly have a claim against APR and their underhanded tactics.


Reading data is stealing code...WOW. 

Let us know once you have proof of APR throwing away their code and start loading UM code onto cars.

LMAO


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

Poverty said:


> Enjoy your stock (boring IMO) car


you sir...do not get it.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

canuckttrs said:


> So now that APR has stolen coding from UM, you are fine with the fact that APR comes out guns blazing, critiquing, attacking and NOW wants to compare tunes, that's good with you? This situation is so ridiculous it strains belief.
> 
> Does UM have no IP in this situation? If so, he would certainly have a claim against APR and their underhanded tactics.


Please tone down the rethoric! Most of this is not okay with me. There are about 2 pages of worthwhile back and forth conversation in this 22 page thread. 

I don't think you or I have ANY evidence that anyone has stolen anything. I am not happy with a lot of the flaming from APR, but there have been attacks on both sides. None of the attacks are helpful. Sure they are entertaining, but the cost of pissing off a lot of guys who would otherwise probably enjoy hanging out at a track together is not worth it.

Guys! Guys! Guys! Take a step back. I doubt anyone here would speak to the others in real life as some have here. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be concerned that I am going to get "shanked" when I go to a car event. My wife would be pissed if she had to take me to the hospital, and I would probably not be allowed to play with any of you anymore!


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

Williamttrs said:


> Please tone down the rethoric! Most of this is not okay with me. There are about 2 pages of worthwhile back and forth conversation in this 22 page thread.
> 
> I don't think you or I have ANY evidence that anyone has stolen anything. I am not happy with a lot of the flaming from APR, but there have been attacks on both sides. None of the attacks are helpful. Sure they are entertaining, but the cost of pissing off a lot of guys who would otherwise probably enjoy hanging out at a track together is not worth it.
> 
> Guys! Guys! Guys! Take a step back. I doubt anyone here would speak to the others in real life as some have here. I don't know about you, but I don't want to be concerned that I am going to get "shanked" when I go to a car event. My wife would be pissed if she had to take me to the hospital, and I would probably not be allowed to play with any of you anymore!


Good post.

If we were all sat around a table right now, or at a track we would all probably be best of friends and getting along like a house on fire.

Lets all take a step back and start over. We all have a common aim after all.


----------



## carl44 (Nov 23, 2012)

like Ive said in an earlier post. i have flashed other cars Ive owned GT2-GT3 Lotus Exige S. they made more power and ran fine including 1000s of track miles over 6 years.
i got the RS 2 mounts ago and was going to do a mild tune but after following this thread i don't think anyone really has it sorted out yet. i do believe it will happen and when its done im in. i have a vagcom and have run 30+ logs and it seems these cars do show random misfires with the stock tune. No codes or lights nothing you can feel and they clear themselves, both with the stock plugs and the NGK7437-8s. 
just my thoughts ..carl


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

Williamttrs said:


> I don't want to be concerned that I am going to get "shanked" when I go to a car event. My wife would be pissed if she had to take me to the hospital, and I would probably not be allowed to play with any of you anymore!


agreed, a shank in the kidney would be no fun at all. :laugh:


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Poverty said:


> Enjoy your stock (boring IMO) car


This is what I mean. lpriley32 is merely stating an opinion that is shared by several. There is no need to attack HIM. There are several issues going on here and they often get conflated. 

I think the issue that Ipriley32 is commenting on is the fact that all companies are made of people. It is the people that either do or do not stand behind their product. It is the people who you have to deal with if there is a problem. When someone denies a problem or lashes out at someone else, it is only natural to be concerned that next time the **** hits the fan, the same behavior will happen and next time it may be directed at you. That is not comforting.

I too am concerned about the attitude of a company that I give my hard earned dollars to. I am probably a little less jaded because I have not been involved in this discussion as long as some of the other guys. I would probably be a lot less forgiving if I had to jump through some of the hoops that others have.


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

thygreyt said:


> I think it would be best id apr is out of it, and i mean te company.
> 
> That way we can be absolutely impartial in te situation, otherwise claims of special software and such can arise
> 
> Sent from my GT-P7510 using Tapatalk 2


how could either shop make something better with no misfires than what they would push out to any car. without tuning to a specific car you have to tune to the lowest common denominator.

both tuners will just be flashing and have no access to the car on the dyno.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Poverty said:


> You and UM would have some credibility if you actually posted some data. So car there is nothing, not even a video.
> Is it that hard for you to jump into your car and record your speedo on some runs?
> 
> I've provided more data already than anyone with UM code or UM themselves. But UM is best right?
> ...


*Really! What data did you provide? Never saw how your car is driving with the APR stage 2 software. Never saw a vbox file of your car. 

There is one event though where "SOMETHING" happened to your engine with APR software (accusing a misshift) --> The car left on a trailer. 
This was fallowed by you upgrading the internals of the engine!!! 

Your car is not working for about 1.5 years, since you are upgrading to stage 3!!! :facepalm:
How can you even remember how a stage 2 APR is when you don't have a TT RS for one year and a half!!!*


----------



## thygreyt (Jun 7, 2009)

smack_ttrs said:


> how could either shop make something better with no misfires than what they would push out to any car. without tuning to a specific car you have to tune to the lowest common denominator.
> 
> both tuners will just be flashing and have no access to the car on the dyno.


My point was: if arin or Sean were to come to the dyno and flash the car themselves, how can we know that such file is the standard customer available file?
If it's all done by independent people and a dyno/shop then it's all a bit more impartial.

I will say, sure I support united motorsports and I think they do great products. But I want to be able to say: they are the best ones around based on x and y. 
The only way to know is with a dyno. 

I do know that dynos dont show how driveable or not a car is with whatever software, but such is a more personal matter... we don't all like the same ice cream flavors.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

cipsony said:


> *Really! What data did you provide? Never saw how your car is driving with the APR stage 2 software. Never saw a vbox file of your car.
> 
> There is one event though where "SOMETHING" happened to your engine with APR software (accusing a misshift) --> The car left on a trailer.
> This was fallowed by you upgrading the internals of the engine!!!
> ...



Lol
Really ciprian?

Should I post the pics of my bent valve train, which can only be caused by a over-rev. You already know the truth but you are just a troll.

My engine went through a full race build, I decided to go down that route as the engine was being pulled apart.

I put my money where my mouth is and opened my wallet. What have you done that non one in the Ttrs world hadn't already? Oh yes I remember. Nothing.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Poverty said:


> Lol
> Really ciprian?
> 
> Should I post the pics of my bent valve train, which can only be caused by a over-rev. You already know the truth but you are just a troll.
> ...


Let's see. You took your money out of your pocket and payed APR to do the job for your.

- I installed all the parts together with the mechanic (by together I mean I actually participated and not just watching) ... I spent days on this car.
- I was the first in Europe who installed the aquamist wmi on his car and SHARED the first and only documentation on how to do it + complete ecu diagram for connecting the wires.
- I will probably have the first TT with carbon fibre doors - in development
- I will have the first TT with many other carbon fibre parts (parts that you don't even think about but each at their time) --> ... I hope I don't sound like APR on this one
- I will try to make the first No Lift Shift device capable to work with any software on any car without any problem
- I shared many reviews of all the parts I installed on the car with complete installation steps, results, v-box data, ...

BUT since I was attacked by you and other APR fellas I stopped sharing and keep things for myself. What I will produce for my car will be for sale only!!!

If I were just getting money out of my pocket for someone to build my car it would have been a different car and definitely a different tuner !!!


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

cipsony said:


> BUT since I was attacked by you and other APR fellas I stopped sharing and keep things for myself. What I will produce for my car will be for sale only!!!
> QUOTE]
> 
> Well would you mind sharing with the nice, quiet and easy going American fellows on the forum. LOL. It really takes extraordinary circumstances for us Colonist to be able to say that with a straight face:laugh:


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Williamttrs said:


> cipsony said:
> 
> 
> > BUT since I was attacked by you and other APR fellas I stopped sharing and keep things for myself. What I will produce for my car will be for sale only!!!
> ...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

So it sounds like after all this back and forth banter, the customer wins. More time spent on the calibrations, each side wanting to do their best...Must be nice, right? :laugh:


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

cipsony said:


> Let's see. You took your money out of your pocket and payed APR to do the job for your.
> 
> - I installed all the parts together with the mechanic (by together I mean I actually participated and not just watching) ... I spent days on this car.
> - I was the first in Europe who installed the aquamist wmi on his car and SHARED the first and only documentation on how to do it + complete ecu diagram for connecting the wires.
> ...


1. Anyone can bolt on parts. That's all you have done, you bolted on a hybrid OEM turbo. Well done. 

2. Richard at aquamist drew the diagrams for us to follow to install aquamist. So no you didn't produce the documents aquamist did. A weird thing to try and claim anyway, as plenty of people fitted WMI long before you did.

3. Carbon TT doors. Reader Motorsport have already made those no? Either way I have zero interest in doing that, hence why I have never pursued it.

4. Again I have no interest in carbon parts, unless my OEM ones break and need replacing. If there is a carbon option I will buy that, but I'm not overly interested in that. There has to be a point in tuning where enough is enough on a certain platform. If rather just spend the money on a 991 turbo instead.

5.i hope you succeed

6. Sounds good, data is good.

7. Ok then you are allowed your opinion. But as far as I'm concerned I've hired the best people for the job, and no one else so far has released anything that even comes close to the quality that I'm buying into.

8. APR never attacked you. Myself and Jonny just doubt that your car is as quick as a Ferrari enzo which has a lot more power and weighs a lot less. I don't know what this has to do with APR.

And finally, as apparently I'm just a guy who opens my wallet and you build your own car, are you saying you have the expertise to completely reprofile the Ttrs cylinder head, balance and blue print the engine, and do a overbore, all in your garage? No I didn't think you could. Therefore considering I haven't got the tools or expertise to do this either, I hired the guy who built the bonneville land speed record 2.0tsi to do it for me.

Anyway, ciprian, can't we just finally put all the bickering behind us.
We have taken different routes for similar aims, we might not agree all the time but that doesn't mean we can't be friends


----------



## Quisp (Mar 18, 2012)

Ok, lets just get it over with, eveyone whip out their d#*ks and piss your little circles so we can end this pissing contest.
Every freaking forum has this bull**** pissing contest with owners saying the tune they got is best and others ones are ****. If you are happy (with your tune), and you know it, clap your hands,(and shut the **** up about my tune). If you dont like the other tune, DONT BUY IT, problem solved. YOu dont have to deal with the tune or pay for it so why you stressing it. Dont get on your soapbox and start ****ting all over someone elses tune or saying they paid too much, especially if you never had any experience with the company, they had thier reasons for getting it and what does it matter to you?. Go be happy with your tune and I will go be happy with mine. Every forum has this same ****. I had Dinan, and Ihave stasis now so you know i put up with tons of bulhsit form other tuner boys. Everyhone telling me the warranty means **** and good luck getting anhy work done because they will screw you over. you know how may of them actuall ever had the tune or tried to get warrantry work, none. They heard it from a freind of a cousin's third sister in laws, inbred brothrs friend. I got turbos and clutches replaced no charge and thes dip****s are arguing and want reseipts to prove it. I am not into pissing contests but I dont like when false information is put out about something and I can correct it for others who may want to know.
As far as what tune i got and what i paid, I am an adult, i made a choice, your opinipon of my choice in tunes means squat to me but donjt put out bull**** to people asking about it when you have no clue. I do not know the UM tune or the APR tune which is why I have not said much in this thread until now. What I want are facts from the people who have the tune or who know the tune. If the only thing you have to offer is bad insults and puffing your chest out because of some deep seeded need to get approval or to put others down so you can feel better, go see a shrink. If all you have to offer is criticism, you have nothing to offer. I respectr peoples opinions, everyone is entitled to have one, but i dont see the benefit to anyone of just hurling insults back and forth and accusations from people who are so far removed from the process they cant possibly know. 
Everyone here is an adult(though they dont all act llike it). They made a decision about thier tune , respect thier decision. You may not agree with it, but it isnt your car so who cares whether you agree or not, yiou have a car,m go play with it and I will go play with my car. If you want to race then race someone(safely) but 22 pages of back and forth is somewhat amusing but come on. 
I agree the competiton between tuners is good for everyone, technology improves as the bar is raisedand everyone benefits but just be respectful of each other no matter what tune you have. We are all enthusiasts, some know more than others,and thats great, but that doesnt mean I have less at stake or need to be insulted. We all love to drive and have fun and that is what matters. So put your dicks away, get in a circle ad suing Kumbaya(or however you spell ita) and freaking be happy dammit! (and yes I can spell, but i cant type for **** when i am pissed and hammering thekeys so save the comments about my spelling)
(Now where the hell are my lucky charms, I get a little testy if i skip them in the morning)

wow, the forum has auto censor, pretty cool


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

cipsony said:


> Williamttrs said:
> 
> 
> > William, do you know the joke with the optimistic and pessimistic child ?
> ...


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

I feel like I'm in a time warp back to GIAC VS APR Days on the B5 Forum.


----------



## linuxrc (May 12, 2013)

Without actually taking sides to which tuner has the better product. I just wanted to say thank you to both UM and APR for lots of development work for which we can benefit. At the end of the day to me either tunes would be fine provided there are no adverse effects which would cause me to loose my driving enjoyment. Yes more power is nice but functionality and options are more what interest me. Keep up the good work.


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

thygreyt said:


> My point was: if arin or Sean were to come to the dyno and flash the car themselves, how can we know that such file is the standard customer available file?
> If it's all done by independent people and a dyno/shop then it's all a bit more impartial.
> 
> Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2


that was my point of all this. i would send in the ecu to um to flash since it's totally stock now and "locked" from what i gather. log some runs then head over to 034 motorsports to reflash with whatever the new apr tune is and rerun. nobody from un/apr will be anywhere near the car to make any adjustments to their tunes. whatever they're stage 2 flash is ( or whatever they are saying their stage 2 flash is) is what goes on the car. either tuner could theoretically put a hotter tune in the ecu but the dyno will tell if they've pushed too much and we see misfires or whatever other tell tail signs(limp mode).
i'm in nor-cal so neither tuner is close to me and would just be going through local dealers for the flashes. the dyno is at an independent evo/subi shop.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> So it sounds like after all this back and forth banter, the customer wins. More time spent on the calibrations, each side wanting to do their best...Must be nice, right? :laugh:


Indeed. I appreciate all the work on the platform.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

Williamttrs said:


> cipsony said:
> 
> 
> > No I have not heard that one. Lets hear it. It will be a welcome diversion.
> ...


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

Cipsony.
there's a couple of vids on youtube now.
MRC stage 2 V APR stage 1.
you won't be happy as the APR has the edge,lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8d5VKN0xY4

What I find encouraging, is that Wolf done over 100 laps of the HHR last weekend,with very good results.
I know they had a small technical problem right at the end with a pipe coming of the wastegate and causing a water pipe to burn through,but no problems with the turbo kit and map.
Looks like another tuning option will be available for us car fans soon


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

jaybyme said:


> Cipsony.
> there's a couple of vids on youtube now.
> MRC stage 2 V APR stage 1.
> you won't be happy as the APR has the edge,lol
> ...


Thanks, it's a good video. If you have more pls post them. 
It looks to me that the white car (APR) was faster than the MRC (even though they took a different start).
Do you know the times of each car?


----------



## crackkills (Mar 10, 2007)

Wow. 23 pages of total bulldoodoo! APR, will you admit that your tune has/had problems? Will you admit that it wasn't your best work? If you do and your "update" solves the issues and people that go with your new tune report back with no problems at all, you will have my and probably a lot of other people sitting on the sidelines money. 

Humility goes a long way in life. You will EARN respect you don't get it by bashing others. You might have the most power but you also have the most issues. Until that is resolved your power is worthless.


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

if indeed UM is lying about their tunes capabilities, then I am perfectly okay with the way APR is responding to UM


----------



## jaybyme (Aug 29, 2012)

cipsony said:


> Thanks, it's a good video. If you have more pls post them.
> It looks to me that the white car (APR) was faster than the MRC (even though they took a different start).
> Do you know the times of each car?


APR 11.51, against 11.56 I think
http://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=319403&p=2589518&hilit=mitchy#p2589518
The cars had no weight savings,so if the seats were removed like Mitchy's car it's gonna be close.
Thing is ,it's only a rough comparison as different conditions and track,but good comparison of the two cars on the day


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

Timster said:


> if indeed UM is lying about their tunes capabilities, then I am perfectly okay with the way APR is responding to UM


I would agree. It must be frustrating for companies who know they do right to have bricks thrown at them by those who aren't 100% honest and taken the easier route for a quick buck.

I can't see this comparison happening as UM clearly don't want to take part in it, so it will need a UM customer to do it themselves


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> Our stage 3 car didn't hold that power on a stock clutch. Past 475, it slipped like a punk in the rain.


Isn't there a stage 3 car in the UK with a 2.6l built block that still claims to be running a stock clutch?


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

JohnLZ7W said:


> Isn't there a stage 3 car in the UK with a 2.6l built block that still claims to be running a stock clutch?


It's still a 2.5 on a moderate map


----------



## JohnLZ7W (Nov 23, 2003)

Poverty said:


> It's still a 2.5 on a moderate map


700+ Nm is more than 475ft lb is it not?


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

JohnLZ7W said:


> 700+ Nm is more than 475ft lb is it not?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNklpt8CVW4


"550 wheel with only 22psi"
"Stock Clutch"


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

JohnLZ7W said:


> 700+ Nm is more than 475ft lb is it not?


i do recall someone stating the stage 3 was holding with the stock clutch just fine...:screwy:


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

jaybyme said:


> APR 11.51, against 11.56 I think
> http://www.ttforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=319403&p=2589518&hilit=mitchy#p2589518
> The cars had no weight savings,so if the seats were removed like Mitchy's car it's gonna be close.
> Thing is ,it's only a rough comparison as different conditions and track,but good comparison of the two cars on the day


Thank you for the info,
So basically both car have identical performance just one started faster and MRC is stage 2.
Good times for both of them anyway as Mitchy had many attempts 'till he nailed his ~11.3

These times proves once again that Craig's times were ok and those who attacked him are ... just what they are.


----------



## crackkills (Mar 10, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Our stage 3 car didn't hold that power on a stock clutch. Past 475, it slipped like a punk in the rain.


Again, you can't get a straight answer from APR. They used to be such a better company. So, does it slip or does it not? :screwy: If it slips then their stage one tune will require a clutch update or will it not. :screwy: That boost spike based on their latest graph that compares it to the "competitor" is going to be brutal on the clutch as it according to them, the clutch slips at 475 ft lbs.:sly: Or does it not slip at those levels? :what:

Who is on first? What, no who? 

What a complete joke.


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

We will respond when its more comvenient for us to do so.

I am sitting by the pool with my kids.

I think Matt was at the pub earlier.


I still have no UM file from [email protected] despite him posting to you all that he would send it.


Have a nice weekend folks.

-Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Jefnes3 said:


> We will respond when its more comvenient for us to do so.
> 
> I am sitting by the pool with my kids.
> 
> ...


I recognize that this is merely a enthusiast forum and there is no requirement for anyone to "jump" the moment someone else asks for something. Enjoy the family. Enjoy the weekend. Enjoy life! The forum will be here in a few days.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Timster said:


> if indeed UM is lying about their tunes capabilities, then I am perfectly okay with the way APR is responding to UM


I am going to play devils advocate for a minute. Lets say that UM is completely full of crap. Let's further assume that they paid several people to get on the forum and do PR for them and also paid some other guys to do some guerrilla warfare by claiming to have APR tunes with problems, even when they really did not. Okay, in this HYPOTHETICAL scenario, would it be better for APR to calmly respond to the accusations and deal in facts or would it be better for APR to stomp their feet and scream Bloody Mary? 

It seems to me that every time emotion is met with emotion it achieves the short term gain of making you feel better, but the cost is MORE confusion because the guys on the outside looking in do not know who is lying and who is telling the truth. 

I am not saying that if someone slanders you that you should just role over and take it. I am saying that the best defense to these lies is to walk a very calm, straight and narrow path. In the end, the truth will be revealed and the behavior of everyone will be reinterpreted in light of the truth. 

For me, if the truth turned out to be the hypothetical scenario that I mentioned above, I would most certainly have more sympathy for APR, BUT BUT BUT... I would have massively more sympathy and affinity to APR if they dealt with the situation.... well lets say with "class." 

All that is water under the bridge now. I am more interested in the future, but I hope APR can be humble enough and self-crytical enough to listen to its customers and improve its behavior in the future.


----------



## J662 (Dec 8, 2011)

It been months now and I log back in to this topic to check out the bitchfest. What a joke. 

Sorry for all of you guys with an APR tune. I've been enjoying my tune for months now. I would have no patience waiting months for who knows what...

Buy a 70k dollar car and can't enjoy it...sucks. I'd much rather revert to stock and just drive it..and enjoy it!


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

Williamttrs said:


> Let's further assume that they paid several people to get on the forum and do PR for them and also paid some other guys to do some guerrilla warfare by claiming to have APR tunes with problems, even when they really did not.


Fair observation, here is my personal experience.

I'll just say i'm very happy with my UM Stage2 tune so far. Played around with launch control and NLS today, not a hiccup or problem at all. I really do hope everything gets sorted out for everyone else who's stuck with a problem tune, I know it bugged the heck out of me and i removed it asap.

It's the weekend! :beer::beer:


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

crackkills said:


> Again, you can't get a straight answer from APR. They used to be such a better company. So, does it slip or does it not? :screwy: If it slips then their stage one tune will require a clutch update or will it not. :screwy: That boost spike based on their latest graph that compares it to the "competitor" is going to be brutal on the clutch as it according to them, the clutch slips at 475 ft lbs.:sly: Or does it not slip at those levels? :what:
> 
> Who is on first? What, no who?
> 
> What a complete joke.



As usual, um fanbois try to make trouble, spread doubt and distort every discussion.


You people are worse than Fox News.

At 475 our stage 3 slips. End of story.



Stage 1 is fine without a clutch. Stage 3 will almost certainly require one. As does stage 3 on everything else.

Edit: I went back and looked at the graph to make sure I wasn't making any mistakes that somebody might try and club me over the head with later. I realize that absolutely any, even trivial misstatement will result in 10 pages of badgering.

So, let me be 110% clear on everything:

All numbers below are wheel torque measured in foot pounds. Not HP, Not NM, Not CHP, Not CTQ.

Firstly, that graph Arin posted was a Stage 2 TT-RS, not a Stage 1. Secondly, the peak torque was 468.5. That is less than 475. The stock clutch slips at 475. Dropping is hard on clutches. Riding is hard on clutches. Processing torque below their slip point when fully engaged isn't.

468.5 won't damage the clutch any appreciable amount more than 400 would. 

Stage 3 is capable of producing more than 475 peak torque. So, we'll either denut it slightly at peak torque to preserve the clutch (Stock clutch file) or go full on and require people to buy an after market clutch. That decision hasn't been made, but I'm pretty sure it will be the latter.

OK, All engines have torque curves that decay after peak. Tunes cannot do much to change this. It's a natural consequence of rising speed and the engines ability to suck in enough air. In the TT-RS, the torque decays quite significantly after peak. So, even if peak is right at the limits of the clutch, the car won't be there for long during nearly any driving scenario.

OK, is that all clear enough?

Edit 2: Yes, I realize these are turbocharged cars. The actual limitation is not the engines ability to suck, but the choke-flow line on the compressor map of the turbo. As RPM's increase, the mass of air that is needed increases. Eventually, the turbo cannot compress that air the same amount and maintain the flow rate required. So, the boost decreases and torque with it. The principal is the same. Beyond peak torque, adequate airflow cannot be maintained at the same pressure and torque decreases as a result.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

Jefnes3 said:


> We will respond when its more comvenient for us to do so.
> 
> I am sitting by the pool with my kids.
> 
> ...


We're not sending you the whole file so you can lookup the vin and harass the customer.

I've posted enough to prove the point. You're not getting any more than that. 

The request is simple. Flash an ecu. Then, let this whole matter get settled.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

joneze93tsi said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNklpt8CVW4
> 
> 
> "550 wheel with only 22psi"
> "Stock Clutch"


Hp Torque.

The peak HP comes at very high RPM, well after torque has tapered off. Peak torque occurs much earlier and was capped on our stage 3 car until we upgraded the clutch.


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> Stage 3 is capable of producing more than 475 peak torque. So, we'll either denut it slightly at peak torque to preserve the clutch (Stock clutch file) or go full on and require people to buy an after market clutch. That decision hasn't been made, but I'm pretty sure it will be the latter.


I vote for a stock clutch file. Drop the peak torque down a bit, and offer a Stage 3+ that requires a new clutch. Impact to how fast the car is will be minimal (area under the upper power curve will be minimal impacted), but customer convenience will be much improved (at least for those that aren't racing their cars around too much).


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

Marty said:


> I vote for a stock clutch file. Drop the peak torque down a bit, and offer a Stage 3+ that requires a new clutch. Impact to how fast the car is will be minimal (area under the upper power curve will be minimal impacted), but customer convenience will be much improved (at least for those that aren't racing their cars around too much).


That's a possibility. Right now, we offer two separate stage 2 files for the TT-RS. One is our "normal" file that runs the boost setup we had the most success with here in Bama. The other is the "low output" file that runs significantly (about 4 psi) less to clear up the misfire issue for cars/climates that have it on our higher boost file.

We're replacing both of those files in the near future (probably within the next 2 weeks.. assuming the rest of our betas go well) with a single file that runs our high boost and has an alternate method of resolving the misfire issue that should work for all cars/climates.

We've also taken our new tricks to the Stage 3 car. That's how we know exactly where the clutch limit is... we burned ours up. We haven't finished the new calibration for the Stage 3 because we were waiting for a clutch and polishing the Stage 1 and 2 while we waited. 

Anyway.. back to point... we'll see how it plays out with the Stage 3 release. We're polishing and packaging that now. I'll bring up your thoughts when we have the meeting to decide what the requirements will be.


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> As usual, um fanbois try to make trouble, spread doubt and distort every discussion.
> 
> 
> You people are worse than Fox News.
> ...





[email protected] said:


> We used the stock intake, stock intercooler, stock internals, *stock clutch*, stock head, stock cams, stock fuel pump and stock injectors. We were able to crank out *517 whp and 500 wtq (ft-lbs)* on this setup, and it's spooling very quickly already. To give an idea of spool, we're past 300 wtq by 3000 rpm's and 400 wtq by 3200 RPM's. Torque just keeps climbing and *we've already pushed 550 wtq out of the setup *but did not have time to gather all of the data before the conference. Essentially, with all of these stock restrictive and limiting components, the system is spooling quickly and making gobs of power already with more room to go once more parts are installed.
> 
> The great Audi engines are back and we're loving every moment of it!


:laugh:

Which one of you is lying?


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

[email protected] said:


> We're not sending you the whole file so you can lookup the vin and harass the customer.
> 
> I've posted enough to prove the point. You're not getting any more than that.
> 
> The request is simple. Flash an ecu. Then, let this whole matter get settled.



I do not expect you to send me a copy of the entire ecu read.
Send the entire flash file: 0x0 to 0x27ffff

Feel free to remove the immo hash at 0x2000 and do not include any EE data.

The only point you have proven interms of what you posted is that you have ~some
version UM software. This may/may not be TTRS software.

We have no interest in bothering the person who you enticed to buy UM software 
for you. There is no value in it, the act cannot be undone.

Reasoning: if someone had stolen my lugnuts, I would attempt go get them back.
software cannot be un-read. So bothering the car owner is of little value.


Despite you insulting us:
1. too small of a company
2. calling me a 'joke'
3. sending drunken private messages
4. work in grandma's basement 
5. smoke and mirrors
6. taking our software specifically to reverse engineer it
then boasting about doing it.
7. call us liars.
8. trolling UM product threads on vortex to inject your opinion
8. you created all this drama (we simply reply to your accusations)
9. challenged us to poker game, with the benefit of seeing our cards beforehand,
then proceed to call that a fair and unbiased contest.


I am asking simply (and nicely): follow through on your word.
Send the file.

SIDE NOTE: This reply is not posted here to illicit more forum posts from apr.

We are not running/hiding. 


-Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## Marty (Jul 14, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> That's a possibility. Right now, we offer two separate stage 2 files for the TT-RS. One is our "normal" file that runs the boost setup we had the most success with here in Bama. The other is the "low output" file that runs significantly (about 4 psi) less to clear up the misfire issue for cars/climates that have it on our higher boost file.
> 
> We're replacing both of those files in the near future (probably within the next 2 weeks.. assuming the rest of our betas go well) with a single file that runs our high boost and has an alternate method of resolving the misfire issue that should work for all cars/climates.
> 
> ...


Thanks. Just some food for thought: if a new clutch IS needed for stage 3, it would be great to have an official APR recommendation that is proven to be street-able and hold the torque. I've had some bad aftermarket clutch experiences (with a SPEC Kevlar clutch in my case that was never smooth).


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Marty said:


> Thanks. Just some food for thought: if a new clutch IS needed for stage 3, it would be great to have an official APR recommendation that is proven to be street-able and hold the torque. I've had some bad aftermarket clutch experiences (with a SPEC Kevlar clutch in my case that was never smooth).


This is a great point Marty! I expect to NEED a new clutch within the next year and would really really prefer to go with a proven product.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Jefnes3 said:


> I do not expect you to send me a copy of the entire ecu read.
> Send the entire flash file: 0x0 to 0x27ffff
> 
> Feel free to remove the immo hash at 0x2000 and do not include any EE data.
> ...


You make a lot of valid points. Despite the various personal issues, I hope that UM will agree to the dyno challenge. It will provide some very much needed objective information.

Will you give a concrete yes or no to either or both of the propositions. As far as I can tell, at most UM would have to flash one guys ECU, which he will only use for the dyno test and then reflash it to the APR tune and run the same dyno test. If the tester prefers the UM tune, he will still have to purchase it from you. 

Jeff, everything I have read from you seems to be on the level. So I cannot imagine why you would not want some objective vindication here. From my perspective as long as the UM tune does what has been claimed in the past, then UM will be able to hold its head high and have massive future credibility.


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

Williamttrs said:


> You make a lot of valid points. Despite the various personal issues, I hope that UM will agree to the dyno challenge. It will provide some very much needed objective information.
> 
> Will you give a concrete yes or no to either or both of the propositions. As far as I can tell, at most UM would have to flash one guys ECU, which he will only use for the dyno test and then reflash it to the APR tune and run the same dyno test. If the tester prefers the UM tune, he will still have to purchase it from you.
> 
> Jeff, everything I have read from you seems to be on the level. So I cannot imagine why you would not want some objective vindication here. From my perspective as long as the UM tune does what has been claimed in the past, then UM will be able to hold its head high and have massive future credibility.



Why would UM want to do up against APR's "new" tune which could easily be tweaked to be a ringer for this contest? UM could do the same for that matter, which makes this proposed dyno "contest" less than straight forward. Without a way to independently verify that the tunes are the same ones provided to all customers, there will always be doubt in this type of comparison.

At a minimum, a very experienced and independent tuner would need to at least analyze the logs to ensure that both tunes stayed within reasonably safe limits, or one tuner or the other could provide a more aggressive tune, which wouldn't be safe to provide to the average customer who makes a purchase off the street.

For this comparison to be fair and reasonably certain to not contain a "ringer", it would need to be done so that neither competitor knew they were flashing the ECU for the contest. Another approach would be to start comparing actual results (dyno #'s) from a statistically significant number of customer cars.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

hightechrdn said:


> Why would UM want to do up against APR's "new" tune which could easily be tweaked to be a ringer for this contest? UM could do the same for that matter, which makes this proposed dyno "contest" less than straight forward. Without a way to independently verify that the tunes are the same ones provided to all customers, there will always be doubt in this type of comparison.
> 
> At a minimum, a very experienced and independent tuner would need to at least analyze the logs to ensure that both tunes stayed within reasonably safe limits, or one tuner or the other could provide a more aggressive tune, which wouldn't be safe to provide to the average customer who makes a purchase off the street.
> 
> For this comparison to be fair and reasonably certain to not contain a "ringer", it would need to be done so that neither competitor knew they were flashing the ECU for the contest. Another approach would be to start comparing actual results (dyno #'s) from a statistically significant number of customer cars.


In response to your last comment, I agree that the best results would come from a statistically significant sample. However, this is a practical impossibility. Even to get an P=5 significance we would need more than 15 cars (and that is in a very well controlled test).

I really don't see the problem with the two proposals. We have to be willing to give a little bit of trust that everyone is going to play fairly. I think there are some built in safeguards that others have mentioned. If UM or APR throws in a ringer, it will be very risky. All sorts of things could go wrong on an untested tune. 

Here is the worst case scenario. The loser claims the winner cheated. All that means is that we are no worse off than we are now with all the name calling. On the other hand, if we are all reasonably certain the test was not rigged, then there will be some really good data for future decisions and reference. If both tunes are within 5% of each other (which is my bet), then for most people the decision to go APR or UM will rest more on features.

I also believe if we can all focus on the performance facts, it may spur some extra R&D on the part of both companies and perhaps others. I have invested a lot of time reading this thread and trying to contribute in a constructive way. It would be nice if something good came out of all this.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> The other is the "low output" file that runs significantly (about 4 psi) less to clear up the misfire issue for cars/climates that have it on our higher boost file.


That is the file I was given and unfortunately it feels almost exactly like the stage 1 tune, just a bit smoother. That is why I'm really looking forward to the updated file. I'm out of town this next week, otherwise I was going to try the beta file. So hopefully you guys have it squared away by the week of the 10th so I can finally get rid of this LO tune. And full disclosure, I haven't had any problems with the LO file. I did have a varying degree of misfires with the stage 1 file.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

hightechrdn said:


> Why would UM want to do up against APR's "new" tune which could easily be tweaked to be a ringer for this contest? UM could do the same for that matter, which makes this proposed dyno "contest" less than straight forward. Without a way to independently verify that the tunes are the same ones provided to all customers, there will always be doubt in this type of comparison.
> 
> At a minimum, a very experienced and independent tuner would need to at least analyze the logs to ensure that both tunes stayed within reasonably safe limits, or one tuner or the other could provide a more aggressive tune, which wouldn't be safe to provide to the average customer who makes a purchase off the street.
> 
> For this comparison to be fair and reasonably certain to not contain a "ringer", it would need to be done so that neither competitor knew they were flashing the ECU for the contest. Another approach would be to start comparing actual results (dyno #'s) from a statistically significant number of customer cars.


1. The TT-RS is an ideal platform for this kind of test. If you push it too hard, it misfires. It would actually be pretty hard to make a "ringer" for this car. Without having previously spent an afternoon with the car on a dyno to see exactly where the limits are, it would be nearly impossible to turn up a tune beyond normal and not risk misfiring.

2. UM is the only one that would have the ECU in their possession. Ours would be done at a dealer. Our dealers only have access to our production flashing system. Additionally, the owner of the car would be able to watch our flash being done. 

Assuming we could actually make such a file (doubtful because of the misfire problem inherent in the car), there's no way we could pull off actually get it on there undetected.

Now, UM could do whatever they want. But, we're willing to extend them that much trust. Especially in light of this cars tendency to misfire if pushed even a little too hard.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

Williamttrs said:


> In response to your last comment, I agree that the best results would come from a statistically significant sample. However, this is a practical impossibility. Even to get an P=5 significance we would need more than 15 cars (and that is in a very well controlled test).
> 
> I really don't see the problem with the two proposals. We have to be willing to give a little bit of trust that everyone is going to play fairly. I think there are some built in safeguards that others have mentioned. If UM or APR throws in a ringer, it will be very risky. All sorts of things could go wrong on an untested tune.
> 
> ...


Agreed.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

Williamttrs said:


> To kids in the Christmas day: one pessimistic and one optimistic.
> Both were naughty during the year so both received a shi*.
> 
> Pessimistic kid: Opens the gift box, sees the **** and say: Damn, I was sure I will get a shi** present ... and throw's it away.
> ...


I never found the pony.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

joneze93tsi said:


> :laugh:
> 
> Which one of you is lying?


Neither of us. Arin posted that back when the car had something like 250 miles on it. Back then, it could take the higher torque. After the clutch had a bit of abuse (about 5k miles or so), it couldn't take it anymore.

That's why we'll probably require an aftermarket clutch for Stage 3. Or, we'll at least strongly suggest it. Most people will likely choose to do the kit first and wait for their stock clutch to burn up before getting an aftermarket one.

My point is, that happens pretty quickly. After a little abuse, the clutch slips consistently at 475 ft lbs.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

[email protected]

I have a few questions so maybe you can help me:

1) Stage 1-2 APR is rated at maximum ~468 lbs at the engine (that translated to something like 400 lbs at the wheels) ? --> So this would be the maximum figures that you can get from the engine without missfires ... (a very good figure I may say)
2) Stage 3 APR is capable to deliver PROBABLY more that 475 lbs at the wheels (that translated to something like 546 lbs at the engine) ?
3) The clutch is capable to handle (once engaged) a maximum of about 475 lbs ?

Pls correct me where I'm wrong.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

Jefnes3 said:


> SIDE NOTE: This reply is not posted here to illicit more forum posts from apr.
> 
> We are not running/hiding.



Except, it's intended to illicit exactly that. That's one of the things that really gets in my craw. Forums are exactly that, forums. In roman times, the forum was a place to hash out disputes in view of the senate. In the US, until recently , if we had this dispute, we'd have formalized it in a garden, walked our 20 paces and drawn our pistols.

I'm not so keen on getting shot, but the certainty of the process is appealing.



Jefnes3 said:


> Despite you insulting us:
> 1. too small of a company
> 2. calling me a 'joke'
> 3. sending drunken private messages
> ...


1. The point of that was that you have previously insisted you do it all in house. I knew that wasn't feasible. I hate marketing tactics and I felt a need to debunk this one. There was a WinOLS sig in your file. You posted some neat pictures, but you neglected to mention WinOLS. 

2. I didn't do this, it sounds like Arin. He is a marketing guy, take him with a grain of salt.
3. ? I've certainly posted while drunk, but never a PM. Besides... if somebody sends you a PM, delete it.
4. We're all geeks of one flavor or another. Basement arguments are pretty standard fair.
5. Saying "we fixed this, we fixed that, and we make the same power" when you don't falls into this category and # 7.
6. Now that sounds like an accusation! As I've said on countless previous occasions, I don't lie. I tell the truth the best I know it at any given point and nothing else. In this case, I was very clear on what happened. Customer came in and wanted to switch. I extracted it because I was curious. We didn't reverse engineer anything. We've said all along that you make less power and run less boost than we do. This was about proving that point. There's nothing in there that we have any interest in taking/using. UM's and APR's tuning strategies are quite different. Nothing in your file is of any value to us, because of the difference in strategy. Edit: Also because we don't copy things. That's not how we operate. We don't even buy outside software/tools. We roll totally in-house.
7. You did. WinOLS.
8.

This was our first entry to the thread:



[email protected] said:


> We've located a customer reporting the same behavior as others with our software, and other tuner's software, and it will be here this Friday for diagnosis. Our own personal vehicle has not experienced this problem, but it is stage 3 running far more boost with a freer flowing turbo and manifold. We'll look into the usual hardware suspects and if necessary make adjustments to the software as well. I'll keep everyone updated on what we find. :thumbup:


Giac took the first shot at us:
Edit: Actually, since people had also reported the issue with GIAC tunes, I think he was just offering support to his customers with issues.


[email protected] said:


> I would encourage ANYONE with a current misfire issue to contact me. I am certain I can find a solution for you. :thumbup:


Bam.. here's you 4 days later:


Jefnes3 said:


> I dont know what to say....
> 
> ~anyone can visualize what's going on with vag-com.
> 
> Short answer: its tuning. read post #7.


In your TT-RS announcement, UM takes a direct shot at this again:



infiniteecho said:


> *The Benefits*:
> *Power*: _425 wheel HP_
> *Torque*: _475 wheel ft/lbs_
> Improved power
> ...


I will grant that your "marketing" speak is a little more polished than Arin's, but don't say that you didn't takes shots at us. UM did and YOU, personally, did. I wish I had your deleted post in this thread copied somewhere. But, I'm not normally devious enough to think about doing such things.

9. You've seen our cards too. I wouldn't be surprised if you had our file before yours was even released. If not, at the minimum, there is no way you didn't extract it when somebody came through for a switch. Even if only for curiosity. If you say that you had the ECU sitting there with APR software and didn't extract it: you're lying, or nobody has ever switched from APR to UM.

Since we know the latter the to be false (and vice versa is false as well, that's how I got my extract of yours), please show a little respect to everyone's intelligence and admit that you extracted one of them.


OK... I'm not going to say that I don't intend to illicit a response. I do intend to. I want to keep this civil though. I suggest we stop the posturing and settle this the same way Alexander Hamilton settled his dispute with Aaron Burr. Except, instead of pistols, we'll use a dyno.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

cipsony said:


> [email protected]
> 
> I have a few questions so maybe you can help me:
> 
> ...


The 475 clutch limit is measured at the wheels and not corrected for drive-train losses. Looking at crank torque, the limit is probably 525-540 or so. 

1. We turned in a 468.5 on that chart Arin posted. That's an uncorrected, straight from the dyno chart measured in wheel torque. When we release the update and put up new crank charts, the flywheel will likely be 500+. Ya, that 468.5 is the limit without issues.

2. Stage 3 makes even more than that now. Stock clutch is pretty much going to be toast.

3. I kind of answered this above. I'm not sure what the crank limit is, but when we hit 475 wheel, the sucker slips.

I don't really get involved in wheel crank conversions. Everything I talk about is wheel, because that's what I deal with. 

For clutches, we really need to be talking crank, but I prefer not to attempt conversions. I kind of consider them a voodoo science. Our engine dyno is currently occupied, so we can't put the TT-RS motor on it and do clutch validations. Hence, we're doing it in the car and everything is being measured in wheel torque/power.

Either way, we're planning to release the clutch we built for our Stage 3 TT-RS. It's a very slick piece.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

[email protected] said:


> The 475 clutch limit is measured at the wheels and not corrected for drive-train losses. Looking at crank torque, the limit is probably 525-540 or so.
> 
> 1. We turned in a 468.5 on that chart Arin posted. That's an uncorrected, straight from the dyno chart measured in wheel torque. When we release the update and put up new crank charts, the flywheel will likely be 500+. Ya, that 468.5 is the limit without issues.


I'm still confused because you jump from whp figure of Arin to flywheel estimated of 500+. 
What is the wheel torque that you measured for your stage 1 or 2? You say that 468 is the uncorrected figure. In this case what is the actual figure (DIN corrected) that your dyno measured at the wheels?

In the same respect, I saw that UM made a confusion between whp and engine (or flywheel) hp that they published.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

cipsony said:


> I'm still confused because you jump from whp figure of Arin to flywheel estimated of 500+.
> What is the wheel torque that you measured for your stage 1 or 2? You say that 468 is the uncorrected figure. In this case what is the actual figure (DIN corrected) that your dyno measured at the wheels?
> 
> In the same respect, I saw that UM made a confusion between whp and engine (or flywheel) hp that they published.


All of the below numbers are WHEEL TORQUE IN FOOT POUNDS. I have not spoken once about horsepower.

The number reported by the dyno at the wheels on the Stage 2 TT-RS that we did the testing on was 468.5. When I say "uncorrected", I mean that it's a raw number from the dyno. It's not been converted to crank or anything else.

That didn't slip a stock clutch. 

On the stage 3 car, the stock clutch (a couple weeks ago) would slip consistently at 475 wheel torque. So, we upgraded the clutch. Apparently, when the car was new (slightly before my time at APR), it could hold more than that. After a little break-in period, it couldn't anymore.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

468 lbs wheel torque = a minimum of 538 lbs engine torque = 730 Nm

For a stage 2 I really can not believe that figure. 

I took in consideration losses of 15% but in reality I think they are higher for a fwd + haldex.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

cipsony said:


> 468 lbs wheel torque = a minimum of 538 lbs engine torque = 730 Nm
> 
> For a stage 2 I really can not believe that figure.
> 
> I took in consideration losses of 15% but in reality I think they are higher for a fwd + haldex.


Comparing one dyno to another is a bad idea in general. There have been countless threads about that.

I agree, it's a huge number. But, that's really what it did.

File will be out soon and I'm sure other people will dyno the heck out of it; especially after this whole thread. We'll see.


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

through all of this BS...I'm still waiting on APR to release a tune that doesn't have everyone on here complaining about misfires...


----------



## crackkills (Mar 10, 2007)

lpriley32 said:


> through all of this BS...I'm still waiting on APR to release a tune that doesn't have everyone on here complaining about misfires...


The issue has never been APR. The issue is the car and the bad ecu and engine design. If the Germans knew what they were doing APR would never have the problems they have had. 

So we can all agree now that the APR tune was riddled with issues and even though they are not professional enough to admit it, the recent dance demonstrated on this thread by them solidifies the fact that they did release a POS of a tune. 

If you have a car that didn't have any issues consider yourself lucky.


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

I wouldn't say the initial APR tunes were POS. I am running a stage I right now that kicks arse....but it does have misfires in 6th at 3k RPM, when at wot. Other than the slightly irritating 6th gear hickup, this tune rocks


----------



## hightechrdn (Dec 9, 2011)

Timster said:


> I wouldn't say the initial APR tunes were POS. I am running a stage I right now that kicks arse....but it does have misfires in 6th at 3k RPM, when at wot. Other than the slightly irritating 6th gear hickup, this tune rocks


Your idea of "slightly irritating" = a major issue for some as it isn't contained to 6th gear pulls in other cases. This is a subjective matter, so I am not in any way arguing with your opinion.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

I want to take a moment to analyze why injecting personal attacks causes the entire conversation to degrade.

1. 822 posts on this thread, which could have been consolidated into 20 posts. That is the difference between an hours of back and forth posting and only a few minutes of everyone else reading it VS dozens of hours of posting and hours upon hours of everyone else keeping up.

2. Several of us who were somewhat objective in the beginning have clearly taken a "side" when there really should not be a side. Come on lets give each other the same courtesy that we would give each other in real life. Lets just take out words like lie, stolen, POS, basement and only point to facts (if there are any) of these activities. 

NOW BACK ON TOPIC: The one and only thing that matters at this point is getting these two tunes on a dyno, on the same day with the same car. There are two good proposals on the table. Can we get an agreement from UM to play ball? It seems this is the only thing that we still need a clear answer on.


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

Williamttrs said:


> NOW BACK ON TOPIC: The one and only thing that matters at this point is getting these two tunes on a dyno, on the same day with the same car. There are two good proposals on the table. Can we get an agreement from UM to play ball? It seems this is the only thing that we still need a clear answer on.


Actually the one and only thing that matters for this thread is to release the fixed tune and get it out to customers. That is what this thread was addressing. It got derailed into an APR vs UM debate. The dyno comparison will just be a bonus.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

LynxFX said:


> Actually the one and only thing that matters for this thread is to release the fixed tune and get it out to customers. That is what this thread was addressing. It got derailed into an APR vs UM debate. The dyno comparison will just be a bonus.


That is hilarious. I actually forgot what the topic of this thread is!


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

Williamttrs said:


> NOW BACK ON TOPIC: The one and only thing that matters at this point is getting these two tunes on a dyno, on the same day with the same car. There are two good proposals on the table. Can we get an agreement from UM to play ball? It seems this is the only thing that we still need a clear answer on.


I would be happy to do it but nearest dyno to me is 4 hours away unfortunately. Someone should just step up and do it but without any help from the tuners to make it completely unbiased. Same car, same dyno, same day, swap the tunes. It's pretty simple!

William, you seem pretty keen on the idea and have been spending a lot of time here writing about it, I vote for you! 

The other issue with this dyno-off will be the fall-out from it. Regardless of who "wins" there will still be people arguing and making silly comments.

Oh, and to make this a good comparison, why not get a GIAC tune in there too so we have 3 to compare!! I think all 3 tunes will show some pretty sweet results on the dyno, it'll just be fun to compare and converse about the differences.

:beer::beer:


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

LynxFX said:


> Actually the one and only thing that matters for this thread is to release the fixed tune and get it out to customers. That is what this thread was addressing. It got derailed into an APR vs UM debate. The dyno comparison will just be a bonus.


EXACTLY!!!!!!!! I said it before and I'll say it again...

I still contend that ALL the various tunes available will be more similar than different in terms of real world performance...a little more of this or that at certain rpms doesn't mean a damn thing at the end of the day. This car is spectacular and I'm a proud owner and member of the community. I agree with others, the splintering of us based on what tune we have is nuts. 

I'm glad APR is fixing their tune and I'm sure the car owners having issues can't wait to get it and start enjoying their cars fully again. Beyond that, nothing else matters. Let's move on!


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

canuckttrs said:


> I would be happy to do it but nearest dyno to me is 4 hours away unfortunately. Someone should just step up and do it but without any help from the tuners to make it completely unbiased. Same car, same dyno, same day, swap the tunes. It's pretty simple!
> 
> William, you seem pretty keen on the idea and have been spending a lot of time here writing about it, I vote for you!
> 
> ...


We've already had a volunteer that's close to an independent mustang dyno and an APR dealer. Just need to sort out the details.


----------



## gengo (May 13, 2013)

Good sentiment, but we will never get this thread back on topic. My suggestion is after the dust settles on the misfire issue, a nice person may extract relevant information/conclusions and then turn it into a "sticky". This conversation is destined to rage on.

Personally, I'm more interested in what causes the misfires (and how to stop them) than power/torque claims. I guess that's because I'm not tuned and I'm just looking to be informed AND because if I did get a tune, I wouldn't want huge torque down low anyhow.



Williamttrs said:


> I want to take a moment to analyze why injecting personal attacks causes the entire conversation to degrade.
> 
> 1. 822 posts on this thread, which could have been consolidated into 20 posts. That is the difference between an hours of back and forth posting and only a few minutes of everyone else reading it VS dozens of hours of posting and hours upon hours of everyone else keeping up.
> 
> ...


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

Just wanted to post this tid bit. 

I went back and looked at the dyno plots of our stg 3 TTRS. I got it to hold 500 lb-ft on the stock clutch for 3 runs... Didn't like it when I tried to ask for more.

Dynapack, FWD, wheel figures. Stg 3 will require our new clutch. 

Vbox stg 2 TTRS 
93 oct stg 2 tune (DP + exhaust)
88 deg F, 50% humidity
170 pound driver with AC blasting 
62mph to 124mph = 9.3 seconds


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

I like Turtles.


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

Beat the crap out of the car today at a local PCA autocross.

Love this car, seriously.
Got to ride in a 996 Turbo at the same event, then loved my car even more.

Drive them, enjoy them, and don't forget how special they are.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

canuckttrs said:


> William, you seem pretty keen on the idea and have been spending a lot of time here writing about it, I vote for you!


 I have seriously considered it. If I could do it without sending in my ECU, I would do it when I go in this week for my DP install. If neither of the other two proposals work out, then I will do it on my own nickel. Maybe I will get Karma points from the car gods.


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

I am an Ex APR customer so I have access to both.
I'd do it, honestly, but I'm really liking the way the car drives at Autocross now, have it dialed in, and have races almost every weekend. I'd hate to go back to the APR omfg 20% pedal = 90% throttle right in the middle of the season.

Not to mention:
Paying local APR Dealer to flash it back to APR. $50
Dyno $50?
Shipping ECU back to UM to have RE-Flashed $75 each way.

If I wasn't so happy with the way the car was performing right now, I'd gladly do it, just to satisfy everyone's curiosity.


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

i haven't checked the site but if um has a no questions-money back policy, i'll just do the test myself.

also for the people that keep going on about "ringer" tunes, you really don't seem to get how the whole tuning thing works. 
an unknown car on the crappiest gas in the country(91) isn't something you're going to want to be pushing the envelope on when everyone on the forum is looking for misfire or any other issues.

i'll have to take a look at getting the o2 sensor on the dyno to mount properly since i didn't want to crush that wimpy tailpipe trim piece.
also i'll try to get some logs going as well just to see what's happening.

just need a little time to get the midpipes finished up and everything on the car. hopefully everything will be done and tested in the next couple weeks. that sounds like about the right time for apr to finish up the new tune as well.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

joneze93tsi said:


> I like Turtles.


Sorry for the OT. You guys asked for vbox numbers and I was correcting Sean's clutch statements.
You said something about 20% throttle acting like 100% throttle? Care to explain that one? When did you notice it? How can I replicate your problem? What stg tune did you have? If its easier, shoot me a PM. If any other APR customers feel this too... Please shoot me a PM. Thanks guys.


----------



## Can2fieldSD (May 31, 2013)

The last thing you want to do is blow your motor due to the tune being too aggressive and the ECM not being able to save its butt in time.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

RTErnie said:


> Sorry for the OT. You guys asked for vbox numbers and I was correcting Sean's clutch statements.
> You said something about 20% throttle acting like 100% throttle? Care to explain that one? When did you notice it? How can I replicate your problem? What stg tune did you have? If its easier, shoot me a PM. If any other APR customers feel this too... Please shoot me a PM. Thanks guys.


Yep.. I got the cars mixed up. The 475 was on the stage 2 car. Our white Stage 3 holds a little more before it falls apart.

Either way, anything above 475 is risky based on our results.


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

RTErnie said:


> Sorry for the OT. You guys asked for vbox numbers and I was correcting Sean's clutch statements.
> You said something about 20% throttle acting like 100% throttle? Care to explain that one? When did you notice it? How can I replicate your problem? What stg tune did you have? If its easier, shoot me a PM. If any other APR customers feel this too... Please shoot me a PM. Thanks guys.


Ernie,

All BS aside, the throttle tuning is the same across all of my APR tunes over the years.
My B7 does the same thing, from about 20-30 to full throttle is very little change in boost/ attitude of the car. I even logged throttle plate /boost vs throttle position. Seems the throttle and boost isn't relative to the your application of the throttle. No where was it worse than in the TTRS however.

I like to do AutoX as frequently as I can and it was a huge problem trying to modulate the throttle, as even 20-30% would spike boost to peaks levels, and rip the tires and completely unsettle the car.

Regardless, I can't really run APR's tune anyway FWIW. 
I was told after exchanging logs, that my Rail Pressure is dropping too low (reasong for my high RPM fuel cut) and there's nothing you can do about it, and I should just "hold on" for Stage3 so I'll have a HPFP and new power. 

After switching to UM, all problems went away.
I was then told, the only way they did that and run the boost I was, was to run a leaner AFR up top, than APR thought was "safe". So there is no way I could run the APR tune, unless of course you guys have "re-thought" what was "safe" which would seem to go against your whole credo?


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

It would be great if some UM and APR owners will post post the requested lamda and actuall value during wot


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

joneze93tsi said:


> Ernie,
> 
> All BS aside, the throttle tuning is the same across all of my APR tunes over the years.
> My B7 does the same thing, from about 20-30 to full throttle is very little change in boost/ attitude of the car. I even logged throttle plate /boost vs throttle position. Seems the throttle and boost isn't relative to the your application of the throttle. No where was it worse than in the TTRS however.
> ...


I feel like I have the same issue with my APR stage 2 tune. It feels like there is an uneven application of power relative to the throttle. It is like at 10% throttle there is 10% power but at around 20-25% throttle it massively jumps up to like 80% power and scales from there. 

Now that you have redone the tune however, maybe this will no longer be the case.


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

croman44 said:


> I feel like I have the same issue with my APR stage 2 tune. It feels like there is an uneven application of power relative to the throttle. It is like at 10% throttle there is 10% power but at around 20-25% throttle it massively jumps up to like 80% power and scales from there.
> 
> Now that you have redone the tune however, maybe this will no longer be the case.



That's the thing, I don't harbor any real animosity towards APR.
I tried, I worked with them, and ultimately I was sadly told there was no solution other than to run lower boost, and wait for Stage3 which will have a an aftermarket HPFP.

After talking to other people who switched to UM, I felt I needed to try it at least. I got rid of all my stated problems with misfires, and high RPM fuel cut, but it also gave a very linear throttle response. I can literally fill 1/2 1/3 1/2 ect of the BS "boost gauge" on the dash and only use as much power as needed. This really changed the car and made it much easier to autocross with, as we all know the rear springs suck as it is and massive power application when you don't ask for it really caused issues.

After switching, reviewing, and answering lots of questions, I've now been labeled an "UM Fanboy". And APR is now working on a revised tune, and once again is claiming it's now "even more" superior to all other tunes. I still have cars with APR tunes on them in my fleet, and have had plenty in the past. But it seems I've been tossed into a bucket of people who did the equivalent of piss on a sacred ruin and switched.

If this level of support was available prior to people moving to UM, we wouldn't be having this ongoing debate. Unfortunately, like many I was dismissed and left to my own devices. I'm just thankful UM came along and helped some of us, and in the end, they'll help APR customers out by forcing them to re-engineer a tune, and make it better.

In the end, I think everyone wins, (except a few who had to pay twice to get a fix)


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

joneze93tsi said:


> That's the thing, I don't harbor any real animosity towards APR.
> I tried, I worked with them, and ultimately I was sadly told there was no solution other than to run lower boost, and wait for Stage3 which will have a an aftermarket HPFP.
> 
> After talking to other people who switched to UM, I felt I needed to try it at least. I got rid of all my stated problems with misfires, and high RPM fuel cut, but it also gave a very linear throttle response. I can literally fill 1/2 1/3 1/2 ect of the BS "boost gauge" on the dash and only use as much power as needed. This really changed the car and made it much easier to autocross with, as we all know the rear springs suck as it is and massive power application when you don't ask for it really caused issues.
> ...


 Words of Wisdom! :thumbup:


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

Replies bolded (for identification, not for emphasis)



joneze93tsi said:


> Ernie,
> 
> All BS aside, the throttle tuning is the same across all of my APR tunes over the years.
> My B7 does the same thing, from about 20-30 to full throttle is very little change in boost/ attitude of the car. I even logged throttle plate /boost vs throttle position. Seems the throttle and boost isn't relative to the your application of the throttle. No where was it worse than in the TTRS however.


*Understood. I've felt this in the Golf R before, not so much in the TTRS yet. But I don't drive it as much as you do.*



> I like to do AutoX as frequently as I can and it was a huge problem trying to modulate the throttle, as even 20-30% would spike boost to peaks levels, and rip the tires and completely unsettle the car.


*Understood. * 



> Regardless, I can't really run APR's tune anyway FWIW.
> I was told after exchanging logs, that my Rail Pressure is dropping too low (reasong for my high RPM fuel cut) and there's nothing you can do about it, and I should just "hold on" for Stage3 so I'll have a HPFP and new power.


*Your rail pressure WAS dropping. Your AFR's on the v1 tune were 10.9:1 AFR... *




> After switching to UM, all problems went away.
> I was then told, the only way they did that and run the boost I was, was to run a leaner AFR up top, than APR thought was "safe". So there is no way I could run the APR tune, unless of course you guys have "re-thought" what was "safe" which would seem to go against your whole credo?


*10.9:1 is ultra conservative safe. I will say that the tune was done before my time... and we can safely run significantly leaner than 10.9:1.*


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

Happiness at last.

Who wants to see my project thread


----------



## southpole12 (Mar 29, 2012)

How about a date when this new tune will be released? There is a big pissing war going on with no information about when the new tune will be available. Does anyone know?


----------



## joneze93tsi (Aug 8, 2008)

RTErnie said:


> Replies bolded (for identification, not for emphasis)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know my rail pressure was dropping, I logged it and presented it to APR before they asked.
That feeling was pretty familiar from my days on my B7 before i got your HPFP/Stage2+

I believe it was 10.9:1, the plugs looked like they came out of a 60k+ mile car they were so carbon fouled after 12K.

Thank you for your polite replies, it goes a long way. Maybe you can work with [email protected] to explain how to communicate online without alienating customers or calling them names.
:wave:

I'm sure the current crew of guys wants to get it right and restore some faith in the community.
Good luck to everyone out there, enjoy your cars!


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

AFR 10.9 is way too rich. That's why your sparks were affected


----------



## Timster (May 23, 2012)

Any word on the when APR fix will be available???


----------



## adamTTRS (Jan 28, 2013)

*Making my head hurt!!!!*

This thread is making my head hurt! I love the car and it has shown to be a capable track car with just RSB, SS brake lines, Motul fluid, and Pagid pads.

I would like to have more HP! The track would be more fun pulling from the modified 997 Turbos and gutted GT3's. But with that said, I will not flash my car until a company has produced a solid tune without issues. There is nothing more embarrassing than going for the pass and then having your car go into limp mode or start misfiring causing the car to slow.

I will just have to live with the stock 360 hp (allegedly)!!


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

A remapped TTRS will beat a stock gen 1 turbo in a straight line, but if the Porsche is remapped then you will need stage 3 to obliterate it


----------



## Black BeauTTy (Jun 11, 2011)

adamTTRS said:


> I will not flash my car until a company has produced a solid tune without issues. There is nothing more embarrassing than going for the pass and then having your car go into limp mode or start misfiring causing the car to slow.


It exist!


----------



## croman44 (Jan 9, 2013)

Timster said:


> Any word on the when APR fix will be available???


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

I have an appointment with my tuner this Friday to install an APR down pipe and reflash to the new APR stage 2 (beta). I am still waiting on clarification from APR if this beta is only for the "misfire" fix or if it is the full beta that also increases power. Maybe APR will respond here so we will all know.


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

Williamttrs said:


> I have an appointment with my tuner this Friday to install an APR down pipe and reflash to the new APR stage 2 (beta). I am still waiting on clarification from APR if this beta is only for the "misfire" fix or if it is the full beta that also increases power. Maybe APR will respond here so we will all know.


Are you not doing the tune comparison for all of us to see??? :thumbup:


----------



## carl44 (Nov 23, 2012)

Has anybody posted vagcom log of the APR misfires? Carl


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

canuckttrs said:


> Are you not doing the tune comparison for all of us to see??? :thumbup:


Unless I missed something I have not heard of UM agreeing to play ball. There were two other offers made and APR said they were game, but I have not heard UM say yes. So this very simple idea seems to be dragging out. As for me, I would be happy to do it, but I would prefer to do it in an efficient manner, without having to wait until "Congress" reconvenes to make a decision.

If no one else will do it, then I will reconsider it, but forgive me for wanting to get the final tune and my down pipe that I have been waiting for almost 2 months. As I have always said this is first, middle and lastly about having fun. I am quite certain I will have more fun with the new downpipe and no misfires


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

You are going to love the downpipe. The car finally sounds the part.

I hope APR is still on track to release the tune next week. I might just go with the beta as well, as long as it is the fix for the misfires plus the new power.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

LynxFX said:


> You are going to love the downpipe. The car finally sounds the part.
> 
> I hope APR is still on track to release the tune next week. I might just go with the beta as well, as long as it is the fix for the misfires plus the new power.


If things go as they plan, I believe they are still on track for next week.


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

re: dyno shoot out
Matt and I do not jump because we are cornered and essentially bullied to jump....
That said, we will support any UM customer who wants participate. (flash cable,
live support, etc.)
I am sure opportunity to compare things will occur naturally, if not here.


Other thoughts:
We have never over-sold our tuning (we have been doing this 10+ years)
and we have not done so in our current TTRS offering. All the features work, there
is no 'misfire', period.

I think what has transpired in this thread is wrong.
The only negative views of our TTRS tuning come from our competitors. (obvious bias there)
This whole back and forth has burned us out a bit. (no desire to continue)


We are still looking into ways to push the TTRS further.

Thanks
-Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

I don't recall anyone being bullied into a comparison. Both sides have made claims against the competition, in this thread and others. We are all sick of the bickering and wanted you guys to put your tunes where your mouth is. A friendly throw down. There have been a few offers of customers offering up their car to be used as the guinea pig. We already know APR is ready and the hold up is that for the UM tune someone needs to send in their ECU.


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

why do we continually forget that the title of this thread is "fix for misfire on TTRS with Flashes/Tunes"...


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Jefnes3 said:


> there is no 'misfire', period.
> 
> -Jeffrey Atwood


_Interesting_ to see that in quotes. Call it what you want 'misfire', 'hickup', 'blip', 'throttle closure', etc. We're all talking about the same thing, and I personally made it happen on a TT RS with your calibration only minutes after driving the car.


----------



## Jefnes3 (Aug 17, 2001)

LynxFX said:


> I don't recall anyone being bullied into a comparison. Both sides have made claims against the competition, in this thread and others. We are all sick of the bickering and wanted you guys to put your tunes where your mouth is. A friendly throw down. There have been a few offers of customers offering up their car to be used as the guinea pig. We already know APR is ready and the hold up is that for the UM tune someone needs to send in their ECU.



We are ready to support this.

Try USP Motorsport, Bluewater Performance, APTuning, BAR Tuning. (to name a few)
Take ANY TTRS with non stock software and there is no need to ship any ecus.
Make sure the box stays in the car, and we're good.


Lynx: are you in socal, care to volunteer?


-Jeffrey Atwood


----------



## LynxFX (May 17, 2012)

Jefnes3 said:


> Lynx: are you in socal, care to volunteer?
> 
> 
> -Jeffrey Atwood


PM sent!


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)




----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

Jefnes3 said:


> We are ready to support this.
> 
> Try USP Motorsport, Bluewater Performance, APTuning, BAR Tuning. (to name a few)
> Take ANY TTRS with non stock software and there is no need to ship any ecus.
> ...


hey jeff can tomas motorsports in the sf bay area do a flash inhouse?
if so i can go there.

edit: sorry just saw the non-stock software part. my car is still on stock ecu


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Jefnes3 said:


> We are ready to support this.
> 
> Try USP Motorsport, Bluewater Performance, APTuning, BAR Tuning. (to name a few)
> Take ANY TTRS with non stock software and there is no need to ship any ecus.
> ...


I am going to European Legacy Motorsports tomorrow morning. I don't know if they are a UM dealer, but if they are, I will try to make this happen. If I can, I will put the APR DP on, then I will drive it for the weekend and schedule another appointment for a dyno pull next week. Then I will go back to ELM and switch tunes, drive it for a few days, do another dyne and finally decide if I want to keep the UM tune or go back to APR. Unfortunately ELM does not have a dyne. So I will have to make several appointments and run around a bit. But hey if I have two good tunes, it will be fun!


----------



## linuxrc (May 12, 2013)

I'm not tired of the bickering. Gives me something to read


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

linuxrc said:


> I'm not tired of the bickering. Gives me something to read


*Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* 

UM *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* 

APR *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* 

Lies!*Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker*

Smoke*Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* 

Mirrors*Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* 

Intrigue!*Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* 

POWER!!!*Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker* *Bicker*


----------



## smack_ttrs (Mar 24, 2013)

unfortunately we haven't actually gotten to the power part yet...


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

In honor of the topic of this thread, here is something that is actually on point. 

I can thank my 7 year old or 3 year old daughter (I am betting on the 3 year old) for losing one of my new Iridium plugs. So after looking for the missing plug for half and hour I decided to change out 4 or my 5 sparks. 

As you all know, it was previously hypothesized and later debunked that the spark plugs were the cause of the misfires. Well I am here to report that if you only change 4 of the plugs, then the misfire disappears... at least for the first 10 miles or so, which is about how much I have driven it thus far. 

So apparently yall were on the right track, you just did not quite get the formula right.


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

So is the fix for your software out yet? You guys have been waiting a long time for some satisfaction.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

"missfire" is a brand registered and associated with APR. What fix are you talking about? 
Fixing this is like a re-branding .... takes about 2 weeks )))


----------



## lpriley32 (Jul 28, 2012)

The tune will be ready in 5 minutes Turkish.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU2zlSfkdE8


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

cipsony said:


> "missfire" is a brand registered and associated with APR. What fix are you talking about?
> Fixing this is like a re-branding .... takes about 2 weeks )))


Says the guy with the Revo map which misfires on 1.4tsi, 2.0tfsi, 2.5tfsi, 3.0tfsi lmao.


----------



## cipsony (Mar 26, 2013)

I don't remember any missfire thread about revo and at the begining it was the only map for 2.5
Cooker seemed quite pleased with it and people on vagoc were than happy.


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

cipsony said:


> I don't remember any missfire thread about revo and at the begining it was the only map for 2.5
> Cooker seemed quite pleased with it and people on vagoc were than happy.


Do a search. Well documented on vagoc. Jonnys map was different to everyone else anyway, his was bespoke from Revo. Then he went hybrid like you and they melted his engine. Must make you wonder about their tuning philosophy to melt a engine with just a hybrid.


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

Perhaps we can retire this thread and start anew with the thread below.

http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthre...Hope...TTRS-Misfire-Conclusion-(Return-of-APR)


----------



## canuckttrs (Feb 5, 2012)

post it here on fourtitude! i never visit over yonder. :wave:


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

canuckttrs said:


> post it here on fourtitude! i never visit over yonder. :wave:


That does not compute. What is the difference. I sometimes read posts that make reference to Fortitude and this forum says that is is sponsored by fortitude, but the website always is forums.vwortex.com/something something something. On my laptop all the posts are in blue, but on my iPhone they sometimes show up in red. What gives?


----------



## primetime21 (Feb 14, 2013)

cipsony said:


> I don't remember any missfire thread about revo and at the begining it was the only map for 2.5
> Cooker seemed quite pleased with it and people on vagoc were than happy.


No clue on the 2.5 but they have grenaded a few B8 S4 3.0 motors...


----------



## Poverty (Feb 17, 2012)

Shouldn't mess with knock sensor sensitivity!!!!


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 14, 2012)

Poverty said:


> Shouldn't mess with knock sensor sensitivity!!!!


 Agreed! Knock sensors are there for a reason.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> Agreed! Knock sensors are there for a reason.


 I will say that APR does not limit the amount of adaptive knock retard OR knock retard in general... all that is OEM. I can say that at least 1 other tuner does limit the amount of knock retard the ECU pulls. So bear that in mind when you're looking at logs of timing pull!


----------



## adamTTRS (Jan 28, 2013)

*Guarantee*

Any chance a tuner would back their product with a "new ECU" warranty. They download their tune and if it misfires within one year then they give your money back and buy you a new ECU to replace the one that has been hacked? 

Now that would be a tuner backing their product! 

LOL!


----------



## gengo (May 13, 2013)

Their is one tuner who guarantees their tune will operate properly under all conditions... Audi. 
#snarky 





adamTTRS said:


> Any chance a tuner would back their product with a "new ECU" warranty. They download their tune and if it misfires within one year then they give your money back and buy you a new ECU to replace the one that has been hacked?
> 
> Now that would be a tuner backing their product!
> 
> LOL!


----------



## Williamttrs (Mar 29, 2013)

gengo said:


> Their is one tuner who guarantees their tune will operate properly under all conditions... Audi.
> #snarky


 I think they have something like a 50,000 mile warranty too! I think they have a few locations across the country.


----------



## [email protected] (Jul 29, 2008)

Williamttrs said:


> I think they have something like a 50,000 mile warranty too! I think they have a few locations across the country.


 Yeah but they had to limit boost and mid range torque to prevent misfires. ;-)


----------



## adamTTRS (Jan 28, 2013)

*warranty*

I am glad I could bring some levity to this thread. Honestly, I would like to see how much faster my lap times would be with a re-flash from a major tuner. I mean, if I were to be 1.5 seconds faster at Mid Ohio, how much money would I win? Would I get a driving position with a major race team? Would I get a sponsor to race in a circuit in Europe or Canada? 

I doubt it!


----------

