What's the difference between the AWE stage 3 and ASP stage 3?
12-31-2006, 02:41 PM
#11
Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASP 93 octane on AWE's Mustang Dyno vs AWEs avant on the same dyno :-) fixed link
<center><img src="http://pictureposter.audiworld.com/31992/danhptq.jpg"></center><p>
My car did have test pipes during the run and it was in ~65 deg temps so some improvement may be seen from that. AWEs car was run in warmer weather according to the site, not sure if they used test pipes or not.<ul><li><a href="http://www.awe-tuning.com/pages/info/content_window.cfm?content=28">AWE kit dyno</a></li></ul>
My car did have test pipes during the run and it was in ~65 deg temps so some improvement may be seen from that. AWEs car was run in warmer weather according to the site, not sure if they used test pipes or not.<ul><li><a href="http://www.awe-tuning.com/pages/info/content_window.cfm?content=28">AWE kit dyno</a></li></ul>
12-31-2006, 03:48 PM
#14
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nothing is wrong with a stepped MAF if software is programmed correctly for it.............
sometimes people just like to point out the differences and if they prefer it or not. Ideally, if you were to HB tune, you'd prob want to start with a straight through MAF, but if the software is right (which the AWE/GIAC is)...then it's a non-existant issue imo. And I hope I don't sound like Todd ;-P
12-31-2006, 03:59 PM
#15
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cuz it is (and should be) since it runs about 2 psi more boost......and according to FATs logs we've
seen. On 93 Octane, the typical AWE car will run 3.6-4.0 FATs in 50 degree weather whereas ASP will run 3.4-3.8.....it is prob good for a couple carlengths on say a 50-120 pull, but we have not seen any comparisons yet. But it is what it is.....a kit running 20 psi (AWE) will be slower than a kit running 22 psi (ASP), it's common sense.
12-31-2006, 06:16 PM
#17
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes and no................
from what i've seen.....you'd prob have to Lemmi a bit to get O2s in range one way or another. AWE file likes to see airflow G's peaking in the 270-280's range......while the ASP logs i've seen like it a bit higher, say over 300-310 g's. So that 30 g peak difference will prob mean 10-15% (plus or minus) primary fuel via Lemmi one way or another...and perhaps an increasing load tweak. These are taking into account both running the stock airbox with hole in it.
12-31-2006, 08:22 PM
#20
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
iirc....stock airbox with no hole yields about 5 g's less at peak rpms........
i think the main reason for the hole is so the turbos has another source to draw air from (ie fills the airbox with volume) more consistently. Or else.....airflow would get rather erratic while waiting for the stock airbox to refill via the airduct when pushing/needing much more air like when running K04's (or bigger). I experienced hesitation and what felt like Throttle cut while running Stage 3 with stock airbox and no hole. The "available" air in the box gets sucked pretty quickly and while waiting for it to refill...the car suffers from the lack of G's. If that makes any sense *shrugs* 8^)