APR ECU Upgrade MK6 Golf - Customer perspective

[logger]

Nice one GTom. Any chance you did a second run without the tune active to highlight the difference the remap makes? Seems sort of meaningless unless there is anything to compare it to.
I have little understanding of dynos, so a Question: This engine is supposed to be around 118KW stock (or maybe more for yours) and your report shows it only develops the same 118KW with the remap. On face value one would expect more. Is this because one is measured at the flywheel and the other at the wheels? If so is there a rule of thumb to convert the methods?

[erko]

Nice one GTom. Any chance you did a second run without the tune active to highlight the difference the remap makes? Seems sort of meaningless unless there is anything to compare it to.
I have little understanding of dynos, so a Question: This engine is supposed to be around 118KW stock (or maybe more for yours) and your report shows it only develops the same 118KW with the remap. On face value one would expect more. Is this because one is measured at the flywheel and the other at the wheels? If so is there a rule of thumb to convert the methods?

gday, yes before AND after are key.

manufacturers quote Brake Horsepower/Kilowatts at the engine. A significant amount of power is lost through the driveline.....this varies for every vehicle depending on drive type (FWD/RWD/AWD) , transmission type and other variables. This is why before / after is key.

[logger]

before AND after are key..

Thanks now I understand. Wonder if we can scrounge a stock standard MK5 twincharger dyno run from somewhere to use as a rough comparison. No doubt plenty of variables still, but better than nothing.

[erko]

yes, that would be ideal. on the same dyno / transmission / dyno mode and ideally similar ambient temperature..of course there is some variance individual vehicle to the other but its close enough

[GTom]

If I get a chance to do another run somewhere/time in the future I'll try getting both tunes run....

But next will possibly be some sort of Down Pipe and air intake....

[POLARBEAR666]

If I get a chance to do another run somewhere/time in the future I'll try getting both tunes run....

But next will possibly be some sort of Down Pipe and air intake....

I have seen dyno runs of stock cars putting out that same ~120kw@wheels. Also seen some cars do runs of 110kw only, so if your car was lowish at 110kw range then 8kw peak gain is ok.

What really concerns me is that the torque figure is WAYYYYYY lower than what APR claims at engine. They claim 300nm+ and the derived torque on that dyno was low 200's! a stock result.
There is no way that the dyno was almost 100nm inaccurate so the torque reading is VERY low for what APR claim.

In contrast your on the road logs seem to show good real world driving gains. This could simply be due to more boost causing a change in gearchange selection by the car, less changes or changes to lower gears could account for your faster times. We really need some GTI results from that day.. or ask the dyno operator to overlay the most recent GTI he has had on that same dyno onto your chart.

[Maverick]

I have seen dyno runs of stock cars putting out that same ~120kw@wheels. Also seen some cars do runs of 110kw only, so if your car was lowish at 110kw range then 8kw peak gain is ok.

What really concerns me is that for some reason you seem to believe a dyno is a scientific device that has no room for error, perhaps consider the hundreds of variables that can and do affect the results.

What really concerns me is that the torque figure is WAYYYYYY lower than what APR claims at engine. They claim 300nm+ and the derived torque on that dyno was low 200's! a stock result.
There is no way that the dyno was almost 100nm inaccurate so the torque reading is VERY low for what APR claim.

There are many reasons why that dyno could have been that inaccurate.

In contrast your on the road logs seem to show good real world driving gains. This could simply be due to more boost causing a change in gearchange selection by the car, less changes or changes to lower gears could account for your faster times. We really need some GTI results from that day.. or ask the dyno operator to overlay the most recent GTI he has had on that same dyno onto your chart.

Doing any of any of those would be absolutely pointless. A dyno is a tuning device and not a power measurement device. They're really only useful for doing a before and after measurement and the manufacturers of the dynos say this as well.

Mainline Dyno

Dynapack say "Remember dynos are not an accurate power output device. A dyno is a tuning tool which allows a tuner to apply variable amounts of load on an engine testing its performance in all load and throttle positions. The only conclusive evidence which can be drawn from any dyno is a before and after result. A car started off with this much power, and now has this much."

http://sdsefi.com/techdyno.htm "Chassis dynos are essentially tuning aids, not true hp measurement devices. Use them to dial in your EMS mapping, not to brag to your friend's that you made XXX hp. When he blows you away at the stoplight, you'll just look, just, well, uninformed."

and so forth.....

[logger]

In contrast your on the road logs seem to show good real world driving gains. This could simply be due to more boost causing a change in gearchange selection by the car, less changes or changes to lower gears could account for your faster times.

Presumably there will be more boost with the tune and this could explain some of the performance gain. Probably more to it though. If you review the graphs above again, you will see that change points are noted and they do not differ until Stock takes 6th gear. Prior to this, the change points are identical with marked different acceleration. So my take on it is - increased engine torque is producing the improved acceleration. Which is what you would expect.

But I too would be interested in Guys comments re the Mainline Dyno log showing so much less torque that the APR figure for the tune. Apart from all the reasons Maverick mentions, explaining why chassis dynos are an inaccurate way to measure absolute engine torque. Could it just be that the APR figure is what they have calculated the tuned Engine torque is at the flywheel. They show this because it can be compared to VWs claimed 118kw & 240nM for the stock tune.
So for example in real simple terms they could Chassis dyno 1) stage 1 tune and 2) No tune, note the difference as xKW and yNM and apply these increments to known VW stock 118KW and 240NM engine dyno figures to the arrive at their claimed figures. Which seems reasonable to me..

[GTom]

But I too would be interested in Guys comments re the Mainline Dyno log showing so much less torque that the APR figure for the tune. Apart from all the reasons Maverick mentions, explaining why chassis dynos are an inaccurate way to measure absolute engine torque. Could it just be that the APR figure is what they have calculated the tuned Engine torque is at the flywheel. They show this because it can be compared to VWs claimed 118kw & 240nM for the stock tune.
So for example in real simple terms they could Chassis dyno log 1) stage 1 tune and 2) No tune, note the difference as xKW and yNM and apply these figures to known VW stock 118KW and 240NM to the arrive at their claimed figures. Which seems reasonable to me..

VWs figure is also a

which is also from an engine dyno and coluld not be produced on a chassis dyno.

whereas Dyno log the Chassis my guess it is due to how the two are measured.

http://www.vwwatercooled.org.au/newf...&postcount=129

[logger]

Thanks - that explains the gains APR measured between stock & tune - of which I have no doubt. It does not explain the apparent low figures you dyno'd compared to APRs peak figures of 151kw & 317nm. Just wanting Guy to confirm that apparent disparity is merely due to your figure being at the wheels and the APR one being what you would expect on an Engine Dyno if you could test it..