The Real Impact of Chip Upgrade
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,159
From:
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.
Boooo..... almost every car company limits the motors. look at bmw.. a 323 is the same as a 325 just limited down. a 328 is a 330 but again detuned. they all detune there motors. my guess would be so that they can make them last longer.
2nd Gear
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,165
RE: The Real Impact of Chip Upgrade
ORIGINAL: masteroc
I believe that this is true, ive heard something about altitude affecting the 3.2 before.
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?
the air is thiner and there for harder to fit the same volume of it into the engine as you usually do at sea level. forced induction (turbo/supercharged) cars don't suffernearly as much as naturally aspirated cars(N/A) due to the fact that they take that air and compress it anyways. but they all suffer
RE: The Real Impact of Chip Upgrade
ORIGINAL: sean1.8t
you do realize that you just contradicted yourself right? you can't have the best of both worlds at the same time. you have no power and great gas milieage when you are not in boost.OR, when you are in boost you have greater power and poor gas mileage. ONE or the other.. pretty sure i explained that in the best form of layman's terms i could..
and this "Bang" you speak of:
you do know that there should never be any big "bang" right?
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
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
I think you're taking my "bang" a little farther than I planned, which is alright, but unnecessary. I must note that using the words "slow burn" to explain what goes on inside an internal combustion engine is a bit misplaced... it is really tough to have a "slow burn" when your igniting oxygen and fuel at a rate faster than the human eye can interpret. The viewable difference between "detonation" and what is considered normal operation is extremely minuscule. Detonation is not actually a bigger "bang" (I like my 3rd grade word, thanks) but in this case a mis-fire (or premature spontaneous burning) in an internal combustion engine.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
