APR Tuning...results from Stage 2 Data Logging

[Ianb]

After all of the flak regardinfg APR I've had my car data logged following previous threads and the allegations made by other people regarding APR's mapping.

I have had the car looged by an independant friend using VAG COM and I visited Awesome last week where APR technicians from the US had visited and they data logged my car out on the road.

Nothing was done to doctor any figures asI witnessed a straight forward process as was done a week previously.

Suffice to say everthing was more than satisfactory. There was NO significant timing swing.Maximum timing pull was measured on cylinder 1 at 6.25 degrees well within APR's tolerances. The boost level was also conservative at 1.3 bar which is also good for longevity.

My car a VVTI 1.8T MKIV Golf runs to 225-230 and 255-260lbs with APR's stage 2 map..

More than happy with the result even though I never doubted APR's professionalism and knowledge at mapping cars. The car has done 2 hard trackdays and I expecting it will last the course even though it's done 90+K miles.

Ian

 

[ibizacupra]

thats a relief then for you ian

got the logs to confirm? a/f, boost & CF

wondering why dsrr's was so different mind you.

 

[Ianb]

Ian, your car may well be ok, doesn't change the fact, that my car was supposed to be equal in power on the rolling Road to GaryM's car yet 80-100 times iproved it was miles away, I am now supposedly running LESS power with CC PH1 yet my 80-100 Times have come down from 6.84 seconds to 5.24 seconds...not far behind Gary's CC2 time of 5.13 seconds.....figure that one out, the car is noticeably quicker across the whole range, maybe it was just that APR pushed things a little beyond their capabilities?
As for the timing, My car was plainly badly mapped by them and the fuelling was just dropping into protection maps....not good
To summarise.....My car now is over a second and a half quicker 80-100, does 80-130 in just under 17 seconds, is better on fuel now and will be even better when it goes back on the 21st to JBS for CC Ph2.....

I'm glad your as pleased with your new CC mapping as I'm happy with APR's mapping.

I know from changing from the old map on code 2 via to code 3 on the cruise how much smoother and strong it feels.

I've never bothered measuring in gear timings.....same for peak power pub talk...I know my car ain't the strongest on the dyno but it's the smooth delivery that I like and how it performs on track where I spend most of my time in it now.

I sampled APR stage 3 last week utilising the G28RS unit in Jim's A4 Quattro....superb.........very high quality in it's manufacture.

Logs at Jim's Bill....didn't bother collating them as I saw for myself..happy with their investigations.

 

[ibizacupra]

post the logs?

 

[Ianb]

The whole point here was that the Dyno readings on my car WERE very strong yet on the road ( which is realistically where it matters in gear times were a mile away from a very similar powered car, GaryM's) this just did not make sense. I know that my car is an Octy and Gary's is a Golf but basically the Octy is just a Golf with a boot and very little extra weight, what I cannot understand is that according to CC website CC Ph1 should be less powerful than the APR Stage 2 I was running but the figures tell a totally different story the car is now running times of just over 1/10th second slower 80-100 than Garys car so either Ph 1 on my car has had remarkable results or my stage 2 was lacking power on the road but performing on the Dyno, don't get me wrong I am not insinuating any fiddling of figures on Jim's behalf, I was there when the runs were done, it's just a very strange scenario.
I would like to see your logs if possible, if you want me to I could plot your logs against my original APR Stage 2 Logs to see what differences there are, could well be that my Map was 'done on a Friday afternoon'

Unless APR or Jim has saved the logs (I didn't bother asking for them on disc) then I can't help.

I've seen the logs done twice and that's all I needed to convince me on how it performs and how 'safe' it was mapped.

Tell you what Dave....if you can come to Castle Combe on the 08/07/06 Ford RS Trackday and I will take you out so you can see how it performs and you can have a spin out on the road.Failing that I'm booked on the Autometrix day later in July if you can make that.The car ain't a slouch on track (as you will experience from just a little old K03s which has surprised a few of the hardcore VW track enthusiasts.Obviously the mapping is only part of the equasion why it is is so competant on track.

I still think there are many more factors that combine together that will make variations in comparing in gear times of a 6 speed MKIV Golf and a Octy.
Do you know their respective weights on the day and fuel loads can make a huge difference. Aerodynamic drag coefficent at the speeds you quote for both of those cars cannot be compared (especially 80-100-130 etc).

In my oppinion a 1.5-2 second discrepency at those speeds would probably be a fair representation compaing two totally different model cars of different proportions. I wouldn't say that the mapping is responsible on that basis.


As long as your happy that's the main thing as I'm happy and always have been with my car.

 

[stoneyfordNI]

logs logs logs logs

lack of public logs in the "open" so far.

dsrr was happy till he saw his own logs, drove ok too.

go figure

subtle bill

 

[GaryM]

Similar boost to most other maps then (mine also) but funny how APR commented to Dave on how they didn't like how Custom-Code made their power by running 'high boost', said it would reduce engine longevity. Now you're running the same!!

Glad everything is OK for you though.

Logs in public would have been nice to see though.

 

[YerMother]

Similar boost to most other maps then (mine also) but funny how APR commented to Dave on how they didn't like how Custom-Code made their power by running 'high boost', said it would reduce engine longevity. Now you're running the same!!

Glad everything is OK for you though.

Logs in public would have been nice to see though.

Turbo longevity I think rather than the engine.

 

[Ianb]

SCN have always had a strong dislike for witch hunts, we find them damaging to this forum, and damaging to the community as a whole.

The complaint was aired, it was answered, and that is that in our book, this thread was only put here to counter balance some the wholely negative comments elsewhere on the net.

Not as a basis to start it off all over again on another forum, namely this one, and unlike elsewhere on the net, we won't fan the flames, we'll just put them out, and shutdown the thread, if its destined to become yet another basis for a witch hunt.

I personally have no interest whatsoever in this debate, im finding it tiresome, as there is too many impatial comments being made. I do accept that some people do find it of extraordinary interest, but I will act if this becomes yet another sad and twisted witch hunt, of unfounded comments, or of theories, or as a means of defaming any tuner or company, who either advertise here or even if they don't.

SCN is a wholey independant site, we the founders make the policy here and we are neither swayed or influenced by our advertisers commercial interests, we offer them a service, with which to advertise their services and products by means of our website and forums, just the same as if they went and stuck an advertisement in a newspaper or magazine.

We are not to be classed as customer services for any of the tuners or other companies who advertise with us, nor are we a consumers shouting stage, we accept the rights of members to question tuners on the forum, or make an informed constructive comment, just as they the tuners also have the right to answer those questions publicly, constructively, or if they wish refer you to private discussion for their own internal formality.

This has gone beyond that, as clearly information outside of this forum, which can neither be proven or denied is finding its way into the common opinion, and in my eye it isn't impartial.

We'd like it to stop please!!

And on a seperate, yet clearly linked issue, and plainly as an observer, I am also noticing many of the folks in here, are clearly linking themselves to one particular tuner or a direct affiliation, though you fully have the right to choose who you do business with, I am also noticing some carrying the advertising of their chosen affiliates in a section that is not theirs to advertise in.

I would like to make it clear those companies who advertise or their direct staff/personel shoud be the 'ONLY' ones carrying advertsing in their signatures or avatars on SCN.

That goes for company logo's, weblinks etc, these are all classified as advertising medium, as with most things on SCN, we do prefer you to have some self dicipline and self policing, we hate having to overly moderate, but we will act concisely if we feel the forum is being mis-used.

About time Mark.

I for one only posted my findings to give a balanced reply regarding a topic started previously.
Apart from the parts supplied by Awesome I have long been a customer of Tim Stiles as they are just down the road.
Awesome is miles away from where I live and the reason I chose APR was their ECMS system and cruise control which enabled the wife to easily use the car.

The reasons I choose to data log the car was comments made previously regarding near fatal issues surrounding timing pull experienced on another forum members car.
I have never assumed or even suggested that one tuner does a better job than another and have only emphasised that since APR mapped the car from nearly new in 2002 it has run faultlessly.

In my oppinion the suggetsion that in gear timings of 2 different cars can be attribute to bad mapping is incorrect. Data logs from one persons car is cannot be a carte blaunch assumption that a tuners mapping must be flawd/dangerous/incorrect...there are two many variables that can also attribute to the way a vehicle behaves.

So in conclusion I have had my car checked twice....all is as it should be and I hope it goes on for another 100k.

Ian

 

[GaryM]

Turbo longevity I think rather than the engine.

Exactly which is why timing wasn't as high on my map as it was on Daves map, I was running higher boost though.

 

[ibizacupra]

Data logs from one persons car is cannot be a carte blaunch assumption that a tuners mapping must be flawd/dangerous/incorrect...Ian

you are correct, although same model ecu code's cross over vag models. HN box.

 

[Saul]

ok lads, drop it now