a nice review of the GLI/GTI after 5,000 miles

[blackmkv]

heres a review on a project gli in the vortex. the gli is the same as the gti with exception of a trunk. it is official! vw said that they had underrated the power of the new 2.0 engine. with that said i figured you guys would like this:w00t:
http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/article_1708.shtml

 

[GTI2007]

interesting review of the Jetta GLI :thumbsup:

 

[vdubGTi]

Great review. Very unusual for a car to have all the power that it claims.

 

[GTT]

I had my suspicions of the big power gains made by the chip programmers of Audi/VW engines.
Those chip claims appear way off.
I alway suspected how in the heck they can get nearly a 100lb ft. increase in torque using stock injectors and turbo's. I have experience with turbo's and to get that much torque requires some parts change. I suspected that either the stock parts are overbuild or the chip writers exaggerate. I'm from the school of buyer beware.
So, the dyno shows that stock power is over 200hp and now the chipped power is about 215hp.
So, a 15 hp increase, not the LARGE gains claimed by APR.
And, the torque was about 225lb ft. stock and 255lb ft. wth the chip.
A nice increase, but at $600 it's a pricey proposition to gain 15hp and 30lb ft.
One could probably do that with a simple "bleeder valve" for under $50.
But, I'll know more once I get the car if a bleeder will even work.

15hp and 30lb ft. of added power is a far cry from what the APR website claims.
Anyone done a chip upgrade that also did a before and after chip install on the same dyno on the same day as the people in this article?

T

 

[Thumpdaddy]

Well, isn't true that the car takes time to learn the new ecu programming. Like maybe if they had reprogrammed the car and came back in a week to see what type of gains was to be had.

 

[GTT]

Well, isn't true that the car takes time to learn the new ecu programming. Like maybe if they had reprogrammed the car and came back in a week to see what type of gains was to be had.

This whole "learning" thing smells a bit of marketing hype along with a bit of truth.
Modern ECU's do "learn", but it's continuous. The systems are monitored and adjusted continually. It's not as if the ECU needs days or weeks to finally understand that new fuel maps have been loaded. Yes, it can adjust to newer maps that can result in better performance, but for all intents and purposes those maps are available as soon as they are downloaded and the ECU can utilize the new parameters using data from the various sensors.
So, after some time there may be a smoothing out of the performance as the system fine tunes to your conditions, but to think that day one will only give you 15hp and by week 2 the system will have "learned" how to give you 40hp more sounds like bologna.

I'll gladly take back what I said if someone shows some real dyno tests where their engine picks up double the HP and torque 1 month after the ECU change. But, the test needs to be done on the same dyno with the same type of gas measured with same dyno setup and very similar atmospheric conditions.

However, let's keep sight of the basics here. It seems the power gains are not as advertised.
The GTI tested could be an anomoly in that it's putting out a lot more power off the production line. However, the base dyno readings compared to the tuned readings still don't show the dramatic change as advertised by APR.
Yes, there is a positive change and decent power increase. I have to decide if $600 is worth it.
It might be, but I'd like to have a money back option.

And, one other important factor is the greater lag in power output. Take a look at the dyno readout again. Notice that hp and torque come later in the rev band?
Off the line there is less power with nice gains after 2600rpm.
Notice that stock has about 211lb ft. of torque at 2000rpm compared to about 199 with the chip. Peak torque occurs at 2600rpm with the chip compared with 2400 for stock.

Still, midrange torque and midrange hp gain is quite impressive. HP gain is about 30hp in the midrange with torque being higher by 40lb ft. That's really good.
But, the peak advertised numbers are not there if we use the VW claimed hp/torque numbers as APR did to show how much gain from stock there is.
If the engine is higher output than VW claimed, APR should have known that.
But, APR uses stock numbers and makes claim to rather high increases such as nearly 100lb ft. of more torque. There is a big difference between 30 and 100.

T

 

[blackmkv]

well the gains proclaimed by APR and other companies like GIAC are at the crank or flywheel. the gti/gli's 2.0 engine was underrated to 200hp, when it actually has about 225hp. that is why it shows a huge increase when they put the car on the dyno after being chipped. in any way a 15hp increase to the wheels is like a 30-40hp increase at the crank

 

[GTT]

well the gains proclaimed by APR and other companies like GIAC are at the crank or flywheel. the gti/gli's 2.0 engine was underrated to 200hp, when it actually has about 225hp. that is why it shows a huge increase when they put the car on the dyno after being chipped. in any way a 15hp increase to the wheels is like a 30-40hp increase at the crank

That's a valid point, however, let's look at the numbers from stock.
Remember, the gain claims are from stock numbers.
The stock numbers are 200hp and 207lb ft. of torque.
The APR claims are 252hp and 303lb. ft. of torque.
These are at the crank.

So, they claim a 52hp gain, and a 96lb ft. gain.
Let's assume the typical 15% manual trans, FWD loss.
252-38= 214hp at the wheel.
303-45= 258lb. ft. at the wheel

The car in question dyno'd at around
265lb. ft of torque and 215hp. So, that is very much in line with what the final output claim is with the new chip. However, that is an assumption from stock and those numbers are 200 and 207. Thus, the gain from the stock numbers is the question.
The claimis that the HP/torque increase is a net gain of 52hp and 96lb.ft. from stock.
However, if that were true then we would need to use the real stock numbers and those are not 200 and 207 it seems.
The stock GTI rated a 200hp at the wheel stock, and the upgrade netted a total of 15hp at the wheel gain. Even if that were 20hp at the crank, that's a far cry from 52hp.

It seems that the claims of increased power are based on incorrect base data, or the gains were marketed from incorrect OEM base data.
All in all, there doesn't appear to be a 52hp gain nor a 96lb ft. gain at the crank or the wheels.

Just to be clear, I still think the gains are pretty good with the chip. The midrange gains are especially excellent. I'm still thinking if $600 is worth it, and it may be, but that isn't my point really. :smile:

T

 

[McPsycho]

maybe when the people at apr dynoed their gti they might have not done a stock run of the car and just dynoed it with the remapped ecu. :iono:

 

[blackmkv]

That's a valid point, however, let's look at the numbers from stock.
Remember, the gain claims are from stock numbers.
The stock numbers are 200hp and 207lb ft. of torque.
The APR claims are 252hp and 303lb. ft. of torque.
These are at the crank.

So, they claim a 52hp gain, and a 96lb ft. gain.
Let's assume the typical 15% manual trans, FWD loss.
252-38= 214hp at the wheel.
303-45= 258lb. ft. at the wheel

The car in question dyno'd at around
265lb. ft of torque and 215hp. So, that is very much in line with what the final output claim is with the new chip. However, that is an assumption from stock and those numbers are 200 and 207. Thus, the gain from the stock numbers is the question.
The claimis that the HP/torque increase is a net gain of 52hp and 96lb.ft. from stock.
However, if that were true then we would need to use the real stock numbers and those are not 200 and 207 it seems.
The stock GTI rated a 200hp at the wheel stock, and the upgrade netted a total of 15hp at the wheel gain. Even if that were 20hp at the crank, that's a far cry from 52hp.

It seems that the claims of increased power are based on incorrect base data, or the gains were marketed from incorrect OEM base data.
All in all, there doesn't appear to be a 52hp gain nor a 96lb ft. gain at the crank or the wheels.

Just to be clear, I still think the gains are pretty good with the chip. The midrange gains are especially excellent. I'm still thinking if $600 is worth it, and it may be, but that isn't my point really. :smile:

T

thats exactly what i was trying to get across GTT:thumbsup:

 

[GTT]

thats exactly what i was trying to get across GTT:thumbsup:

So you agree that the "claimed" increases are not real or true?
That is my claim.

The net gain is NOT what APR is advertising.
If the GTI engine is actually putting out more than advetised, then a good chunk of the power increased "claimed" by APR is from the stock engine, and we're being asked to pay for something we're not getting.

The reason I'm discussing this is because modding a turbo engine results in pretty good gains over modding a NA engine. But, to get nearly 100lb ft. of torque increase is extraordingary and not simply done by a reprogram. My last turbo car was a Mit. Eclipse/Laser with stock crank power of 190/195hp. I did the boost tricks and installed a larger turbo that flowed double the air of the stock unit along with some simply intake mods and I still didn't get anywhere near 100lb ft. of more torque. My guess is that I went from 190/195hp to about 215/220hp
with about 30lb ft. of extra torque. Even with the larger turbo and better flowing intake and greater boost I didn't get what I would call BIG gains as advertised by APR. Plus, I would get fuel cut in very cold weather when giving it big throttle. Turbo's LOVE cold air and with the mods I had the air flow would overwhelm the fuel injectors.
I just can't see the stock GTI's injectors being capable of sustaining that much HP and torque increase. Those would have to be some very over built injectors to be able to deliver the fuel needed for that big of a gain

Without more real dyno data the APR claims are still suspect. The article dyno tests make clear that the APR gain claims are suspect. We don't have dyno tests to the contrary yet.
With the APR mods we should be seeing wheel HP go from 170hp to about 215hp.
That's not what we see in that dyno test. The stock power was 200hp and went to 215hp.

The stock torque, as claimed by VW and APR, should read 176lb ft. and go to 258lb ft. with the chip. Instead, that dyno shows stock torque at 240lb ft. (spike), 225lb ft. typical.
The APR chip increase should be 258lb. ft. The dyno chip torque reads 265lb ft. (spike) and
250-255lb ft. typical.

The claimed increase from stock is just not there. What is there, in this test, is that the stock engine starts at a higher level of output to begin with and the APR gains, though very nice, are NOT what they are claimed to be.
Remember, accounting for a 15% loss the HP increase should be a net gian of 45hp (215-170).
And, torque should be a net gain of 82lb ft. (258-176). That's a wheel HP/torque net gain, the crank gains would be higher.

I know I harping on this, but it seems significant and important to me to get a true answer to real gains, and not just be happy that I'm getting "good enough" increases.
Would it be ok if VW said the GTI puts out 200hp at the crank and later you find it has only
180hp? Mazda claimed the RX8 put out 250hp or so crank HP and later had to revise it to around 238hp as the engines didn't put out the claim and customers were offered full refunds or some money back.
I thing that one should get what they are paying for.
If APR knows that the sock power output of the GTI is greater than what VW advertises, then they should make the claim of how much MORE power their product actually generates.

Also, remember, on the APR website they actually show a dyno, which is conveniently not described as wheel or crank power. Most dyno's for tuners are wheel power claims not crank, which would make their claim even more suspect. :eyebulge:

T