The FINAL ANSWER: to chip or not to chip
Concerning, the modification of the engine, under controlled tests, the modified cars did not significantly outperform non modified (i.e. non-chipped) cars. In fact, the chips were proven to produce times worse and better on a quarter mile track. Given that the chips used in the study were from different manufacturers, let there be no mistake in that the study found chips to have NO SIGNIFICANT impact on performance. The performance of your A4 will undoubtedly depend more on the maintenence of your vehicle than on a gimmicky chip to modify an already efficient engine.
Last month's European speed provides a more in-depth look at what a 1.0 bar does to a car. However the article has a lot of problems too, since that article implied that chipping was bad for the car. However, the article was talking about performance for a heatsoaked car being pushed on a track, not a car driving around in spirited runs. The article was good in pointing out where to upgrade next if you're pushing the car, but bad for chip manufacturers since he didn't make it sound like chipping was a good idea at all.
Anyways, enough euro car rant. For reasons I typed earlier, I feel they have always been against chipping (writing a biased editorial about it before, lacking chip coverage), and pretty much against any product that is not made by Neuspeed.
For another look at Car & Driver's opinion on chipping, read the Long Term report on the Passat, I believe it was like april-may of 1998. They highly recommended buying a chip for a 1.8t
Trending Topics
Bringing Audi to Life for Audi Fans


