GOLFMK8
GOLFMK7
GOLFMK6
GOLFMKV

chip mod power claims, discuss

GTT

Touring Car Champion
Location
US, Chicago
This was part of another thread that had a review of a GLI after 5000 miles.
The reviewers had done a before and after dyno with some very very interesting results.
They used the APR chip. After looking at the data, it brought to light some things I had been considering while looking into these chips and the amazing claimed power increases.

So, I decided to post some of my comments from that thread into a new thread so we can discuss specifically the issue of the chip makers power claims. The particular one in question is from APR.
It will be helpful to read the review first and look at the dyno readout.
This is the link to that thread.
http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/article_1708.shtml

In the review the stock GTI put out about 200hp at the wheels, which implies the stock crank output greater than VW claims, sweet if all GTI's put out this much.
The torque at the wheels, barring the big spike, is about 225lb ft., which again is greater than the claim crank output of 207lb ft.

If the GTI engine is actually putting out more than advetised, then a good chunk of that power increase, "claimed" by APR, is actually from the stock engine as it seems the stock hp and torque are much greater at the crank than what VW says. We're being asked to pay for something we're not getting or at least not getting from the APR chip in total.
The APR chip does give very nice improvements in hp and torque, but to the extent claimed by APR.

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 so 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 or a gain of
45hp.
That's not what we see in that dyno test. The stock power was 200hp and went to 215hp, which is 15hp increase.

The stock wheel torque with a typical 15% driveline loss, 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. or a net gain of 82lb ft. The dyno chip torque reads 265lb ft. (spike) and 250-255lb ft. typical. Not the claimed torque increase as advertised.

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'm 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, even though they are very good gains.
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 think that one should get what they are paying for.
If APR knows that the stock 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
 

earthtoandy

Touring Car Champion
Location
Phoenix, AZ
i agree its rather suspect and they are cashing in on the extra power the engine makes already. You can never trust "facts" from someone trying to sell you something.

One thjing though is the comment you made on how far chip tuning can go and really we cant make a conclusion on that. Your car may have only eeked out 30ftlbs but the gti could produce 100 more. It all depends on the engines potential. Is the engine tuned close to its potential or detuned quite a bit leaving a lot of room for growth. In terms of the 2.0T I believe it is the latter and the engine has lots of room to make more power.
 

erick.s

Autocross Champion
Location
CT
I've actually been thinking about this as well lately. The aftermarket tuners are posting gains against what the car is rated at from the factory, not from what the car is actually making. The chip tuners are trying to justify their crazy prices. To me, I wouldn't pay a whole lot for a 15 hp increase (maybe 300-350), but if they can say that the mod makes 40-50 hp over stock people will be more willing to drop $600 on it.
 

GTT

Touring Car Champion
Location
US, Chicago
earthtoandy said:
i agree its rather suspect and they are cashing in on the extra power the engine makes already. You can never trust "facts" from someone trying to sell you something.

One thjing though is the comment you made on how far chip tuning can go and really we cant make a conclusion on that. Your car may have only eeked out 30ftlbs but the gti could produce 100 more. It all depends on the engines potential. Is the engine tuned close to its potential or detuned quite a bit leaving a lot of room for growth. In terms of the 2.0T I believe it is the latter and the engine has lots of room to make more power.

I agree on potential.
I'll reserve judgement on the 2.0T FSI until more REAL dyno test show up.
However, from my past experience and knowledge of turbo engines (NOT a pro for sure), the chip "claims" are huge. So, knowing how limited in performance parameters stock fuel pumps, injectors, turbo's, intakes, exhausts, etc... can be, the claims are extreme.

The claimed crank torque from VW is 207lb ft. The claimed torque from APR tuning is 303lb ft.
That's an increase of 50% using stock intake, injectors, and exhaust. That would be amazing if it's true.

The other issue is the "dyno" chart APR lists on the website. It's very non descript. We don't know if the power gain claims are crank or wheel. One would think that a dyno would show wheel power not crank. But, when you look at the chart they display it's a marketing chart that doesn't anything like a real dyno readout.
So, it begs the question/s.

T
 

GTT

Touring Car Champion
Location
US, Chicago
erick.s said:
I've actually been thinking about this as well lately. The aftermarket tuners are posting gains against what the car is rated at from the factory, not from what the car is actually making. The chip tuners are trying to justify their crazy prices. To me, I wouldn't pay a whole lot for a 15 hp increase (maybe 300-350), but if they can say that the mod makes 40-50 hp over stock people will be more willing to drop $600 on it.

If that dyno is real, and it seems to be, there does seem to be an honest wheel torque incresase of 40lb ft. in the power curve. That is really nice and impressive. It's not anywhere near the claimed increase, but what is there is quite nice.
But, again, when you advertise a certain product to produce a certain thing at a certain price, you need to deliver. Telling me I'll get an extra 100lb ft. of torque for that dollar amount means I should get somewhere near that amount from stock. In this case it seems that may not be happening.
They should either change how much they charge or be more honest in what the real gains are.
Afterall, from that dyno there are some real good gains to be had. So, just be honest, that's all.
Of course, then it may not be so easy to sell the product. :rolleyes:

T
 

Bouston

FIA World Rally Car Champion
Location
Heidelberg, Germany
Car(s)
2006 Subaru STI
Interesting. I sure wish they tuners themselves could participate in this thread. There's so much speculation, but no real answers.
 

GTT

Touring Car Champion
Location
US, Chicago
Bouston said:
Interesting. I sure wish they tuners themselves could participate in this thread. There's so much speculation, but no real answers.

I agree.
We actually do have some real answers as far as can be deduced from the info offered.
The thing the tuners can provide is real dyno numbers of their own tests before and after the mod. However, I doubt that will be forthcoming.
Tuning is a skill and one answer to the hp/torque claims made by the chip tuners can easily be excused by saying, "tuned" and in "ideal conditions".

This is more for the end users (owners) to help us understand that the "claims" made and reality are not 100%.
I"m with you in that I do want to know more, specifically, regarding the GTI.
But, I'm sure that will come with time as more and more owners start modding and chiming in.
So far the GTI has been positively surprising.
I don't have a GTI yet as I'm still deciding on which car I want next. But, the GTI intriques more and more everyday and I really do want to get into a fun car again where I can tinker and learn more about.
My BMW is an awesome to drive automobile, but modding it is limited and quite EXPENSIVE.

T
 

JariP

Ready to race!
Location
EU
Some notes about why big torque increases are possible. ECU regulates and adjusts the boost from turbo. ECU can adjust the requested boost between the whole rpm-range as its programmed. The stock programming is trying to keep a flat torque curve between a large rpm range. So there is a lot in the reserve in these turbos at low to mid rpm range, if its capable of producting similar boost between for example 2000-6000rpm.

I suspect your Mitsu Eclipse did not have this advanced engine management system and boost control. You can raise the boost, but if turbo is wastegate controlled, it will limit itself to the same boost all over the rpm range. You most likely had a lot of torque in reserve in your engine, but would have needed a better engine management to take a full use of the turbo. This is my wild assumption :smile:
 

GTT

Touring Car Champion
Location
US, Chicago
JariP said:
Some notes about why big torque increases are possible. ECU regulates and adjusts the boost from turbo. ECU can adjust the requested boost between the whole rpm-range as its programmed. The stock programming is trying to keep a flat torque curve between a large rpm range. So there is a lot in the reserve in these turbos at low to mid rpm range, if its capable of producting similar boost between for example 2000-6000rpm.

I suspect your Mitsu Eclipse did not have this advanced engine management system and boost control. You can raise the boost, but if turbo is wastegate controlled, it will limit itself to the same boost all over the rpm range. You most likely had a lot of torque in reserve in your engine, but would have needed a better engine management to take a full use of the turbo. This is my wild assumption :smile:

Part of that is true, but you can't overcome individual parts efficiency with programming.
Granted, today many new tuners rely on the program. However, there is still the issue or a tubo's ability to maintain turbine speed without going into overrun or spinning it to such such levels as to make it's bearings giveout within 50k miles. Then there are injectors and their duty cycles and how much fuel they can deliver when the turbo is being asked to move even more air, the fuel must keep up and if doesn't then you are running lean and potentially detonating and causing timing retard. If the program is set correctly if it isn't it could allow the detonation and shorten the engines overall life. Then there is the fuel pump and it's ability to give the extra fuel demand of the increased air flow, etc...
And, let's NOT forget the ability of the exhaust system to expel the exhaust gases freely allowing the greater boost to have any affect.
The computer program can only do so much to maximize what is there. It can not create what isn't there, or it can push the limits of what is there. If that is the case, then it's questionable still as you don't want thing pushed to 100% every time as things tend to break quicker that way.

However, that brings up back to the question at hand, the ECU programming is not doing that much if it can not be PROVEN on the dyno or the track.
You need to put the affective data together including programming and parts to come to a realistic expectation of what can be done. It's not as simply as thinking "modern" computer controls can give you anything, they simply can't. We live in a real world of physics and mechanics. The computer can only work with what is already there.

The reason the older Eclipse would hit fuel cut is because the injectors couldn't supply the demand for the fuel needed and the pump didn't have the capacity.
I don't think you're grasping how much a 50% increase in torque output is, when it's being demanded of a stock system. The system would have to be overbuilt by more than that.

""I suspect your Mitsu Eclipse did not have this advanced engine management system and boost control. You can raise the boost, but if turbo is wastegate controlled, it will limit itself to the same boost all over the rpm range. You most likely had a lot of torque in reserve in your engine, but would have needed a better engine management to take a full use of the turbo. This is my wild assumption""

Every turbo I've seen has a wastegate. Boost control is simply fooling the wastegate into thinking there is less boost than there really is and thus keepign the gate shut allowing the turbo to keep spinning and compressing. A manual boost controller can trick the gate just as an electronic system can. The better engine management can use better programming and have better fuel mapping and control the gate with the stock boost controller so that you don't need to go manual.
Older ECU's were amazing in how much overhead they had so that one could use a manual boost control and experience wonderful power gains. Yes, the Eclipse engine has a LOT of reserve torque built into the engine, but the other pieces which are needed to feed that engine didn't have the reserve and thus as more boost was asked for the other parts show their limitations.
The ECU in the VW knows the limitations. The programmer can try to adjust and maximize certain parameters such as injector cycle or fuel pump speed/pressure, turbo boost control, spark, etc..But, again, don't ignore the designed limitations of all the parts needed to keep an engine running. That is why larger injectors are sold as well as higher capacity fuel pumps, different cams and profiles, larger turbo's, etc...

T
 

JariP

Ready to race!
Location
EU
Sure thing. I was taking only into account the air, because I think the fuel is not really an issue here. Its a fact that turbo can supply loads of boost at lower rpm range, just due to the fact that it doesnt have to spin so much to create same boost as in the high rpm range.

BTW. Newer TDI engines have turbos without wastegates. They use variable vane angles in the turbo to control the boost.
 

dwl137

Touring Car Champion
Location
Pennsylvania
Porsche's turbochargers on the nre 997 Turbo use VTG (Variable Turbine Geometry) to change the angles of the fins in the turbo inlet to regulate the boost as well. Supposedly has the same effect as the sequential twin turbos, little lag with the big highend
 

McPsycho

Rally Car Champion
Location
Daytona, FL
a little off topic of what u guys have been talking about but i just got the apr reflash yesterday and i can say i felt a huge difference in power. feels more than just 15hp and 30trq or so. from about a 10mph roll, the tires would break loose all through 1st. and 2nd. the torque makes it feel like ur in a fricking fire breathing v8. and the turbo is noticebly louder too. it was almost sounding like the whine of s/c. they only thing thats starting to piss me off is that im getting confused on which setting is the 93 and which is stock. the single blink of the engine light is supposed to be the 93 setting and the double blink is supposed to be the stock setting, but when i was trying to compare the two tonight, it felt that the double blink was the 93 setting. it even says on the receipt what slot each program is in but it doesnt seem that way at all. its not hard at all to use the program its just not making sense. the only way to find out i guess is to race someone on each setting and so tomorrow my friend and i(not me and my friend...lol) are going to race on a "closed course." he has a 06 type s with an intake. on the stock setting it should be a really close race. anyways, i was just wondering if anyone else who has the reflash was having a bit of confusion as i am with it? kkk.
 

GTT

Touring Car Champion
Location
US, Chicago
JariP said:
Sure thing. I was taking only into account the air, because I think the fuel is not really an issue here. Its a fact that turbo can supply loads of boost at lower rpm range, just due to the fact that it doesnt have to spin so much to create same boost as in the high rpm range.

BTW. Newer TDI engines have turbos without wastegates. They use variable vane angles in the turbo to control the boost.

Yes, the newer non conventional turbo's use the variable vane tech to improve low rpm power and give a broader power band. That is another way to control the turbo.
But, I was talking of conventional turbo's of the type used in the GTI.

Fuel is an extremely important issue and can not be dismissed as not really being an issue.
If you have more air and don't or can't provide the proper fuel to mix with that air, you run the risk of buring very lean and that can lead to excessive heat generation and potential detonation. You don't want those conditions at all, and that is the MAJOR reason why many poor turbo tuners end up burning up their engines, because adequate fuel supply wasn't there.
An engine needs fuel, air, spark to run along with compression to develop power.
Get the ratios wrong and you will have trouble.

You can increase boost to only a certain level, that being the ability of the fuel pump and injectors to provide the needed fuel to maintain proper burn.
That is my concern. I can't see that much power being developed on stock intake and stock fuel supply, and stock turbo. The turbo can deliver only so much air flow before being overspun. The intake needs to be able to deliver intake air without much restriction to allow the turbo to compress that air. And, the fuel needs to be delivered to the metered air flow.
The evidence to this point, via real dyno's, is showing that the claims of HP/torque increase are NOT there.
Yes, there is good power increase in the power curve, but not what is claimed.

T
 

GTT

Touring Car Champion
Location
US, Chicago
McPsycho V said:
a little off topic of what u guys have been talking about but i just got the apr reflash yesterday and i can say i felt a huge difference in power. feels more than just 15hp and 30trq or so. from about a 10mph roll, the tires would break loose all through 1st. and 2nd. the torque makes it feel like ur in a fricking fire breathing v8. and the turbo is noticebly louder too. it was almost sounding like the whine of s/c. they only thing thats starting to piss me off is that im getting confused on which setting is the 93 and which is stock. the single blink of the engine light is supposed to be the 93 setting and the double blink is supposed to be the stock setting, but when i was trying to compare the two tonight, it felt that the double blink was the 93 setting. it even says on the receipt what slot each program is in but it doesnt seem that way at all. its not hard at all to use the program its just not making sense. the only way to find out i guess is to race someone on each setting and so tomorrow my friend and i(not me and my friend...lol) are going to race on a "closed course." he has a 06 type s with an intake. on the stock setting it should be a really close race. anyways, i was just wondering if anyone else who has the reflash was having a bit of confusion as i am with it? kkk.

Not off topic at all really. :)
I'm sure you're correct about the power. The real dyno curve I saw shows that in the mid-rpm range the increase is about 40lb ft. of torque. That is excellent and would be quite noticeable.
The numbers I am referring to, in my orginal post, are the overall hp/torque gain over stock.
Those are not as high as the chip maker/s claim, at least not yet proven.

I have a question for you. The power curve I saw showed a decrease of torque off idle.
The stock engine is noted for having ample torque at low rpm. The chipped engine shows less than stock power at low rpm. Have you noticed any lag or additional lag OFF the line, or off idle, after the chip upgrade?

T
 

Wild Hare

.: MR. BIG STUFF :.
Location
Nortvest
Car(s)
2015 Golf R (TUNED)
Heard from the fellas at Techtonics that their exhaust and GIAC chip is making over 265HP. I'm waiting for real dyno numbers on this once they get someones car on their dyno and log some data.
All have said that VW has unrated the horse power by a significant amount. I can only get better with mods!
 
Top