I was lucky to finish my work early today and had a chance to run a few quarter mile times at Atco Raceway. I am running a a k-04, upgraded plugs, upgraded exhaust, upgraded fuel pressure regulator, 180 deg fan switch, and coolant thermostat. The day was simply beautiful at 58 deg F. Garrett customed programmed my chip. The chip has a peak boost of 16 psi as measured by my boost gauge (thanks Don P and Sean G for the excellent instructions on your website.)<p>My best run (which was faster than some stock mustangs)<p>60 foot time: 1.985<br>Quarter Mile time: 14.570<br>MPH: 93.50<p>The track was dominated by old fashion muscle cars but I had a chance to talk to a couple of import drivers.<p>Supra Turbo 12.20<br>Galant VR-4: 12.62<p>Not bad!!<p>I am very happy with Garrett's chip, I will be talking to him about tweaking the chip further. <p>Dan K.<br>97 a4 1.8t quattro

Dan, I follow from your original post that this is about .23 sec. better in 1/4, I was however even more impressed by the 40-100 km/h numbers also, has your configuration (upgrades) changed since your last 1/4 mile runs? What is most changed with this setup, you last mentioned low rpm torque<br>is much improved. <p>Thanks for your update.

I ran a few runs with my old chip today as well. They were in the 14.8xx range. Then I put Garrett's chip in and the results were as above. The Garrett chip was consistently in the 14.6xx range.<p>Dan K.

It takes the ECU about 20-25miles to learn the programming. If you dropped in the chip and made some pulls, I'm sure they will be slightly worse after the chips relearns. I'll also be you were knocking, as I'm sure the chip hadn't learned and pulled out the timing to based upon the knock sensor. Those couple of .01's you saw on a fresh chip and fresh runs, may or may not be there after the ECU learns.<p>Just thought I'd burst your bubble a little. It's like running when the engine is cold, even if it's been idleing. You probably haven't lit up your CAT and so it's making diffent power than it does after you lite up the CAT.<p>Alan

Alan,<p>Good point, next time I'm out at the track I will reverse the order of chips. <br>According to Garrett, when the ecu first relearns the car, it will start with conservative timing and then advances it untill knocking is reached and then pulls the timing back (over 20-25 miles). So the car initially should have conservative timing during my first couple of runs, don't you think? <p>" Those couple of .01's you saw on a<br>fresh chip and fresh runs....." Alan, your off by an order of magnitude. The difference is tenths of seconds not hundreths. <p>Anyway, take my times anyway you like it, I just thought I would share.<br>Dan K.<br>(bubble intact)<p>

I realized I got the .01 instead of .1 numbers after I pushed the submit button oh well. You know what I ment. In my experience ( and unfortunately there is a ton of it!!!) I think the ECU is the other way, it uses the timing in one of two tables in the ECU as a starting point, most of the time this a way too aggressive and the knock sensors will tell the ECU that. It then modifies it's timing to PULL out some timing and get the knock sensors to stop complaining.<p>Course there are a million and one things that are going on, I"m sure it's way more complicated that that.<p>BTW, I wasn't trying to bust your bubble, I just think that we "learned" ECU's those .1's may be different. Who knows they could be worse they could be better. Just make sure when you are going testing that you try to normalize the model as much as possible.<p>Have fun and make sure you SHARE, that's what's important!!!<p>I try to do that all the time, I'm off on a PC based dyno right now. If I could just figure out how to calc HP from Accel, vel, timing, and speed. I know it can be done, I just haven't developed the formula YET!<p>Alan