For example, your statements:

1) ABT adapts well to race gas, X chip does not.

2) ABT on race gas is as fast as XR.

Now the ABT is a fantastic chip, but these statements have been floating around for some time based on 'butt-dynos', yet the people getting hard #'s (track, VAG logs, acceleration logs) see otherwise.

Examples:

- Recent dyno shootout here in chicago area - both X and ABT M boxes on 100 octane were within a couple HP of each other. If ABT adapted so much better than X, shouldn't it have made significant more power?

- Track times - someone I know ran mid-13's all day with ABT on 100, popped in an XR and on that run was near 13-flat.

- My own data collected, and a few others who have logged, shows ABT does not advance timing for higher octane fuel, period. And with ABT on 100 octane, XR destroys it in acceleration all the way up. On my car, ABT runs timing advance that is probably suitable for not much more than 91-93 octane in my opinion. Why do I think this? Because on 95 octane, even the X chip runs more timing than ABT by a good 5 degrees. I'm not saying I necessarily think X 'adapts' to race fuel, but ABT certainly does not.

Perhaps there are different programs floating around out there, and different cars experience different results, so get us hard data with acceleration, ignition timing, etc. under controlled conditions, and then I'm willing to listen!

ABT vs. XR timing advance on 100 octane:


ABT vs. X timing advance on 95 octane:



ABT acceleration under wide variety of conditions (including 100 octane) vs. XR on 100 octane:



ABT acceleration on 94 octane vs. 100 octane

2000 6-spd