APR Dyno runs...

[kirk180]

Originally Posted by b18flip

why are the a/f's so lean on the apr programs?

My thoughts exactly. I have the 93 octane program and that came up the leanest. That only further validates my running stock unless I know I'm going to be running hard. Good thing I have APR so I can switch back and forth between programs on demand.

[kirk180]

Ok, so after doing a search on lean fuel running I've picked up on a couple bits of info from a few different sources. But here is what Wikipedia had to say: "The engines designed for lean burning can employ higher compression ratios thus provide better performance, efficient fuel use and low exhaust emmisions compared to those found in conventional petrol engines. Ultra high mixtures with very high air/fuel ratios can only be achieved by Direct Injection engines. The main drawback of lean burning is the large amount of NOx being generated, so a complex catalytic converter system is required. Lean burn engines do not work well with modern 3 way catalytic converters, which require a balance of pollutants at the exhaust port in order to carry out both oxidation and reduction reactions, so most modern engines run at or near the stoichimetric point". It also went on to say that it helps to create a lower combustion temperatures and increase forced induction.

So my question is this. Could it possibly be that APR meant to do that in order to increase performance and knew that our engine could handle running at a leaner rate in order to increase performance. Seems they know what they're doing, so I'd guesss they did it on purpose. But I obviously don't know a whole bunch about it. Also, am I to "assume" that our rides possibly already have a better catalytic converter in them that can help with this. Doesn't the car already run a little on the lean side even with the stock program?

I would be interested in seeing dyno runs on the others (Giac,Revo) to see if they also opted to run lean in order to decrease ignition temp and increase performance.

Am I off in thinking that by increasing forced induction that you are indirectly increasing turbo performance as well?...

[Wantagti]

Lean=power=dangerous. It's the fine line for a tuner to dance on and it's where the power is.

[kirk180]

Can someone ellaborate a little more on this. I'm thinking that the lean value it's running at might be within the tuned limits of the FSI GTI. Since the engine runs a little lean to start with. But what do I know?

[alf]

Originally Posted by Wantagti

Lean=power=dangerous. It's the fine line for a tuner to dance on and it's where the power is.

exactly. i personally run my car slightly rich, keeping the cylinder walls cool = better for the engine and prevents detonation.

and all this talk about teh APR A/F brings me back to the APR Map and how its tuned in alabama and not meant for other types of weather and elevation.

alf

[Wantagti]

A MAF should help correct for that. I would think these software upgrades would take full advantage of turning up boost and fuel and keeping the A/F in the safe range.

[kirk180]

But what's considered lean as far as numbers go? Is that really considered to be that lean? Sorry, I'm a numbers type of person. What kind of ratio os getting up there in the lean ratio? Because the car comes a little lean as is. And I surely don't see a reason to run a car rich. Running it too rich is also harmful to your engine.

[alf]

Originally Posted by kirk180

But what's considered lean as far as numbers go? Is that really considered to be that lean? Sorry, I'm a numbers type of person. What kind of ratio os getting up there in the lean ratio? Because the car comes a little lean as is. And I surely don't see a reason to run a car rich. Running it too rich is also harmful to your engine.

nga. its not as harmful as running lean. id rather run rich in open loop than run lean, thats for damn sure.

plus i said im running slightly rich. plus PM me your gamertag, we need to play together.

alf

[alf]

Originally Posted by Wantagti

A MAF should help correct for that. I would think these software upgrades would take full advantage of turning up boost and fuel and keeping the A/F in the safe range.

revo does take full advantage of it. raising the boost and fuel means shit without adjusting the timing. you can burn fuel and overwork the turbo all you want, if the timing isnt right, you wont see much difference in power.

alf

[bigdyno]

There is a very fine line between the most powerful A/F ratio (lean) and melting your engine. I have played with lots of two stroke engines and the power goes up and up and up and gone. It can be very unnerving.

Running rich is safer than running lean, but in an engine so dependant on sensors, I wouldn't be adding any extra fuel just "to cool the cylinder walls" If it was an old carbureted engine, maybe. This is two thousand freaking six (or seven if you bought in Canada), the computers are capable of running the damn car. The guys who write the maps know more than you ever will, so unless you are one of those map writing dudes, I wouldn't try to out guess the program.

[bigdyno]

Originally Posted by alf

revo does take full advantage of it. raising the boost and fuel means shit without adjusting the timing. you can burn fuel and overwork the turbo all you want, if the timing isnt right, you wont see much difference in power.

alf

True, this is a component that is often overlooked. Fuel burns at specific speed and if you don't give it enough time to burn properly, you get all sorts of problems, the least of which is more frequent trips to the pumps.

Usually part of the mapping program is the timing, so again, if you have someone chip your car, this will be taken care of.

[b18flip]

Originally Posted by kirk180

But what's considered lean as far as numbers go?

i really don't feel safe going above 12:1 a/f ratio's ....when i had my turbo integra tuned w/ hondata my full-boost ratio's stayed mid 11's

[bcaciopp]

Originally Posted by Jayrockstar

Interesting observations.... Let's take a fresh look at the data:

First, it should be stated that these horsepower and torque ratings are SAE corrected for temperature, humidity, and pressure. It's a scientific calculation that adjusts raw HP and torque measurements to compensate for pulls made at different locations with different temps, altitudes and barametric pressures. The same car will record higher outputs when the air is colder, the altitude is lower, and the barametric pressure is higher--any one of these conditions make for a denser air charge (although not necessarily equally affective). So, theoretically, where and how hot the day was when I (or any one esle who uses the corrected numbers) dynoed has no relevance.

Second, the arguement of comparing dynos against each other has some (but IMO not so much) merit. My runs were made on a Dynojet 224X. While it's true that the same car on two different machines may record different readings, when selling units that begin at over $3000, I would hope that dynojet has researched enough, and assume that they have invested significant effort to ensure consistency between and across model units. This consistancy, of course, might not apply as much across different manufacturers and different types ( ex. inertial VS current resistence) of dynometers. It's difficult to place relevence to other peoples' numbers (195 HP Stock) without taking into context the type and brand of dynometer used. Having said this, that's why I was sure to add the base (stock) run as well. Perhaps instead of concentrating on just the numbers, see how the plots paint a broader picture of performace differences within programs in one brand of chip tuning software (thanks for the oberservation, ScuderiaVW :) I agree Kirk 180, the 100 octane, for what looks like little gain over the 93 program, doesn't seem worth the extra cost in gas.

BUT....Since it was brought up, lets talk numbers......

VW Claims 200 HP and 207 FT/Lb of Torque: Assuming 17% drivetrain loss, my stock program max wheel hp reading of 183.44 translates to 221 Crank HP. So, horray I get 21 extra HP somewhere! Using the max wheel horsepower in the 93 mode of 207.76, this translates to 250.31 crank HP--within 2 hp (.6%) of what APR promises. So according to my pulls, I gained 29 crank horsepower (or 50.31 HP over VW's claims) using the new software. Perhaps these numbers are not such "looooooow hp figures for a chip..." as suggested.

If, as claimed, "some people are pulling 195whp STOCK " then using the same 17% loss, these GTI's are pulling 234.94 HP at the crank. Then again, if this car is flashed and hits the promised 252 HP, for a 17.06 HP gain, then maybe, I, with a lower stock HP pull, get more HP per dollar than he! :)

I'm not sure if the dynoed horsepower increases some people expect when flashing ecu's are realistic. We might be further confused by the underestimation of VW on the HP ratings on our GTI's. Personally, I'm quite pleased with my results. The facts are these: very brilliant minds have invested thousands of man hours to deliver an amazing product, one that delivers a very respectable HP per Liter in a stylish package with decent reliability (hopefully). Some then think that an ecu flash will provide huge numbers over an already very finely tuned product. No matter what brand of flash we choose to invest in, the actual HP and Torque increases, (however numerically weak some might be quick to assume to profess them ), are a pretty amazing accomplishment. And they hardly illustrate the increase in driving pleasure and overall performance of the vehicle as a whole. Which is exactly what these dyno runs brilliantly profess---you just have to look further than the numbers.

When you start the School for Driving Newbs may I enroll sir?