Official APR Tuned 997TT FAQ Thread......
#256
06-25-2010, 11:26 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Athens
Age: 47
Posts: 1,671
Rep Power: 133 
#257
06-25-2010, 12:43 PM
I don't get this, and why people don't understand what they don't want.
When I read APR's site for the first time I fully understood how they achieved the gains they achieved. They have figured out how to control the variable vains of the turbo chargers to create huge boost down low, and then taper the boost up top for longevity and saving the trubo chargers. They specifically state that their tune differs from those other tuners who leave the factory vain provile operation the same and just adjust duty cycle to increase boost, therefore keeping a realitively stock boost profile downlow until the exhaust gas has generated enough energy to produce more boost.
This make 100% since to me, and it wouldn't surprise me if they are running a boost profile for ~20psi tapering down to 1bar at redline, while other tuners are running more of a flat profile that comes on later and essentialy holding 1.2bar and therefore have greater HP and what appears to be lower tq per hp. There are alot of platforms, that when tuning stock turbos run a tapering boost profile with huge tq gains down low, and limited hp gains up top, but considerable area under the curve.
APR realized that they were only going to go as far as a flash for the 997tt plaform, and optimized it. They also did this when tuning the B5 S4 with only 2 software revisions over 8 years for stage 3 applications (upgraded turbost), while other more famed (GIAC) tuner went though countless revisions, of which I was a part of atleast 8 revisions, and 4 different configurations that still didn't work as advertised. They never claimed to be the fastest, but they were consitant and the product worked as advertised, unlike some others. They also never jumped in the middle of a poo flinging contest like that which is occuring here, and that's why they are not in this thread.
If someone is going to claim tune superiority, give me some real logs with, Requested boost, Actual boost, Duty cycle, injector duty cycle, injector on time, graphical representation in G's for acceleration, AFR, lambada, IAT, timing, ignition correction, and airflow. Even while analyzing all that data we still considered ourselves keyboard tuners. Ohh yea, APR wrote the logging tool that allowed the community to do this, and is the only tuner that has provided such a resource publically. I'm sure come of the superior tuners mentioned in this thread that even used this product trouble shooting their tuning issues.
I feel APR is going to win this one.
When I read APR's site for the first time I fully understood how they achieved the gains they achieved. They have figured out how to control the variable vains of the turbo chargers to create huge boost down low, and then taper the boost up top for longevity and saving the trubo chargers. They specifically state that their tune differs from those other tuners who leave the factory vain provile operation the same and just adjust duty cycle to increase boost, therefore keeping a realitively stock boost profile downlow until the exhaust gas has generated enough energy to produce more boost.
This make 100% since to me, and it wouldn't surprise me if they are running a boost profile for ~20psi tapering down to 1bar at redline, while other tuners are running more of a flat profile that comes on later and essentialy holding 1.2bar and therefore have greater HP and what appears to be lower tq per hp. There are alot of platforms, that when tuning stock turbos run a tapering boost profile with huge tq gains down low, and limited hp gains up top, but considerable area under the curve.
APR realized that they were only going to go as far as a flash for the 997tt plaform, and optimized it. They also did this when tuning the B5 S4 with only 2 software revisions over 8 years for stage 3 applications (upgraded turbost), while other more famed (GIAC) tuner went though countless revisions, of which I was a part of atleast 8 revisions, and 4 different configurations that still didn't work as advertised. They never claimed to be the fastest, but they were consitant and the product worked as advertised, unlike some others. They also never jumped in the middle of a poo flinging contest like that which is occuring here, and that's why they are not in this thread.
If someone is going to claim tune superiority, give me some real logs with, Requested boost, Actual boost, Duty cycle, injector duty cycle, injector on time, graphical representation in G's for acceleration, AFR, lambada, IAT, timing, ignition correction, and airflow. Even while analyzing all that data we still considered ourselves keyboard tuners. Ohh yea, APR wrote the logging tool that allowed the community to do this, and is the only tuner that has provided such a resource publically. I'm sure come of the superior tuners mentioned in this thread that even used this product trouble shooting their tuning issues.
I feel APR is going to win this one.
#258
06-25-2010, 01:29 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: GTA, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,666
Rep Power: 235 I don't get this, and why people don't understand what they don't want.
When I read APR's site for the first time I fully understood how they achieved the gains they achieved. They have figured out how to control the variable vains of the turbo chargers to create huge boost down low, and then taper the boost up top for longevity and saving the trubo chargers. They specifically state that their tune differs from those other tuners who leave the factory vain provile operation the same and just adjust duty cycle to increase boost, therefore keeping a realitively stock boost profile downlow until the exhaust gas has generated enough energy to produce more boost.
This make 100% since to me, and it wouldn't surprise me if they are running a boost profile for ~20psi tapering down to 1bar at redline, while other tuners are running more of a flat profile that comes on later and essentialy holding 1.2bar and therefore have greater HP and what appears to be lower tq per hp. There are alot of platforms, that when tuning stock turbos run a tapering boost profile with huge tq gains down low, and limited hp gains up top, but considerable area under the curve.
APR realized that they were only going to go as far as a flash for the 997tt plaform, and optimized it. They also did this when tuning the B5 S4 with only 2 software revisions over 8 years for stage 3 applications (upgraded turbost), while other more famed (GIAC) tuner went though countless revisions, of which I was a part of atleast 8 revisions, and 4 different configurations that still didn't work as advertised. They never claimed to be the fastest, but they were consitant and the product worked as advertised, unlike some others. They also never jumped in the middle of a poo flinging contest like that which is occuring here, and that's why they are not in this thread.
If someone is going to claim tune superiority, give me some real logs with, Requested boost, Actual boost, Duty cycle, injector duty cycle, injector on time, graphical representation in G's for acceleration, AFR, lambada, IAT, timing, ignition correction, and airflow. Even while analyzing all that data we still considered ourselves keyboard tuners. Ohh yea, APR wrote the logging tool that allowed the community to do this, and is the only tuner that has provided such a resource publically. I'm sure come of the superior tuners mentioned in this thread that even used this product trouble shooting their tuning issues.
I feel APR is going to win this one.
When I read APR's site for the first time I fully understood how they achieved the gains they achieved. They have figured out how to control the variable vains of the turbo chargers to create huge boost down low, and then taper the boost up top for longevity and saving the trubo chargers. They specifically state that their tune differs from those other tuners who leave the factory vain provile operation the same and just adjust duty cycle to increase boost, therefore keeping a realitively stock boost profile downlow until the exhaust gas has generated enough energy to produce more boost.
This make 100% since to me, and it wouldn't surprise me if they are running a boost profile for ~20psi tapering down to 1bar at redline, while other tuners are running more of a flat profile that comes on later and essentialy holding 1.2bar and therefore have greater HP and what appears to be lower tq per hp. There are alot of platforms, that when tuning stock turbos run a tapering boost profile with huge tq gains down low, and limited hp gains up top, but considerable area under the curve.
APR realized that they were only going to go as far as a flash for the 997tt plaform, and optimized it. They also did this when tuning the B5 S4 with only 2 software revisions over 8 years for stage 3 applications (upgraded turbost), while other more famed (GIAC) tuner went though countless revisions, of which I was a part of atleast 8 revisions, and 4 different configurations that still didn't work as advertised. They never claimed to be the fastest, but they were consitant and the product worked as advertised, unlike some others. They also never jumped in the middle of a poo flinging contest like that which is occuring here, and that's why they are not in this thread.
If someone is going to claim tune superiority, give me some real logs with, Requested boost, Actual boost, Duty cycle, injector duty cycle, injector on time, graphical representation in G's for acceleration, AFR, lambada, IAT, timing, ignition correction, and airflow. Even while analyzing all that data we still considered ourselves keyboard tuners. Ohh yea, APR wrote the logging tool that allowed the community to do this, and is the only tuner that has provided such a resource publically. I'm sure come of the superior tuners mentioned in this thread that even used this product trouble shooting their tuning issues.
I feel APR is going to win this one.
#259
06-25-2010, 02:47 PM
It does sound like it makes sense. But so does "we just took those lithium crystals and turned them into dilithium and suddenly we can go warp 9.8, and the Klingons never figured that out". It's nice marketing words, but would be nice to see some proof rather than speculation. I'm not saying you are wrong, but clearly it would be of value if APR would comment on this (like they did on other topics at Matt's request).
Why should they have to and other tuner's not? Until someone show's the data that makes their tune superior. At a minimum to even compare tunes you would need actual boost, ignition advance (correction would be nice), as well as airflow. There is no reason for them to produce more than others, other than they dont' have fanboy status. The only factor that I have seen people mention here is boost......boost is worthless without associated timing. Which is then a factor of IAT and octane, it goes on and on.
Matt has posted a dyno that backed up APR's claims (That was immediately dismissed and I still don't know why), posted a sreaming fast 1/4 mile slip, that was discounted, and has offered to post more slips. The Greek 997TT is running fast and also more than 93 oct and dynamag wheels, I could see this making up a good amount of time on a pull this long (the biggest variable in this test that no one has mentioned to date), what about the temp, it could have been 30degF and that will make a significant difference.
There are too many variables to compare a tune soley on boost and acceleration time. So it's not worth comparing a tune to this extent until someone provides a tool that can really see what a tune is doing during the actual log, and not just Vbox data.
Anyways, give matt some time and the information will come out. It will back it's self up, there is no way it can't with a 10.5 slip. There is no voodoo magic going on, the tune runs more boost and timing than stock, and they taper it up top. Other tunes run less boost down low, and a little more boost up top than APR. End of story, that's all your going to get with boost and VBox data.
#260
06-25-2010, 02:59 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: GTA, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 2,666
Rep Power: 235 Why should they have to and other tuner's not? Until someone show's the data that makes their tune superior. At a minimum to even compare tunes you would need actual boost, ignition advance (correction would be nice), as well as airflow. There is no reason for them to produce more than others, other than they dont' have fanboy status. The only factor that I have seen people mention here is boost......boost is worthless without associated timing. Which is then a factor of IAT and octane, it goes on and on.
Matt has posted a dyno that backed up APR's claims (That was immediately dismissed and I still don't know why), posted a sreaming fast 1/4 mile slip, that was discounted, and has offered to post more slips. The Greek 997TT is running fast and also more than 93 oct and dynamag wheels, I could see this making up a good amount of time on a pull this long (the biggest variable in this test that no one has mentioned to date), what about the temp, it could have been 30degF and that will make a significant difference.
There are too many variables to compare a tune soley on boost and acceleration time. So it's not worth comparing a tune to this extent until someone provides a tool that can really see what a tune is doing during the actual log, and not just Vbox data.
Anyways, give matt some time and the information will come out. It will back it's self up, there is no way it can't with a 10.5 slip. There is no voodoo magic going on, the tune runs more boost and timing than stock, and they taper it up top. Other tunes run less boost down low, and a little more boost up top than APR. End of story, that's all your going to get with boost and VBox data.
Matt has posted a dyno that backed up APR's claims (That was immediately dismissed and I still don't know why), posted a sreaming fast 1/4 mile slip, that was discounted, and has offered to post more slips. The Greek 997TT is running fast and also more than 93 oct and dynamag wheels, I could see this making up a good amount of time on a pull this long (the biggest variable in this test that no one has mentioned to date), what about the temp, it could have been 30degF and that will make a significant difference.
There are too many variables to compare a tune soley on boost and acceleration time. So it's not worth comparing a tune to this extent until someone provides a tool that can really see what a tune is doing during the actual log, and not just Vbox data.
Anyways, give matt some time and the information will come out. It will back it's self up, there is no way it can't with a 10.5 slip. There is no voodoo magic going on, the tune runs more boost and timing than stock, and they taper it up top. Other tunes run less boost down low, and a little more boost up top than APR. End of story, that's all your going to get with boost and VBox data.
#261
06-25-2010, 03:35 PM
what you say is sensible but did you miss the part in the previous postings where it was stated that APR doesn't use ANY MORE THAN 1BAR OF BOOST???? Forget tapering boosts, who asked about where in the powerband the boost was? It was clearly claimed that the APR tune doesn't use more than 1 bar to get these astounding results. Bovine excrement.
It was claimed by one user that he didn't see any more than 1 bar visually. Even if yo hook up an external mechanical guage it's tough to say difenitively that the car runs only 1 bar visually at these power and speed levels. If you look at APR's sight it says that boost is based on load. If the conditions allow the tune will run less boost. For example if you are in europe and have higher oct ~95 for a tune that is designed for 93 it may not require the same level of boost to reach the requested load, IAT's also play a significant role in this. Now we don't know if the timing control is this active. I think you can assume that the tune runs more boost down low and is consistant with what Matt's customers are seeing in normal conditions. The outlyer running less boost is in europe is very different conditions including higher octane, and basically the lightest wheels available to the public. I don't know how super light wheels may or may not effect load based tuning, but I think this is a factor that is being overlooked.
#262
06-25-2010, 04:03 PM
what you say is sensible but did you miss the part in the previous postings where it was stated that APR doesn't use ANY MORE THAN 1BAR OF BOOST???? Forget tapering boosts, who asked about where in the powerband the boost was? It was clearly claimed that the APR tune doesn't use more than 1 bar to get these astounding results. Bovine excrement.
APR's rep did not give a specific boost value or actually mention boost at all. They did however say that their tune uses varying maps depending on engine and environment (ie. EGT, knock, temp) parameters to achieve a specific load. In their website APR states that they vary actual boost depending on load. See both quotes below.
Originally Posted by APR's Response
It's almost always related to drivability, reliability and fuel economy. Operating modes such as part throttle and cold start, etc. require completely different changes that are connected to the primary WOT load maps. To make power, you have to raise the requested load levels and many tuners stop at that. To make consistent power, you have to dial in other maps that take effect as say EGT's rise to a predetermined spec set by Porsche in the DME. There are multiple fueling surfaces for example that are active dependent upon knock and EGT's. Many tuners will merely calibrate the primary map and turn those other maps off.
The ecu has the ability to extrapolate other operating modes from those WOT load maps through calculations and algorithms inherent to the ecu but if your change is outside of the range of those abilities to adapt, you need to change a lot more maps for those other operating modes. It's easy to ignore them or to merely set the operation modes very similar to that of WOT but you lose a lot of ecu's ability to adapt to different operating modes. Some tuners do it by changing the location of where maps are called upon. For example, some tuners will lock the ecu into only the use of a single timing map, when there may be 30+, by changing the identifier or pointer in the code of where the ecu should look for different timing maps in different locations to the one map they've calibrated. This means you are operating in the same timing range for all conditions as WOT which is very 1990's as far as ECU technology goes and it affects drivability, fuel economy and adaptation more than some people realize. It's just a less time consuming way of doing it than we or the OEM's do.
The ecu has the ability to extrapolate other operating modes from those WOT load maps through calculations and algorithms inherent to the ecu but if your change is outside of the range of those abilities to adapt, you need to change a lot more maps for those other operating modes. It's easy to ignore them or to merely set the operation modes very similar to that of WOT but you lose a lot of ecu's ability to adapt to different operating modes. Some tuners do it by changing the location of where maps are called upon. For example, some tuners will lock the ecu into only the use of a single timing map, when there may be 30+, by changing the identifier or pointer in the code of where the ecu should look for different timing maps in different locations to the one map they've calibrated. This means you are operating in the same timing range for all conditions as WOT which is very 1990's as far as ECU technology goes and it affects drivability, fuel economy and adaptation more than some people realize. It's just a less time consuming way of doing it than we or the OEM's do.
Originally Posted by APR's Website
To dramatically increase power and maintain factory drivability there are many factors to be considered. One of note is the internal boost-controller, which requests boost according to load measured by the ECU. Inconsistencies and "surging" are things you will not feel in APR software because we properly match the cars actual boost produced with the load-based requested boost from the ECU.
So where do we stand with this boost dilemma?
We have heard what both APR and it's dealer have to say. We just need some actual numbers. Matthew@GMP seems more than enthusiastic in providing us with all the proof we need, so I guess we just need to wait and give him time to set up these tests.
PS. I'm weary of taking anyone's word on boost being 14.5 psi (1 bar) max without any concrete proof. Having owned a turbo car in one form or another for the past 15 years, I know there is quite a difference between 14.5 and 18-20 psi in terms of power output. Plus some have reported that the stock gauge will show 1 bar regardless. PSI can be calculated from ECU values available through datalogging but involve calculation and conversion. The answer here is simple: mechanical (or even electronic) boost gauge.
#263
06-25-2010, 04:07 PM
I disagree. It might be tough if you're also driving, but it's easy enough for someone that is is only watching the gauge. As long as you do it in say third gear, you can get a great map of boost throughout the entire RPM range.
#264
06-25-2010, 04:22 PM
If you look at APR's sight it says that boost is based on load. If the conditions allow the tune will run less boost. For example if you are in europe and have higher oct ~95 for a tune that is designed for 93 it may not require the same level of boost to reach the requested load, IAT's also play a significant role in this.
APR (and other tuners for that matter) use similar if not the same maps for US and Europe, they just name them differently depending on country.
Here's a table I lifted from a post on a BMW board.
Actual octane rating table
<table style="border: 1px solid rgb(221, 221, 221);" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="20%"><tbody><tr style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(102, 102, 102); size: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><td>EURO RON</td><td>MON</td><td>US: (R+M)/2</td></tr><tr style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(204, 204, 204); size: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><td>90</td><td>83</td><td>86.5</td></tr><tr style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(255, 255, 255); size: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><td>92</td><td>85</td><td>88.5</td></tr><tr style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(204, 204, 204); size: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><td>95</td><td>87</td><td>91</td></tr><tr style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(255, 255, 255); size: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><td>96</td><td>88</td><td>92</td></tr><tr style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(204, 204, 204); size: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><td>98</td><td>90</td><td>94</td></tr><tr style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(255, 255, 255); size: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><td>100</td><td>91.5</td><td>95.75</td></tr><tr style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(204, 204, 204); size: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><td>105</td><td>95</td><td>100</td></tr><tr style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% rgb(255, 255, 255); size: 10px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><td>110</td><td>99</td><td>104.5</td></tr></tbody></table>
http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259770
#265
06-25-2010, 05:00 PM
I agree with you, just pointing out that the visual data from one customer can not be interpreted as being fact of which to hold APR against, as many have been doing here. I agree everything else you have posted too.
#267
06-25-2010, 05:23 PM
Just had a chat with my client with the 997TT and tubi race exhaust before I picked it up,
He did a few runs this morning, wasn't able to get to a 130 today from 60 as he had to start braking at 125-128sih before having to slow down for traffic.
He did do 30-100 in 7 seconds. and 50 mph to 70 mph in 1.4 seconds.
Dan will down the data tonight when he gets home from the office and email it to me to post up. I have some classes for new dads this weekend and continue working on the nursery so it might be Monday before I can post them up. I do have some more quarter mile times to post up on the first page from a tip car running consistan 10.5-10.7 seconds.
He did a few runs this morning, wasn't able to get to a 130 today from 60 as he had to start braking at 125-128sih before having to slow down for traffic.
He did do 30-100 in 7 seconds. and 50 mph to 70 mph in 1.4 seconds.
Dan will down the data tonight when he gets home from the office and email it to me to post up. I have some classes for new dads this weekend and continue working on the nursery so it might be Monday before I can post them up. I do have some more quarter mile times to post up on the first page from a tip car running consistan 10.5-10.7 seconds.
Why should they have to and other tuner's not? Until someone show's the data that makes their tune superior. At a minimum to even compare tunes you would need actual boost, ignition advance (correction would be nice), as well as airflow. There is no reason for them to produce more than others, other than they dont' have fanboy status. The only factor that I have seen people mention here is boost......boost is worthless without associated timing. Which is then a factor of IAT and octane, it goes on and on.
Matt has posted a dyno that backed up APR's claims (That was immediately dismissed and I still don't know why), posted a sreaming fast 1/4 mile slip, that was discounted, and has offered to post more slips. The Greek 997TT is running fast and also more than 93 oct and dynamag wheels, I could see this making up a good amount of time on a pull this long (the biggest variable in this test that no one has mentioned to date), what about the temp, it could have been 30degF and that will make a significant difference.
There are too many variables to compare a tune soley on boost and acceleration time. So it's not worth comparing a tune to this extent until someone provides a tool that can really see what a tune is doing during the actual log, and not just Vbox data.
Anyways, give matt some time and the information will come out. It will back it's self up, there is no way it can't with a 10.5 slip. There is no voodoo magic going on, the tune runs more boost and timing than stock, and they taper it up top. Other tunes run less boost down low, and a little more boost up top than APR. End of story, that's all your going to get with boost and VBox data.
Matt has posted a dyno that backed up APR's claims (That was immediately dismissed and I still don't know why), posted a sreaming fast 1/4 mile slip, that was discounted, and has offered to post more slips. The Greek 997TT is running fast and also more than 93 oct and dynamag wheels, I could see this making up a good amount of time on a pull this long (the biggest variable in this test that no one has mentioned to date), what about the temp, it could have been 30degF and that will make a significant difference.
There are too many variables to compare a tune soley on boost and acceleration time. So it's not worth comparing a tune to this extent until someone provides a tool that can really see what a tune is doing during the actual log, and not just Vbox data.
Anyways, give matt some time and the information will come out. It will back it's self up, there is no way it can't with a 10.5 slip. There is no voodoo magic going on, the tune runs more boost and timing than stock, and they taper it up top. Other tunes run less boost down low, and a little more boost up top than APR. End of story, that's all your going to get with boost and VBox data.
What do you exactly mean by other tunes run less boost down low?
#268
06-25-2010, 05:40 PM
[quote=What do you exactly mean by other tunes run less boost down low?[/quote]
Simply that APR requests alot of boost down low to generate massive tq, then tapers the boost down at redline to keep the turbos happy. So it may run 18-20psi between 3-5k then taper down to 15-16 at redline. Hence the huge tq spike, and realitively low hp at redline compared to the tq generated between 3-5k. This is speculation as there are no verified logs from the ecu (Not Vbox), but the data/dyno's/claims of cutch slippage at WOTso far support this profile in my opinion.
Simply that APR requests alot of boost down low to generate massive tq, then tapers the boost down at redline to keep the turbos happy. So it may run 18-20psi between 3-5k then taper down to 15-16 at redline. Hence the huge tq spike, and realitively low hp at redline compared to the tq generated between 3-5k. This is speculation as there are no verified logs from the ecu (Not Vbox), but the data/dyno's/claims of cutch slippage at WOTso far support this profile in my opinion.
#269
06-25-2010, 06:45 PM
Simply that APR requests alot of boost down low to generate massive tq, then tapers the boost down at redline to keep the turbos happy. So it may run 18-20psi between 3-5k then taper down to 15-16 at redline. Hence the huge tq spike, and realitively low hp at redline compared to the tq generated between 3-5k. This is speculation as there are no verified logs from the ecu (Not Vbox), but the data/dyno's/claims of cutch slippage at WOTso far support this profile in my opinion.
#270
06-25-2010, 07:27 PM
It is a rendition for marketing purposes, and they are estimating crank hp. Lets assume the dyno posted on the first page is a happy dyno and WHP is closer to crank hp. Stock the car did 500crank hp, which is believable with the bolt on's and 100oct, and about 475 crank tq. These are in line with APR's rendition of a stock car. Now look at the peak hp of the dyno 638hp vs APR's claimed 610hp, ok not exact but close different dynos, car's, day's etc....now look at the tq. 689tq vs APR's claimed 698tq, this is close enough in my book and the fact that it even comes close to backing up the claim is amazing. What this proves is the baseline hp to chipped hp gains on 100 oct are in line and support APR's claims.
Now take a look at the curves. Given APR's is a rendition and on 93 you can assume the boost profile on 100oct will be slightly different but follow the same logic. You see the same huge tq spike and fall. You also see the peak HP earlier in the rpm range and then starting to fall ever so slightly from 5,500 on. This is exactly where APR's takes a dip in their rendition.
93 oct is obviously a different animal, but I think this atleast backs up some of what APR has claimed on 100oct. And the claims on 100 are way more substantial than 93, so that's even more impressive. 700lbs on stock turbos with bolt ons an 100oct? That's nuts, but appears to have been backed up.
If you really want to compare tunes you need some tools, this is an example of what would help you out, but doesn't seem to be available for the 997tt. If you could get a log like this from APR and overlay it with another tune on a car with similar mods all your questions would be gone and the differences would be clear. APR wrote and delivered to the public the tool that pulled this data for the VW/Audi community. A member then built a template to drop the data and make these pretty charts, which were then adopted across the board by users. You all have to get your sh*t together and organize a quantitative way to measure performance other than 60-130 death pulls and
This is an B5RS4, one of a handful in the USA
http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4/msgs/11637.phtml
Now take a look at the curves. Given APR's is a rendition and on 93 you can assume the boost profile on 100oct will be slightly different but follow the same logic. You see the same huge tq spike and fall. You also see the peak HP earlier in the rpm range and then starting to fall ever so slightly from 5,500 on. This is exactly where APR's takes a dip in their rendition.
93 oct is obviously a different animal, but I think this atleast backs up some of what APR has claimed on 100oct. And the claims on 100 are way more substantial than 93, so that's even more impressive. 700lbs on stock turbos with bolt ons an 100oct? That's nuts, but appears to have been backed up.
If you really want to compare tunes you need some tools, this is an example of what would help you out, but doesn't seem to be available for the 997tt. If you could get a log like this from APR and overlay it with another tune on a car with similar mods all your questions would be gone and the differences would be clear. APR wrote and delivered to the public the tool that pulled this data for the VW/Audi community. A member then built a template to drop the data and make these pretty charts, which were then adopted across the board by users. You all have to get your sh*t together and organize a quantitative way to measure performance other than 60-130 death pulls and
This is an B5RS4, one of a handful in the USA
http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4/msgs/11637.phtml
Last edited by dsswain; 06-25-2010 at 07:48 PM.