View Single Post
Old 10-20-2010, 11:36 AM   #49
GolfMK6 Official Vendor
Arin@APR's Avatar
Drives: B8 S4 & MK5 GTI
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Auburn, AL
Posts: 5,077
There is a lot of misinformation in this thread and finger pointing towards me and comments I've made in the past. I'd like to clear up some of that information.

First, I'd like to touch on the K04 subject.
With regards to power alone, not drivability or any other features

Firstly, with regard to the K04, my main argument is as follows: APR is advertising less power than AWE but is clearly creating more power, by a large margin. I have my theories as to why this is true but for the sake of the argument, lets just assume each company is making the power they advertise, but they way they are measuring the power levels and coming to a final crank figure is different. Now, that being said, we have shown the two k04 software are making a large difference between the two when measured independently on the same dyno and back to back on the street. It's in my opinion, based on the data I've collected, our software is far more powerful despite what either company advertises.

AWE has stated the power levels they are running are the power levels they wanted to run because EGT's were getting too hot when they tried to run more boost. GIAC calibrators have noted in a few post they were not out of turbo and had more room to go up in power but they were out of fuel. When you start to run out of fuel, you are unable to turn up boost to create more power. Leaner air fuel mixtures (less fuel, more air/boost) will result in hotter and higher EGT's (Exhaust Gas Temperature). When APR calibrated the K04 we were not running out of fuel, and as such, we were able to run more boost safely. This means we were able to create more power w/o crossing the manufacturers specifications for Exhaust Gas Temperature limits.

I've said this before (Mike@Forge Quoted me on it here), I'm sure any other tuner out there can figure out how to make just as much power as we did on the k04. I'm sure GIAC will eventually figure out how to do the same when they sort their fueling issues and it appears they are working on it, on their own, as a separate program not under the AWE name. The point is we are advertising 334HP, AWE is advertising 350-360HP & APR and independent test show our software is actually much more powerful.

Secondly, I'd like to touch on APR's Conservatism/Aggressiveness at different stages with regard to how hard the turbo is run

In the case of stage 1 and stage 2 software, we are a bit more conservative compared to our on upgraded turbo software. But in all cases we do not cross the manufacturers specified levels for exhaust gas temperature. Another area where we don't run 'wide open (or shut rather)' is with the wastegate. With stage 3 software and our k04 software, we leave some headroom so the turbo can make up for differences in altitude changes and for small boost leaks and several other reasons. It also leaves some headroom for minor differences which inherently exist in all things in nature. When calibrated in house at APR we are not running wastegate duty cycle at 100% during an entire pull. 100% wastegate duty cycle means the wastegate is fully shut and all exhaust gasses are going through the turbo running it as hard as possible. For the MK6 typically with stage 1 and stage 2 you'll see less duty cycle towards redline. With our k04 and stage 3 setups (depending on engine size and turbo size) you may see a more aggressive approach where more of the turbo is utilized. This depends on many different variables, but for the most part, OEM turbo software will be less aggressive.

When running a larger turbo such as the k04 and Stage 3 Turbocharger, running it harder has a higher percentage gain than smaller turbos such as the OEM. With an OEM turbo, running harder will in some cases get more power, however the percentage gain is much smaller. This is another reason why we typically leave more on the table since running it harder doesn't make a tremendous difference. There are trade offs to running it higher and harder and our engineers chose not to do so.

Lastly, especially with stage 1 we like to make power but we like to keep things on the safe side. Most customers want it this way. Also, being under warranty, we don't feel it's fair to VW if we were to just run the turbo as hard as possible, risk failure, and then pass the bill off on them. That in our opinion is dishonest and that's not what we want to do. (Please keep in mind, I'm not insinuating other tuners do this, I'm simply stating another reason why we don't run the turbo at 100% on the mk6)

Thirdly, I'd like to touch on APR's Conservatism/Aggressiveness at different stages with regard to component protection.

Each and every APR stage, from stage 1, to stage 4, has component protection enabled. What this means is as EGT's rise, we will run less aggressive fueling maps which will run richer in order to cool the exhaust gasses. For those who do not know, in many cases, running richer will result in a slight power loss, however, the fuel will actually cool down the exhaust gasses and will prevent EGT's from crossing the manufacturers limits.

You can see this on the dyno and it's even possible to see this on the road.

If you were to log air fuel ratio and do pull after pull after pull on the dyno or on the road, you'll see after a while (especially on the dyno where there is VERY limited air flow), the air fuel ratio will become richer. This is 'component' protection. The lower limit, or richer air fuel ratio can be adjusted by the tuner. It can be set to the exact same level as the 'performance' map too, thus when it comes time to cool the exhaust gasses by switching to the other map, the other map will be the same and the air fuel ratio will not change.

Not all tuners disable this feature, I'd like to make that clear, but this is an excellent reason why 1 guy with APR software can put down 1 power figure, and then you can go to the same dyno and put down less. If there is less airflow over the engine or if your car is hotter, it can switch to a mode where it's protecting the engine from harm. You'll put down less power but there will be nothing wrong with your car. Remember, cars drive ON THE ROAD, not on the dyno. There is far more air rushing throughout the engine bay, intercooler, radiators, etc cooling it down when it's on the road compared to the dyno. With these protection routines in place, it makes is possible to run the car in brutal conditions w/o harming the engine or turbo.

Stage 1 with the OEM exhaust will be the most affected power wise from component protection. It's less aggressive and will be safer. This is larger in part due to the restrictive exhaust right next to the turbocharger. It gets hot quickly! So once you remove this restriction and go to stage 2, the restriction is gone and it does not get quite as hot as quickly. This is why we can run more 'aggressively' while actually not running any hotter. It's actually less aggressive in a sense since the restriction is removed.

Fourthly, I'd like to touch on the power difference between the APR and Revo Stage 2 files

I personally do not have data in front of me other than 1 dyno graph of 1 pull with Revo map vs some APR file. I have no information as to the file being used during the APR power run. I have no information about the Revo run either. I do not know if this is what Revo sells to all customers or if this is a 1 off file or pre production file. I don't know the mods on the car or the condition of the runs. I simply have no information and no hard data.

Now, looking at the two graphs, it's clear in these two dyno plots the REVO pull is making more power. This is clear as day and anyone can see it.

Could this data be faked? Absolutely.
Do I personally believe it's faked? I personally do not believe it was 'Faked'.

Could it be slightly dishonest? Absolutely.
Do I think it was slightly dishonest? Not really, but maybe just a little to make things look a bit more 'dramatic' but hopefully nothing major.
Let me touch on that:

There are several things which could have happened to make it "dishonest". Let me again say I don't think it truly is 100% dishonest or fake, but I would like to mention a few things which can make a delta appear much larger.

1. Above I mentioned component protection. One way of making less power would be to run the car over and over and over. Typically if there is not enough air flow over the vehicle, such as on the dyno, our calibration will do everything it's capable of doing to run richer, pull timing, and even pull load/boost to make less power and run safely. Now, looking at the run it doesn't look like they did this. I don't believe they beat the crap out of the APR tune to get it to read very very low in order to sway the results. Could they have chosen the worse run for the APR data? Yes, that's always possible, but the power figures they are reporting seem to be very good to me and more or less what we advertise. I don't think they went out of their way to make the APR data look bad, but they may not have chosen the 'best' run.

2. Did they choose the best Revo run vs the worst APR run? Could have but I have no way to prove this.

3. Could this be a custom 1 off file from Revo just for this test? Yes, it could be, but I have no data to prove it.

So as you could see, it could or could not be the best run vs the worst run just to make the delta larger, but we have no data to support that claim, nor do I think it really is. I don't doubt they have the ability to make a lot of power no the OEM turbo. I know we have the ability to produce much more power on the OEM turbo compared to what we feel is safe to sell to our customers. I don't doubt at this point REVO has the same ability to produce high levels of power from the OEM turbo as well. As far as the OEM turbo goes, pulling out higher power levels is the easy part.


I've said it before, any tuner can run the turbo harder than anyone else out there and extract more power and we have the same ability to do this as well. We have sold this software to thousands upon thousands of customers around the world and our customers are happy. We offer what we feel our customers want and are not exaggerating power gains. We offer a product line of hardware and software to support power gains from mild to wild while keeping a thick powerband of steerable and trackable power and our customers seem to love it.

Through motorsport racing we have stretched these engines to the limits with OEM components and put them through abuse people will not see on the road with our stage 1 or 2 software. In racing the MK6 we are limited on the boost we can run and as such have to dig else where to extract more power safely. The midrange will sacrifice but towards redline, we are pushing it to the max. We've destroyed turbos with racing. A full weekend of wide open hour long sessions of running it at the max will do that! We replace turbos after races because they can't continue to see the levels abuse we put them through over and over. This data has trickled down into our sellable performance software and since 2008 when it was first released, has proven over and over it's safe for the road and track.

Almost a year ago I mentioned we had more powerful stage 1 and 2 files in testing which I thought was right around the corner for public release. Over all, our customers seem happy with what they have now so there was no rush to put this to market as we don't need to fix something that isn't broken. That being said, I still want to offer some of the changes to the public because the changes offered benefits in fuel mileage and other areas besides power alone. As the race season progressed in 2010 we were forced to dig deeper we were abel to safely extract more power which will ultimately trickle down into our performance maps for our customers. Will it run the turbo as hard as possible? No. Will it be safe for the street and track? Yes. Will it make more power than the current APR files? A little more, yes! Will it be as powerful as the dyno run above? I don't know. That's not the goal of our software.

Thank you!

Arin@APR is offline