juliem

Ok, so there's a lot of noise concerning chips over heating turbos (the EC article).

I called Stratmosphere and they promised to check into the exhaust/turbo temps with the 225TT chip. I've not heard back. I sent email to APR with the same results (none).

Don't get me wrong - I've got an APR chip and a MTM (2 different cars of course). BUT why won't these folks respond about the article - even if to explain why the tests aren't valid.

I've read lots of other posters comments about why to worry or why not to worry. I don't think it's asking too much to get some facts, or am I nuts.

BTW considering that the newer A4 engines put out 170 vs 150 with a boost increase (plus other things) one might be lead to believe that the .8 chips are "safe" as determined by Audi??

Anyone have any facts to offer? thanks!!

Lucas_Gchips

A totally standard/stock car's turbo will get really damn hot being pushed very hard by the driver.
What are you expecting from the tuners?
To say the turbo will never get hot??
I haven't read the article, but it really amazes me about people getting concerned about a turbo getting hot, It is supposed to, thats how it works best.
What is going to kill your turbo the most is how you drive..

juliem

I don't keep my foot floored all the time.
I like the 1.8t especially since it isn't
a gas pig unless I stomp on it.

I'm only interested in the maximum's generated; I realize I could beat the h*ll out of a stock setup and baby a chipped setup.

Ok?

achtungbaby

duhh... get a grip. we men are happy. mods can't be for all. tuners, please go back to work.

juliem

It's a totally fair question to ask. You asked for hp/torque increase, didn't you?

Both my cars are chipped. I'm not pulling the chips out. I just want some information, good grief!

Dr. Mike

Hey,

The issue here with the EC article is not the turbo getting hot, as all turbos get hot. It is a matter of efficiency - is an increase of turbo heat worth it for the increase in intake air temp?

Its a question we should all ask ourselves when we buy a chip, and I agree with Juliem in that the tuners should be forthright in what those tradeoffs are.

For those that wish to make fun of his post, I ask, why don't you run a 20psi chip in your 1.8T if you are not worried about this efficiency?

I was originally put back by the EC article, as their original article about 2 years ago now supported my decision to buy a chip. But after careful re-reading, it is a well thought up article with hard numbers to debate over the topic of longevity vs. performance.

In my experience with Integra racing, I can tell you longevity and performance are inversely proportional. A stock 170hp GS-R is supposed to get 200k out of its motor (that from Honda/Acura), a full race motor making 240hp will get rebuilt after every race.

I think every tuner should have some answer as to the trade off you are making. Dinan just started offering their own warranties on BMWs they tune. Juliem is right, we deserve an answer, even if it is "we don't know" or "we can't afford to warranty the work". Nobody is giving him the answer he deserves.

Best regards to all,

Michael

JHS

I don't think Juliem was asking if one should chip/mod or not. He definitely did not ask about ones happiness. It's solely up to each individual in deciding whether to chip/mod or not. All Juliem was asking for was an answer, so that he can make INTELLIGENT decisions. No need to mock a man for wanting to be more knowledgeable so that he won't make stupid decisions.

I think it's a totally valid qeustion. What is the implication of 2X inlet temperature. If it's a problem, something so simple as improved intercooler may resolve it (whatever). I think it's total BS if tuners are keeping quiet because they are afraid that added costs to PROPERLY tuning cars may turn away lower-buget enthusiast.

It's not a question of whether to mod or not. It's a question of whether to mod PROPERLY or not.

juliem

Thanks J.T and Dr.Mike ! You got my point!

Adam S

It never mentioned the state of tune of the A4 that was being tested. I sent a polite messsage to Shiv asking him about some details of the testing and received no reply from him.

While I agree that it would be interesting to hear from the tuners, there were other problems with that article as well. Part of the problem is that it had an air of scientific rigor (the equations and efficiency ratings) that was somewhat misleading. Yes, measurements were taken, but there were no controls and no accounting for numerous variables.

Maybe we'll hear a rebuttal from GIAC or APR in the next issue of EC? I can't believe they didn't use a second car as a control. I mean, there wasn't even any mention of ambient temps., gasoline octane, etc.

Finally, there wasn't much useful information for the average driver either - I mean, how many of us drive at WOT for 20 minutes straight immediately after resetting the ECU? Most of us care a lot more about day-to-day driveability over flat out performance, even though we might not think so. I spend a lot more time at partial throttle under 4k rpm than I do at WOT. In fact, I probably do WOT for 1 or 2% of my driving.

The only part of the article I thought was completely irresponsible was to say that these chips were an example of "very bad tuning". This was very misleading, IMO, and could be construed as libelous if the tuners wanted to make a stink.

Rich L.

Those of us that regularly take our cars to the track do just that. I reset my ECU and proceed to run my car at WOT at 4-7K RPM for 1-2 hundred miles.

Rich