VM

I think they do a full scan and apply any updates that the system requires for your car. But the system won't let them update things just because newer versions are better.

So, for example, if you have version 123, and the system says that you should have 129, you'd get updated to 129. But, for another module, if you have 234 and the system thinks 234 is just fine, then even if new build cars have 243, you will be staying at 234.

up-n-coming

I agree 100%. The APR tune took my A4 from anemic to drivable. That said Mitchfin is running his car at altitude which is hard on a turbo to begin with. It constantly has to add a few psi more boost to compensate for the thin air. Add the extra boost from the tune and the turbo is most likely running on the edge of the efficiency island all the time. The term "gotta pay to play" might just apply in this case. Unfortunately.

farmerjones

You are probably correct on all accounts. I have a TT that outperforms a TTS 99% of the time, and i saved about $8,000 with the tune. Even with a turbo replacement I'm many dollars ahead in this scenario. Again, some will see the value in the tune, others will not. I'd contact APR as well and see what they say....I'm sure they would be interested to know of your problem. You can't rule out the turbo was simply faulty to begin with and would have failed even without a tune. Luckily this is a bolt-on repair, not an engine teardown for the owner. Still I'm sympathetic to his story.

rsilvers129

This is funny. The A4 is quicker than any Mustang GT made before 2005. It is quicker than a 1987 Buck Regal GNX, which was the quickest production car in the world at the time. It is quicker 5-60 than a 2018 Subaru STi. It is pretty impressive for what is just a family car.

VM

I was looking at some numbers, and they suggested that the B9 A4 with the 252HP engine is about comparable performance to a 2003 MB C32 AMG or maybe faster. That... says a lot about how turbos and transmissions with way more gears have made cars stupidly fast in the past decade and a bit.

I admit that I am shocked that someone would describe this car without a tune as 'anemic'. Mine certainly is not anemic unless you get into a situation of being at absurdly low RPM (like 1000 or less) and the transmission has the wrong gear selected. And I've basically never even put mine in S mode...

securityguy

Interesting post. I do not find the A4 anemic at all and find a tune a waste of money and a great way to void your warranty. I feel like the car has plenty of power and has never left me wanting for more.

vgt

The A4 in stock trim is not a particularly fast car. It's not slow, but its not fast. Comparing it to decade-old mustangs and 4 decade old buicks (or weirdo 5-60 times) doesn't make it so.

rsilvers129

I like to ignore 0-60 because it is affected by launch control and clutch dumping.

For 5-60:

2003 S4 is 5.9
2003 M3 is 5.3
2003 C32 is 5.8
2017 A4 is 6.0

So all of those cars are quicker than 2017 A4 with 252 HP. Which is surprising actually.

The M3 and S4 were rated 24 MPG highway. A4 is 37. What a change - 54% better.

VM

Do you have a 5-60 time for a 2003 A4 with... what engine would have been the kinda base North American-market engine that year?

rsilvers129

7.6 seconds for 2002 A4:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/amv-prod-ca...audi-a4-30.pdf