Thinking about chipping my A4 1.8T (150 hp) Anyone used superchips
(www.superchips.co.uk) and willing to share their experiences.

Many Thanks
Simon

 

I know many people that have APR and couldn't be happier, apr.com .
Audi suggest it and it doesn't screw up there warranty. They also
have add on stuff where you can upgrade the program or be able to have
different settings. Its nice. I'm going to get one this winter.
Only negative is sending it away and not having a car but you can go
through there site and see if there's a dealer around you. You can
bring it there and they can do it why you wait. ecstuning.com is a
local one in Cleveland OH

On 27 Jun 2003 18:26:46 -0700, shfraser@yahoo.com (Simon) wrote:

>Thinking about chipping my A4 1.8T (150 hp) Anyone used superchips
>(www.superchips.co.uk) and willing to share their experiences.
>
>Many Thanks
>Simon

 

I know many people that have APR and couldn't be happier, apr.com .
Audi suggest it and it doesn't screw up there warranty. They also
have add on stuff where you can upgrade the program or be able to have
different settings. Its nice. I'm going to get one this winter.
Only negative is sending it away and not having a car but you can go
through there site and see if there's a dealer around you. You can
bring it there and they can do it why you wait. ecstuning.com is a
local one in Cleveland OH

On 27 Jun 2003 18:26:46 -0700, shfraser@yahoo.com (Simon) wrote:

>Thinking about chipping my A4 1.8T (150 hp) Anyone used superchips
>(www.superchips.co.uk) and willing to share their experiences.
>
>Many Thanks
>Simon

 

<rjclem@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:0l1km0dv0l5datfgccih7fc80abpv7fo2c@4ax.com...
> I know many people that have APR and couldn't be happier, apr.com .
> Audi suggest it and it doesn't screw up there warranty. They also
> have add on stuff where you can upgrade the program or be able to have
> different settings. Its nice. I'm going to get one this winter.
> Only negative is sending it away and not having a car but you can go
> through there site and see if there's a dealer around you. You can
> bring it there and they can do it why you wait. ecstuning.com is a
> local one in Cleveland OH
>
> On 27 Jun 2003 18:26:46 -0700, shfraser@yahoo.com (Simon) wrote:
>
> >Thinking about chipping my A4 1.8T (150 hp) Anyone used superchips
> >(www.superchips.co.uk) and willing to share their experiences.

(Cough), not in the UK, they don't.

My TTR 225/270 was SuperChipped a few years ago - no problems since then.

The power deliver and programming will be slightly different on your engine,
however - it's best to try and get power curve before making a final
decision.

http://tinyurl.com/33j42 for a comparison image of mine & a standard car in
near-identical conditions (I opted not to spend the extra on a "before"
plot)

--

Hairy One Kenobi

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!

 

<rjclem@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:0l1km0dv0l5datfgccih7fc80abpv7fo2c@4ax.com...
> I know many people that have APR and couldn't be happier, apr.com .
> Audi suggest it and it doesn't screw up there warranty. They also
> have add on stuff where you can upgrade the program or be able to have
> different settings. Its nice. I'm going to get one this winter.
> Only negative is sending it away and not having a car but you can go
> through there site and see if there's a dealer around you. You can
> bring it there and they can do it why you wait. ecstuning.com is a
> local one in Cleveland OH
>
> On 27 Jun 2003 18:26:46 -0700, shfraser@yahoo.com (Simon) wrote:
>
> >Thinking about chipping my A4 1.8T (150 hp) Anyone used superchips
> >(www.superchips.co.uk) and willing to share their experiences.

(Cough), not in the UK, they don't.

My TTR 225/270 was SuperChipped a few years ago - no problems since then.

The power deliver and programming will be slightly different on your engine,
however - it's best to try and get power curve before making a final
decision.

http://tinyurl.com/33j42 for a comparison image of mine & a standard car in
near-identical conditions (I opted not to spend the extra on a "before"
plot)

--

Hairy One Kenobi

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion
in the first place. So there!

 

In message <Hpwbd.71$wy5.51@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>
"Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/33j42 for a comparison image of mine & a standard
> car in near-identical conditions (I opted not to spend the extra on a
> "before" plot)

Interesting! I notice that your car produces less torque below 3000rpm
- I wonder whether it always was like that. Is there a logical reason
why the modified chip should be worse than standard at any point in the
curve? After all, it's just a set of numbers controlling fueling/boost
etc., it's not like changing a cam, or opening out inlet/exhaust tracts
which may well be disadvantageous outside of the 'power band'.

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

 

In message <Hpwbd.71$wy5.51@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>
"Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/33j42 for a comparison image of mine & a standard
> car in near-identical conditions (I opted not to spend the extra on a
> "before" plot)

Interesting! I notice that your car produces less torque below 3000rpm
- I wonder whether it always was like that. Is there a logical reason
why the modified chip should be worse than standard at any point in the
curve? After all, it's just a set of numbers controlling fueling/boost
etc., it's not like changing a cam, or opening out inlet/exhaust tracts
which may well be disadvantageous outside of the 'power band'.

--
Peter Bell (Note Spamtrap - To reply, replace 'invalid' with 'bellfamily')

 

On 2004-10-14, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <Hpwbd.71$wy5.51@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>
> "Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/33j42 for a comparison image of mine & a standard
>> car in near-identical conditions (I opted not to spend the extra on a
>> "before" plot)
>
> Interesting! I notice that your car produces less torque below 3000rpm
> - I wonder whether it always was like that. Is there a logical reason
> why the modified chip should be worse than standard at any point in the
> curve? After all, it's just a set of numbers controlling fueling/boost

Marketing? I bet that the engine feels much more powerful when compared
to the flat torque of the stock engine. Boring stock vs. high power
delivered in high RPM tuned.

--
Petri Rehtonen

 

On 2004-10-14, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> In message <Hpwbd.71$wy5.51@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>
> "Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/33j42 for a comparison image of mine & a standard
>> car in near-identical conditions (I opted not to spend the extra on a
>> "before" plot)
>
> Interesting! I notice that your car produces less torque below 3000rpm
> - I wonder whether it always was like that. Is there a logical reason
> why the modified chip should be worse than standard at any point in the
> curve? After all, it's just a set of numbers controlling fueling/boost

Marketing? I bet that the engine feels much more powerful when compared
to the flat torque of the stock engine. Boring stock vs. high power
delivered in high RPM tuned.

--
Petri Rehtonen

 

"Petri Rehtonen" <rehto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Qtzbd.380$uz2.203@read3.inet.fi...
> On 2004-10-14, Peter Bell <peter@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
> > In message <Hpwbd.71$wy5.51@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>
> > "Hairy One Kenobi" <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
> >
> >> http://tinyurl.com/33j42 for a comparison image of mine & a standard
> >> car in near-identical conditions (I opted not to spend the extra on a
> >> "before" plot)
> >
> > Interesting! I notice that your car produces less torque below 3000rpm
> > - I wonder whether it always was like that. Is there a logical reason
> > why the modified chip should be worse than standard at any point in the
> > curve? After all, it's just a set of numbers controlling fueling/boost
>
> Marketing? I bet that the engine feels much more powerful when compared
> to the flat torque of the stock engine. Boring stock vs. high power
> delivered in high RPM tuned.

There are engineering reasons (and, yes, the car does "feel" faster with a
sharper curve - it matches the 180 for "feel")

IIRC, the APR chip surges the turbo at low revs to give a similar torque
curve to standard - there have been lots of arguments as to what this does
to the longevity of the turbo. It *was* something that I took into
consideration when I selected a chip; the increased lag was a surprise,
though.

The good thing is that the resultant curve is highly linear - the stock
power starts "drooping" at the same point, which explains why using all
available revs (subjectively) didn't seem to produce the sort of
acceleration characteristics that I was used to from tuned,
normally-aspirated, engines.

Running an analysis of change-up points was even more interesting
(http://tinyurl.com/4qbpx vs. http://tinyurl.com/6442z). 'Twas quite a shock
to see how low the optimum points are as standard (bearing in mind that
there seems to have been at least some wheel-slip on that particular run)

I've not done any specific time measurements, but the car is very obviously
faster on the road - and feels it.

TBH, I can't say that - in general driving - I let the revs drop below
3000rpm on /any/ non-diesel, so it may be that the chip suits my driving
style more that it would others.

H1K