Ok, so there's a lot of noise concerning chips over heating turbos (the EC article).

I called Stratmosphere and they promised to check into the exhaust/turbo temps with the 225TT chip. I've not heard back. I sent email to APR with the same results (none).

Don't get me wrong - I've got an APR chip and a MTM (2 different cars of course). BUT why won't these folks respond about the article - even if to explain why the tests aren't valid.

I've read lots of other posters comments about why to worry or why not to worry. I don't think it's asking too much to get some facts, or am I nuts.

BTW considering that the newer A4 engines put out 170 vs 150 with a boost increase (plus other things) one might be lead to believe that the .8 chips are "safe" as determined by Audi??

Anyone have any facts to offer? thanks!!

A totally standard/stock car's turbo will get really damn hot being pushed very hard by the driver.
What are you expecting from the tuners?
To say the turbo will never get hot??
I haven't read the article, but it really amazes me about people getting concerned about a turbo getting hot, It is supposed to, thats how it works best.
What is going to kill your turbo the most is how you drive..

I don't keep my foot floored all the time.
I like the 1.8t especially since it isn't
a gas pig unless I stomp on it.

I'm only interested in the maximum's generated; I realize I could beat the h*ll out of a stock setup and baby a chipped setup.

Ok?

It's a totally fair question to ask. You asked for hp/torque increase, didn't you?

Both my cars are chipped. I'm not pulling the chips out. I just want some information, good grief!

Hey,

The issue here with the EC article is not the turbo getting hot, as all turbos get hot. It is a matter of efficiency - is an increase of turbo heat worth it for the increase in intake air temp?

Its a question we should all ask ourselves when we buy a chip, and I agree with Juliem in that the tuners should be forthright in what those tradeoffs are.

For those that wish to make fun of his post, I ask, why don't you run a 20psi chip in your 1.8T if you are not worried about this efficiency?

I was originally put back by the EC article, as their original article about 2 years ago now supported my decision to buy a chip. But after careful re-reading, it is a well thought up article with hard numbers to debate over the topic of longevity vs. performance.

In my experience with Integra racing, I can tell you longevity and performance are inversely proportional. A stock 170hp GS-R is supposed to get 200k out of its motor (that from Honda/Acura), a full race motor making 240hp will get rebuilt after every race.

I think every tuner should have some answer as to the trade off you are making. Dinan just started offering their own warranties on BMWs they tune. Juliem is right, we deserve an answer, even if it is "we don't know" or "we can't afford to warranty the work". Nobody is giving him the answer he deserves.

Best regards to all,

Michael

I don't think Juliem was asking if one should chip/mod or not. He definitely did not ask about ones happiness. It's solely up to each individual in deciding whether to chip/mod or not. All Juliem was asking for was an answer, so that he can make INTELLIGENT decisions. No need to mock a man for wanting to be more knowledgeable so that he won't make stupid decisions.

I think it's a totally valid qeustion. What is the implication of 2X inlet temperature. If it's a problem, something so simple as improved intercooler may resolve it (whatever). I think it's total BS if tuners are keeping quiet because they are afraid that added costs to PROPERLY tuning cars may turn away lower-buget enthusiast.

It's not a question of whether to mod or not. It's a question of whether to mod PROPERLY or not.

It never mentioned the state of tune of the A4 that was being tested. I sent a polite messsage to Shiv asking him about some details of the testing and received no reply from him.

While I agree that it would be interesting to hear from the tuners, there were other problems with that article as well. Part of the problem is that it had an air of scientific rigor (the equations and efficiency ratings) that was somewhat misleading. Yes, measurements were taken, but there were no controls and no accounting for numerous variables.

Maybe we'll hear a rebuttal from GIAC or APR in the next issue of EC? I can't believe they didn't use a second car as a control. I mean, there wasn't even any mention of ambient temps., gasoline octane, etc.

Finally, there wasn't much useful information for the average driver either - I mean, how many of us drive at WOT for 20 minutes straight immediately after resetting the ECU? Most of us care a lot more about day-to-day driveability over flat out performance, even though we might not think so. I spend a lot more time at partial throttle under 4k rpm than I do at WOT. In fact, I probably do WOT for 1 or 2% of my driving.

The only part of the article I thought was completely irresponsible was to say that these chips were an example of "very bad tuning". This was very misleading, IMO, and could be construed as libelous if the tuners wanted to make a stink.

Those of us that regularly take our cars to the track do just that. I reset my ECU and proceed to run my car at WOT at 4-7K RPM for 1-2 hundred miles.

Rich

Thank you Lucas for coming back to regular posting!

Mike O.

P.S. Hey Lucas, I've got over 30,000 hard miles on the hybrid and it hasn't **** the bed yet (but it will tomorrow because I wrote this!)

But then you are probably the exception rather than the rule, even among enthusiasts. I also realized that there was some risk involved and filled up with 100 octane when my tank got down to 1/2 full, so no pinging even with a heat soaked IC.

Having said all that, I did enjoy the article and thought it was a good reminder for us all that we do take some risk when modifying our cars. And there was some good general information to be had about the K03's performance when chipped. I just wish the testing procedures were a bit more fair and divulged all the facts.

To address juliem's comments, I agree we should get a response from tuners. I guess my point was that there's probably a good reason they aren't responding here in the forums.

Also, for the record: I thought that my car was pinging driving around town. A friend of mine did not agree. So, I ran some tests for APR and logged the information with VWTool. The knock sensor reported a maximum of 4 degrees of timing retardation at WOT under load (driving up a steep hill) after repeatedly hammering on the throttle. APR looked at the data and said they didn't see any pinging. Shiv's article also confirms that he was unable to induce pinging during aggressive street driving.

The last paragraph hints at what's to come. They said chipping the K03 wasn't good and that a bigger turbo is needed. I bet the next installment will be testing of big turbos. A K04 for sure, a GT25 perhaps. The turners aren't going to mind if EC pushes everyone to spend more...

Rich

Reason 1: Look at the "Select Gear" section in that month's EC. It lists the GT25 upgrade from APR as one of it's picks.

Reason 2: The A4 shown on page 132 is the same A4 that appeared at the Monterey NorCal Event(I figured this out from looking at bodykit, wheels and paint color - pearl white) sporting the APR Stage III kit. New Dimensions was there together with APR and that car had just been completed.

I could be wrong about this, but I would put money on it that I'm not. ;-) I'll also wager that New Dimensions will be partnering with APR for many of their products.

How has it been going???
How many HP you got now?
any stats/times etc...?
How is it on hot days?
Do you think you will ever put a bigger intercooler on??

thanks ...

The article is referring to getting a large amount of boost out of the stock setup.
Just about everyone who is doing the chip upgrades is also addressing the shortcomings of the overall package by upgrading the hardware too. Particularly those who track them and are demanding alot from their cars.
I think the point the article is making is that to ask this much from the stock setup will shorten the overall life. This is not anything new. Most people already know that, it isn't anything that hasn't already been talked about ad naseum.
-C.

If you look back in the A4 forum a few weeks you will see (or have seen) the ec article author offered an open dialogue with us.

I asked him about his data and its possible relationship to more normal driving patterns. Basically he felt we would be fine. I have some experience with stress and overstress testing of complex electronic and electromechanical devices and pretty much expected and agree with that answer. In my question I defined "normal driving" patterns as NOT usually involving continuous and repeated WOT runs. Indeed I guessed in my own driving that WOT is something that amounts to 1% or less of the time I am driving. Periods of WOT are usually less than 10 seconds in duration, preceeded and followed by normal operation allowing temps to come back to normal operating levels.

I happen to agree that the authors data is a wake up call to us. We should not expect to take a chipped only 1.8T racing regularly and experience no problems or demand warranty repairs for melted pistons. I think it would be wise for the tuners like APR, GIAC, MTM, etc. to issue guidlines and alternatives regarding performance, appropriate use of the car at each "stage" and upgrades that match use. They all seem to have upgrade paths that look reasonable and it makes sense that owners should know more than a target torque number about what an upgrade does or what upgrades for a particular vehicle usage ought to include.

Sorry Julie, I just had to step in there!



Don't be mad!


I'm medicated!

To me there seemed to be a lot of SWAGing going on.
1. They didn't measure the actual IC pressure loss. It will vary depending on the amount of boost pushed through, so the chipped version would have more of a pressure loss.
2. They didn't measure the inlet pressure losses. With a stock air box and filter, it wouldn't suprise me to see a 1-2 psi loss. This would also change depending on boost levels.
3. They used 14.7 for the air pressure. The actual is probably higher (14.9?)
4. They also said increasing the internal volume of the intercooler will help heat exchange. This is wrong. Increasing the surface area of and intercooler will help heat exchange. Increasing volume will help pressure losses.