Comparison of different tunes for Golf R

[Sharkie]

I see that here is a lot of paranoia when it comes to APR. And some just take a cheap shot at every opportunity.

I agree, I have been at many a dyno day run by totaly independent operators where many of the different tunes were run with hardly any difference between them. I certainly have not seen such differences in independent tests ..... back to back .... ever

For something like this to come out and the uninformed then to jump on it to point fingers at how bad 1 is compared to the other I personally call BS ..... .... or manipulation.

Instead of the "good" press this was meant as for BPS, this is more of "bad" press situation for those of us who have seen it all before .... .... and know better ....

[Corey_R]

My question is why the "stock" tune is showing ~360Nm at the wheels (on a 33 degree day no less) when VW rate the car at 330Nm at the flywheel. I understand that some companies understate their figures a bit, but with drivetrain losses, they'd be understating by A LOT to get that figure?

Then my next question would be what was discovered to allow a max of 458Nm ATW on this 33 degree day when the previous Golf R tuned by BPS produced only 392Nm on a 24 degree day.

[Mr_Bob]

My question is why the "stock" tune is showing ~360Nm at the wheels (on a 33 degree day no less) when VW rate the car at 330Nm at the flywheel. I understand that some companies understate their figures a bit, but with drivetrain losses, they'd be understating by A LOT to get that figure?

Then my next question would be what was discovered to allow a max of 458Nm ATW on this 33 degree day when the previous Golf R tuned by BPS produced only 392Nm on a 24 degree day.

could be a few factors.
The torque figures you see are tractive effort, which is different, and is influenced by gear ratios (4th should be close to 1:1) but also the diff ratio and drivetraing losses.
So it's very difficult to compare to VW's flywheel rating,

Things like the weight of the wheels influence this too, so the lower rating may have had 19's, and this one may have aftermarket lightweight rims?

[jimjaroo]

Then my next question would be what was discovered to allow a max of 458Nm ATW on this 33 degree day when the previous Golf R tuned by BPS produced only 392Nm on a 24 degree day.

I can probably answer the second part of the question, my vehicle is fitted with a CAI and cat-back exhaust. Could weight also be a factor as this a 3dr vs 5dr. I'm sure there will be some small differences there concerning peak figures. But I'm sure there is probably more to answer as far as this question is concerned so I will let James talk you through that one . VW also quote 155kw ATW yes? I beleive the vehicle ran nearly 10kw under that.

Before this topic goes too far off the rails, I just want to point out that no matter how much the results differ from dyno to dyno, car to car, day to day. This was all completed on the same day/dyno with the same car. So the results before you are the actual results for this vehicles increases and decreases and cannot be compared to those carried out in Argentina on the 5th of 2006 with john's car (obviously not a real person or vehicle ).

[jimjaroo]

I agree, I have been at many a dyno day run by totaly independent operators where many of the different tunes were run with hardly any difference between them. I certainly have not seen such differences in independent tests ..... back to back .... ever

For something like this to come out and the uninformed then to jump on it to point fingers at how bad 1 is compared to the other I personally call BS ..... .... or manipulation.

Instead of the "good" press this was meant as for BPS, this is more of "bad" press situation for those of us who have seen it all before .... .... and know better ....

Sharkie could you please elaborate on how this is "BS"? I was personally present for the entire tune..can you explain to me how these figures have been manipulated?

I have not taken any "cheap shots" at anybody, this is not an attack on APR, this is simply giving everybody plain information, it's as simple as that. APR put their tune on my vehicle, we ran it several times on the same day in the same temperatures, then, the tune was removed and several runs were made with the VW base run as you can see recorded. At the end of the day on the same dyno with the same temperatures and settings we ran the BPS tune. This is the information, it's clear as day, the dyno settings are in print at the bottom of the page.

[Transporter]

Sharkie could you please elaborate on how this is "BS"? I was personally present for the entire tune..can you explain to me how these figures have been manipulated?

I have not taken any "cheap shots" at anybody, this is not an attack on APR, this is simply giving everybody plain information, it's as simple as that. APR put their tune on my vehicle, we ran it several times on the same day in the same temperatures, then, the tune was removed and several runs were made with the VW base run as you can see recorded. At the end of the day on the same dyno with the same temperatures and settings we ran the BPS tune. This is the information, it's clear as day, the dyno settings are in print at the bottom of the page.

I will disconnect from this conversation, just last question. Did you get the BPS tune from the same shop that you got the comparison graph?


Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

[xilli]

I will disconnect from this conversation, just last question. Did you get the BPS tune from the same shop that you got the comparison graph?


Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

I'll jump in here and answer that for you, i was there for the entire process while the tunes were being tested. The car (jimjaroos) was run with the APR tune to gain the data shown. The car was then taken to an APR dealer to have the tune removed and taken back to BPS to be dyno'd to get the VW base run.

Right after the base run was completed the ECU was removed and James commenced to apply the BPS tune, then the car was dyno'd right after that to produce the BPS result you see on the graphs. It was all above board, completely fair and legit.. he wasn't employing any 'manipulation' or tactics as earlier suggested.. unless he was very sneaky about it!

I don't think this is about trying to tarnish the name of APR, i think it's more to demonstrate it isn't necessarily the 'best' and there are most certainly alternatives available to gain a fantastic tune on the R. I drove the APR tune and i personally think it was designed to give you that surge when the boost came on which makes it feel quite fast.

I drove the BPS tune last night and as a comparison you don't feel a rush like the APR, the delivery is very linear and seems to progress very smoothly across the entire range! Was really quite impressive, but coming from an R34 GTR background i am also quite a fan of the 'surge' feeling that you get from boost coming on hard

[james928]

The lower line represents original DC max out put The upper is the new MAX DC out put, there are 12 of these scalers to control N75 DC actuall boost is measured in air mass. The APR version of this I believe was an error in coding as it makes no sense.

As I stated, this is not representative of what I would expect from such a succesfull company. However there is a mistake in the coding that I can only assume would be down to a version miss match. I have run many cars coded by APR and have allways seen consistant results. This car really suprised me. I am purley showing what can happen when software upgrades are done without being duly tested in a controlled enviroment. I have only been doing this for around 16 years so I have seen alot of BS in my life, believe me. I am not out to give bad press to anyone, nor have I in any of my replies. I just tested a vehicle as delivered to me. I joined this community to help and offer a local choice. No more no less.

[Corey_R]

VW also quote 155kw ATW yes? I beleive the vehicle ran nearly 10kw under that.

I've never known VW to quote wheel figures, so I'm not sure where the 155kw comes from.
Other members have dyno'd their stock Golf R's and got anywhere from the 130's to the 150's - which is unfortunately how inaccurate dyno's are from one to another, so can't really compare.

The catback probably makes little diff, but the CAI probably does. I was just wondering why the stock torque was so much higher than expected, and also why the BPS torque was so much higher than the previous one BPS did, despite being a much hotter day.

Thanks for your reply

[james928]

The torque figures for the car on all three versions of software seem high. I can only think its down to the DD Fudge "O" Matic temp compensation. I look at the realative difference between them. I have another R here with a new full exhaust we have developed, so will be interesting to see what numbers that pulls.

[parso_rex]

Bottom line is if the owner can notice the difference as you certainly would with those two tunes though I had a weird one with one of the R's we are playing with at the moment and it remarkably similar to what xilli describes . We have the stock hardware tune at 178 kW atw mainline (stock ~152atw 6MT&DSG) and then when we flashed on a new revision which brings boost on earlier (more boost in the same area as james's little spike) the overalll effect according to the owner was that the car felt slower. The rush that was there at mid rpm before has gone but you can tell it is certainly quicker and you can short shift without issues. All about perception I guess
The HPFP needs upgrading which is a bugger

[REXman]

Hey OP,

thanks very much for the post. Good to know where the tunes stand with each other, and it really does show the difference of having an all out custom tune compared to an off the shelf or "stock" tune.

I guess now, you run your car down the STRIP, provide a time slip and shut the haters up once and for all. NO QUESTIONS!!

PS are those numbers just with a catback and CAI?? (which CAI?) thanks

[DNA Tuning]

Regardless of whether or not a tune is custom or off the shelf; the customer should expect that for the money they pay for the tune (be it $800 or $1600); that the upgrade will provide smooth and predictable torque curve throughout the range. Yes with a custom tune, a couple degrees of timing here and there can be further extracted, but these gains should be small and should not change the overall character of the car by that much.

[REXman]

Im sorry i disagree. A generic tune made for any and every car is just that. A generic tune. Everyone knows that each motor is made differently and will always vary in power output across the same model of engine.

For that reason, if you want your car tuned perfectly, you get a custom tune by a good tuner.

Tunes you can get via an email are very "wham bam thank you mam", and whilst I admit they serve a purpose, (that purpose really to maximize profits and minimize effort and time tuning a car - hence them taking 15mins to install compared to 3 hours + technical work for an awesome tune).

They are just on a different level (lower) to custom work done for your, specific motor.

[Transporter]

Im sorry i disagree. A generic tune made for any and every car is just that. A generic tune. Everyone knows that each motor is made differently and will always vary in power output across the same model of engine.

For that reason, if you want your car tuned perfectly, you get a custom tune by a good tuner.

Tunes you can get via an email are very "wham bam thank you mam", and whilst I admit they serve a purpose, (that purpose really to maximize profits and minimize effort and time tuning a car - hence them taking 15mins to install compared to 3 hours + technical work for an awesome tune).

They are just on a different level (lower) to custom work done for your, specific motor.

I'm sure that DNA Tuning was talking about; that customer should see the power increase and it should be reasonably smooth without any hickups.