Any Feedback on Superchips?

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, (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

> wrote in message
...
> 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, (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 >
"Hairy One Kenobi" ]> 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 > wrote:
> In message >
> "Hairy One Kenobi" ]> 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" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-10-14, Peter Bell > wrote:
> > In message >
> > "Hairy One Kenobi" ]> 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

In message >
"Hairy One Kenobi" ]> wrote:

> 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)

Very interesting plots - the 'lumpiness' of the standard torque curve
looks rather 'untidy'. The low change points would seem to be due to
both the quicker rise in the standard torque curve, together with the
early droop.

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

Yep, I think the reason can be seen in those plots - the chipped car
nust be quite exhilarating to drive.

> 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.

Ah well - I have a preference for a 'lazier' style with a bigger, less
'buzzy' engine - hence the RS6, which can see off most other cars
without having to extend beyond 3.5 - 4k rpm. I'm still not sure
whether I need/want to chip it.

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

"Peter Bell" > wrote in message
...
> In message >
> "Hairy One Kenobi" ]> wrote:
>
> > 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)
>
> Very interesting plots - the 'lumpiness' of the standard torque curve
> looks rather 'untidy'. The low change points would seem to be due to
> both the quicker rise in the standard torque curve, together with the
> early droop.

I suspect that part of it is an artifact - the up-and-downess (?!?) of the
plot would tend to indicate a bit of wheel-slip on the rolling road.

That said, I must admit that I was still surprised at the difference in the
optimal change points (taken simply as "torque is best", rather than some
high-tech third order differential. Mathematical exactness is all well and
good, but the pub shuts at 11pm ;o)

> > I've not done any specific time measurements, but the car is very
> > obviously faster on the road - and feels it.
>
> Yep, I think the reason can be seen in those plots - the chipped car
> nust be quite exhilarating to drive.

Absolutely! I would dare to say - as it /should/ have driven, out of the
factory.

The Mk.I suspension even more so (i.e. the car that I test-drove, as opposed
to the car that was delivered) - the Mk.II is, in all likelihood, faster
across a given A to B route.

But only if you trust the car absolutely, as opposed to rely on "feel" and
size of cojones ;o) It's still *very* chuckable, but you don't get to feel
the Haldex transferring the torque. On the original, you did - heaviest
damn' go-kart I ever did drive!

>
> > 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.
>
> Ah well - I have a preference for a 'lazier' style with a bigger, less
> 'buzzy' engine - hence the RS6, which can see off most other cars
> without having to extend beyond 3.5 - 4k rpm. I'm still not sure
> whether I need/want to chip it.

Can't think that you would - this is my first "chip", on my first turbo.

I out-and-out prefer a well-tuned normally-aspirated engine (if for no other
reason than the sheer heat that this thing generates!), but the SuperChipped
225 does a very good imitation of such.

The standard 180 is, I think, much more interesting to drive than the
standard 225. I can't see that anything on the RS6 would really give a
noticeable benefit, even if you were to ignore the (quite reasonable) cost.

Both TTs are a little "porky", when compared to a 575kg Westfield. Although
the extras are rather nice (mmmmh.. heated seats)

H1K

I am also looking into installing one of these chips into my 98 A6. Your
recommended website apr.com links to a realtor's website. Any chance we can
get the full url? Thanks



On 10/10/04 11:31 PM, in article ,
" > wrote:

> 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, (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

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 20:04:24 -0500, Marco Morales >
wrote:
>
>On 10/10/04 11:31 PM, in article ,
" > wrote:
>
>> 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, (Simon) wrote:
>>
>>> Thinking about chipping my A4 1.8T (150 hp) Anyone used superchips
>>> (www.superchips.co.uk) and willing to share their experiences.
>>>
>I am also looking into installing one of these chips into my 98 A6. Your
>recommended website apr.com links to a realtor's website. Any chance we can
>get the full url? Thanks

www.goapr.com

And unless your A6 has a turbo, not much point in chipping it...