The Real Impact of Chip Upgrade
RE: The Real Impact of Chip Upgrade
Turbos matted to small displacement engines are made for one reason, efficient power. Audi did not "de-tune" the car to just "de-tune" it from, say, a Euro spec vehicle. It is feasible that they "de-tuned" it for efficiency--to separate the car from that of others models (i.e. 2.8L), to provide greater powertrain longevity and possibly for the target market of buyers.
This engine design model is reflected directly in what we all know as the "turbo diesel" engine. A standalone diesel engine is extremely efficient (as is a naturally aspirated 4-cylinder engine in a Honda), but performance is lacking. To remedy this problem (i.e. provide greater performance) while maintaining much of the efficiency the manufacturer installs a turbo (or super) charger. The basic principle is that the turbo, without consuming much more of the engines natural resources will increase the "bang" that occurs when the gases in the combustion chamber ignite. The bigger the bang, the more power you get and the more efficiently power is created, the lower your consumption needs to be to obtain that power.
Thus, adding a turbo yields less consumption when compared to a naturally aspirated engine with the same performance. The only reason a system like this may be "tuned" differently is for the reasons stated in the first paragraph. The native goal of a turbo is to increase performance while maintaining economy... if they (i.e. Audi) "tuned" an engine to be a better performer, they would lose the highly valued efficiency. In terms of mass marketing and buyer appeal it is better to allow an individual to make the choice to decrease efficiency in lieu of power on their own rather than make everyone suffer.
The A4 was built for economy but has the potential to be a true performer. <--- The Glorious German Automobile Philosophy
This engine design model is reflected directly in what we all know as the "turbo diesel" engine. A standalone diesel engine is extremely efficient (as is a naturally aspirated 4-cylinder engine in a Honda), but performance is lacking. To remedy this problem (i.e. provide greater performance) while maintaining much of the efficiency the manufacturer installs a turbo (or super) charger. The basic principle is that the turbo, without consuming much more of the engines natural resources will increase the "bang" that occurs when the gases in the combustion chamber ignite. The bigger the bang, the more power you get and the more efficiently power is created, the lower your consumption needs to be to obtain that power.
Thus, adding a turbo yields less consumption when compared to a naturally aspirated engine with the same performance. The only reason a system like this may be "tuned" differently is for the reasons stated in the first paragraph. The native goal of a turbo is to increase performance while maintaining economy... if they (i.e. Audi) "tuned" an engine to be a better performer, they would lose the highly valued efficiency. In terms of mass marketing and buyer appeal it is better to allow an individual to make the choice to decrease efficiency in lieu of power on their own rather than make everyone suffer.
The A4 was built for economy but has the potential to be a true performer. <--- The Glorious German Automobile Philosophy
I'm make believe
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 17,587
From: In my head
RE: The Real Impact of Chip Upgrade
ORIGINAL: greene08
The basic principle is that the turbo, without consuming much more of the engines natural resources will increase the "bang" that occurs when the gases in the combustion chamber ignite. The bigger the bang, the more power you get and the more efficiently power is created, the lower your consumption needs to be to obtain that power.
Thus, adding a turbo yields less consumption when compared to a naturally aspirated engine with the same performance.
The basic principle is that the turbo, without consuming much more of the engines natural resources will increase the "bang" that occurs when the gases in the combustion chamber ignite. The bigger the bang, the more power you get and the more efficiently power is created, the lower your consumption needs to be to obtain that power.
Thus, adding a turbo yields less consumption when compared to a naturally aspirated engine with the same performance.
The reason a turbo 4 gets better gas milage is because it runs like a tiny 1.8L engine until you acceratate and increase load and creating boost. Otherwise crusing on at any given speed, it is in vacuum and not using any more gas than a n/a 1.8 car should be consuming. Now this "bang" you speak of is the extra air the turbo forces into the engine, more air + more fuel = more power. People here are not that stupid (well, must of them) where you have to dumb it down to 3rd grade levels.
1st Gear
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 55
From:
RE: The Real Impact of Chip Upgrade
Considering the stock 2.0T and 3.2 n/a engines that have a 50HP difference, I was told by a couple of Audi dealers here in the mile high city that at 5,000 ftthe 3.2 n/a engine is reduced to about the same power as the 2.0T. True or false?
RE: The Real Impact of Chip Upgrade
ORIGINAL: cincyTT
The engine has natural resources? Like trees? Increase "bang"? Do you have any idea what your talking about?
The reason a turbo 4 gets better gas milage is because it runs like a tiny 1.8L engine until you acceratate and increase load and creating boost. Otherwise crusing on at any given speed, it is in vacuum and not using any more gas than a n/a 1.8 car should be consuming. Now this "bang" you speak of is the extra air the turbo forces into the engine, more air + more fuel = more power. People here are not that stupid (well, must of them) where you have to dumb it down to 3rd grade levels.
ORIGINAL: greene08
The basic principle is that the turbo, without consuming much more of the engines natural resources will increase the "bang" that occurs when the gases in the combustion chamber ignite. The bigger the bang, the more power you get and the more efficiently power is created, the lower your consumption needs to be to obtain that power.
Thus, adding a turbo yields less consumption when compared to a naturally aspirated engine with the same performance.
The basic principle is that the turbo, without consuming much more of the engines natural resources will increase the "bang" that occurs when the gases in the combustion chamber ignite. The bigger the bang, the more power you get and the more efficiently power is created, the lower your consumption needs to be to obtain that power.
Thus, adding a turbo yields less consumption when compared to a naturally aspirated engine with the same performance.
The reason a turbo 4 gets better gas milage is because it runs like a tiny 1.8L engine until you acceratate and increase load and creating boost. Otherwise crusing on at any given speed, it is in vacuum and not using any more gas than a n/a 1.8 car should be consuming. Now this "bang" you speak of is the extra air the turbo forces into the engine, more air + more fuel = more power. People here are not that stupid (well, must of them) where you have to dumb it down to 3rd grade levels.
I've learned through the course of my life that most people are not capable of understanding even some basic concepts and that most do not think beyond a 3rd grade level. For this reason, I dumb down what I say so that everyone can understand. You, clearly, are more understanding than most so you shouldn't have any problem with my explanation(s).
Your explanation of a 4-cylinder turbo is exactly the same as mine. While not utilizing the turbo's boost the engine consumes fuel much like that of a smaller displacement unit. When using boost, the power is equivalent that of a larger displacement engine while maintaining the economy of a smaller.
2nd Gear
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,165
RE: The Real Impact of Chip Upgrade
ORIGINAL: greene08
Your explanation of a 4-cylinder turbo is exactly the same as mine. Unless utilizing the turbo's boost the engine consumes fuel much like that of a smaller displacement unit. When using boost, the power is equivalent that of a larger displacement engine while maintaining the economy of a smaller.
Your explanation of a 4-cylinder turbo is exactly the same as mine. Unless utilizing the turbo's boost the engine consumes fuel much like that of a smaller displacement unit. When using boost, the power is equivalent that of a larger displacement engine while maintaining the economy of a smaller.
and this "Bang" you speak of:
ORIGINAL: greene08
The basic principle is that the turbo, without consuming much more of the engines natural resources will increase the "bang" that occurs when the gases in the combustion chamber ignite. The bigger the bang, the more power you get and the more efficiently power is created, the lower your consumption needs to be to obtain that power.
The basic principle is that the turbo, without consuming much more of the engines natural resources will increase the "bang" that occurs when the gases in the combustion chamber ignite. The bigger the bang, the more power you get and the more efficiently power is created, the lower your consumption needs to be to obtain that power.
when the fuel/air mixture isignited in the combusitonchamber, it is actually a slow burn. not an explosion. if it explodes, then that is called Detonation. which when detonation occurs (usually the result of bad tuning, carbon build up on the pistons causing hot spots,running lean, and many other things)you will blow your motor. piston(s) and valves will melt and you will be stranded on the side of the road..
so there goes, your Big "Bang" theory
2nd Gear
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,165
RE: The Real Impact of Chip Upgrade
ORIGINAL: cyberlogicx
You guys are actually missing the whole history of the 1.8T engine. Originally, Audi engineers made it too well, so, they had to cripple it by using software to throttle the turbo back, cut back the rev limiter, and overall make the engine weaker. Audi wanted the 2.8 N/A to be their flagship motor, and when the original 1.8T came out packing over 220hp, they needed to change that.
You guys are actually missing the whole history of the 1.8T engine. Originally, Audi engineers made it too well, so, they had to cripple it by using software to throttle the turbo back, cut back the rev limiter, and overall make the engine weaker. Audi wanted the 2.8 N/A to be their flagship motor, and when the original 1.8T came out packing over 220hp, they needed to change that.
im sorry, but that made me laugh
1st Gear
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 54
From:
RE: The Real Impact of Chip Upgrade
ORIGINAL: mrvuml
Considering the stock 2.0T and 3.2 n/a engines that have a 50HP difference, I was told by a couple of Audi dealers here in the mile high city that at 5,000 ftthe 3.2 n/a engine is reduced to about the same power as the 2.0T. True or false?
Considering the stock 2.0T and 3.2 n/a engines that have a 50HP difference, I was told by a couple of Audi dealers here in the mile high city that at 5,000 ftthe 3.2 n/a engine is reduced to about the same power as the 2.0T. True or false?