Neuspeed chip!!!!!!!!!

Yep that's right, I finally took the plunge and got the .8bar Neuspeed on
my recently purchased 99.5 1.8QTM.

WOW! Night and day! I love my Audi!!!

Why did I go for Neuspeed, well mainly price and also a conservative
upgrade. I was also contemplating the Garret 1bar but I would also have to
get new plugs and a new TT DV so the overall cost was a lot less for the
Neuspeed and a lot less inconvenience for me to get this installed.

The "BIG" difference is the 1st & 2nd gear at @3.5k rpm and also
downshifting on the highway.

Anyone thinking of chipping their 1.8T should just do it - this is a real
beast!

Darren
Montreal Canada

Let me know what happens to your gas mileage. I have to commute 150 miles a
day. I could definately use some additional passing power, but I don't want
a big change in fuel economy.

Thanks
"darren" > wrote in message ...
>
> Yep that's right, I finally took the plunge and got the .8bar Neuspeed on
> my recently purchased 99.5 1.8QTM.
>
> WOW! Night and day! I love my Audi!!!
>
> Why did I go for Neuspeed, well mainly price and also a conservative
> upgrade. I was also contemplating the Garret 1bar but I would also have to
> get new plugs and a new TT DV so the overall cost was a lot less for the
> Neuspeed and a lot less inconvenience for me to get this installed.
>
> The "BIG" difference is the 1st & 2nd gear at @3.5k rpm and also
> downshifting on the highway.
>
> Anyone thinking of chipping their 1.8T should just do it - this is a real
> beast!
>
> Darren
> Montreal Canada
>
>
>

On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:47:09 -0400, "David" > wrote:
>"darren" > wrote in message ...
>>
>> Yep that's right, I finally took the plunge and got the .8bar Neuspeed on
>> my recently purchased 99.5 1.8QTM.
>>
>> WOW! Night and day! I love my Audi!!!
>>
>> Why did I go for Neuspeed, well mainly price and also a conservative
>> upgrade. I was also contemplating the Garret 1bar but I would also have to
>> get new plugs and a new TT DV so the overall cost was a lot less for the
>> Neuspeed and a lot less inconvenience for me to get this installed.
>>
>> The "BIG" difference is the 1st & 2nd gear at @3.5k rpm and also
>> downshifting on the highway.
>>
>> Anyone thinking of chipping their 1.8T should just do it - this is a real
>> beast!
>>
>Let me know what happens to your gas mileage. I have to commute 150 miles a
>day. I could definately use some additional passing power, but I don't want
>a big change in fuel economy.

In theory, mileage shouldn't be affected by increasing maximum boost pressure
(which is essentially what the chip change provides). If you somehow manage to
drive the same routes with the same "vigor" as pre-chipping, fuel consumption
should not change.

But, that may be difficult - new toys can be such fun, and if your car *can*
go faster, there's a good chance you'll make it happen ;-)

/daytripper
'00 s4 6spd

I found that my Oettinger chip runs the car more economically than stock. At
first I couldn't believe it, but then I checked and what used to be some 9.0
l /100km is now 8.7 l.

You may want to think it this way: given a certain amount of gas pedal
flooring the car now offers more torque , which means you don't need to
depress the pedal as deep as you used to. That is if we're talking the same
roads, acceleration and speeds, granted.

JP Roberts


"daytripper" > escribió en el mensaje
...
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:47:09 -0400, "David" > wrote:
> >"darren" > wrote in message
...
> >>
> >> Yep that's right, I finally took the plunge and got the .8bar Neuspeed
on
> >> my recently purchased 99.5 1.8QTM.
> >>
> >> WOW! Night and day! I love my Audi!!!
> >>
> >> Why did I go for Neuspeed, well mainly price and also a conservative
> >> upgrade. I was also contemplating the Garret 1bar but I would also have
to
> >> get new plugs and a new TT DV so the overall cost was a lot less for
the
> >> Neuspeed and a lot less inconvenience for me to get this installed.
> >>
> >> The "BIG" difference is the 1st & 2nd gear at @3.5k rpm and also
> >> downshifting on the highway.
> >>
> >> Anyone thinking of chipping their 1.8T should just do it - this is a
real
> >> beast!
> >>
> >Let me know what happens to your gas mileage. I have to commute 150
miles a
> >day. I could definately use some additional passing power, but I don't
want
> >a big change in fuel economy.
>
> In theory, mileage shouldn't be affected by increasing maximum boost
pressure
> (which is essentially what the chip change provides). If you somehow
manage to
> drive the same routes with the same "vigor" as pre-chipping, fuel
consumption
> should not change.
>
> But, that may be difficult - new toys can be such fun, and if your car
*can*
> go faster, there's a good chance you'll make it happen ;-)
>
> /daytripper
> '00 s4 6spd
>
>

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 15:27:35 +0200, "JP Roberts" > wrote:
>
>"daytripper" > escribió en el mensaje
.. .
>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:47:09 -0400, "David" > wrote:
>> >"darren" > wrote in message
...
>> >>
>> >> Yep that's right, I finally took the plunge and got the .8bar Neuspeed
>on
>> >> my recently purchased 99.5 1.8QTM.
>> >>
>> >> WOW! Night and day! I love my Audi!!!
>> >>
>> >> Why did I go for Neuspeed, well mainly price and also a conservative
>> >> upgrade. I was also contemplating the Garret 1bar but I would also have
>to
>> >> get new plugs and a new TT DV so the overall cost was a lot less for
>the
>> >> Neuspeed and a lot less inconvenience for me to get this installed.
>> >>
>> >> The "BIG" difference is the 1st & 2nd gear at @3.5k rpm and also
>> >> downshifting on the highway.
>> >>
>> >> Anyone thinking of chipping their 1.8T should just do it - this is a
>real
>> >> beast!
>> >>
>> >Let me know what happens to your gas mileage. I have to commute 150
>miles a
>> >day. I could definately use some additional passing power, but I don't
>want
>> >a big change in fuel economy.
>>
>> In theory, mileage shouldn't be affected by increasing maximum boost
>pressure
>> (which is essentially what the chip change provides). If you somehow
>manage to
>> drive the same routes with the same "vigor" as pre-chipping, fuel
>consumption
>> should not change.
>>
>> But, that may be difficult - new toys can be such fun, and if your car
>*can*
>> go faster, there's a good chance you'll make it happen ;-)

>I found that my Oettinger chip runs the car more economically than stock. At
>first I couldn't believe it, but then I checked and what used to be some 9.0
>l /100km is now 8.7 l.
>
>You may want to think it this way: given a certain amount of gas pedal
>flooring the car now offers more torque , which means you don't need to
>depress the pedal as deep as you used to. That is if we're talking the same
>roads, acceleration and speeds, granted.
>
>JP Roberts

But energy is energy - regardless of "foot position". Assuming the weight of
the car and all sources of friction remain constant, the same amount of thrust
should result in the same amount of fuel consumption, regardless of how deeply
the throttle pedal is depressed.

Or maybe some of the laws of physics and some basic chemistry theory have been
repealed?

/daytripper
'00 s4 6spd

> But energy is energy - regardless of "foot position". Assuming the weight
of
> the car and all sources of friction remain constant, the same amount of
thrust
> should result in the same amount of fuel consumption, regardless of how
deeply
> the throttle pedal is depressed.

You wrote "should" but the thing is it "does not" and a well-chipped car
consumes slightly less. Your argument is as wrong as saying that because all
people walk on two feet they eat the same if they exert the same amount of
thrust.

> Or maybe some of the laws of physics and some basic chemistry theory have
been
> repealed?

If you want a more accurate explanation, what happens is that engine
management is greatly improved. Now, in stock mode turbo boost is limited by
the N75 valve and the wastegate actuator following management orders that
set the average boost map at relatively low levels so that the engine feels
more linear to the layman. Because the car is stock-set to run with 95
Octane gasoline, ignition timing is not optimal for 98 octane gas. With the
chip, the timing is slightly advanced, so the same engine becomes
thermodinamically more efficient for obvious mechanical reasons. Apart from
this, average boost pressure is higher and the turbo spools at a more
natural rev interval, thus resulting in a lower frequency of actuation of
the above-mentioned valves, which means fewer "stop-and-goes", and which in
turn translates into better efficiency. Now remember efficiency is the only
real measure that trasnlates inversely into consumption and that is the most
elemental of physics.

Back to school, maybe?


JP Roberts

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:47:03 +0200, "JP Roberts" > wrote:

>
>> But energy is energy - regardless of "foot position". Assuming the weight
>of
>> the car and all sources of friction remain constant, the same amount of
>thrust
>> should result in the same amount of fuel consumption, regardless of how
>deeply
>> the throttle pedal is depressed.
>
>You wrote "should" but the thing is it "does not" and a well-chipped car
>consumes slightly less. Your argument is as wrong as saying that because all
>people walk on two feet they eat the same if they exert the same amount of
>thrust.
>
>> Or maybe some of the laws of physics and some basic chemistry theory have
>been
>> repealed?
>
>If you want a more accurate explanation, what happens is that engine
>management is greatly improved. Now, in stock mode turbo boost is limited by
>the N75 valve and the wastegate actuator following management orders that
>set the average boost map at relatively low levels so that the engine feels
>more linear to the layman. Because the car is stock-set to run with 95
>Octane gasoline, ignition timing is not optimal for 98 octane gas. With the
>chip, the timing is slightly advanced, so the same engine becomes
>thermodinamically more efficient for obvious mechanical reasons. Apart from
>this, average boost pressure is higher and the turbo spools at a more
>natural rev interval, thus resulting in a lower frequency of actuation of
>the above-mentioned valves, which means fewer "stop-and-goes", and which in
>turn translates into better efficiency. Now remember efficiency is the only
>real measure that trasnlates inversely into consumption and that is the most
>elemental of physics.
>
>Back to school, maybe?

Why - was there anything coherent and obviously true in the above?

What the heck is "spools at a more natural rev interval" supposed to mean?

And if boost pressure is higher, you must be using more fuel (that's a fact
born of basic chemistry) so how does that reduce fuel consumption?

The basic premise you are offering is that Audi actually chose lower
efficiency/higher fuel consumption than is possible on their own engine. Sorry
- I don't buy that for a second.

And as I doubt you or anyone can actually prove their chip *improves* fuel
mileage verses the stock chip maps created by the company that developed and
tested their own engine, I chalk your entire theory up to misguided
cheerleading born of an overdose of Unobtanium ;-)

But if it makes you feel better, so be it - I'm not challenging your ability
or proclivity in that regard...

hth ;-)

>
> What the heck is "spools at a more natural rev interval" supposed to mean?

It means that Audi fitted 1.8T A4s with the kkk03 turbine and low boost
engine management to keep engine response linear and thus make driving safer
for the average Mary. However, it's easy to tell that the amount of boost
mapped in stock mode is way under the optimal turbine revolution range - you
will only be able to understand this if you test drive a well-chipped 1.8T.
Now, you must know that optimality translates directly into better
efficiency. It must also be said, that some "worse" chips abuse boost over
optimal range thus jeopardizing turbo life and lowering efficiency.

> And if boost pressure is higher, you must be using more fuel (that's a
fact
> born of basic chemistry) so how does that reduce fuel consumption?
>
Because given a certain amount of energy at the wheel, it is more
efficiently produced - for example every time a valve opens and closes it
wastes energy, too.

> The basic premise you are offering is that Audi actually chose lower
> efficiency/higher fuel consumption than is possible on their own engine.
Sorry
> - I don't buy that for a second.

You're forgetting the whole point here. Audi made a car that was going to be
tremendously easy to drive because of its linear torque curve. When chipping
the car this curve becomes everything but linear and the average Mary will
find it more difficult to drive - when overtaking, for example, once you get
used to keeping revs between 2,500 and 4,000, if you want to make the most
out of the engine you need to keep it within that range. Also, it must not
be forgotten that the stock map is meant to be used with just about any
octane gas, including some of the worst, which in turn means that if mapping
had been advanced and you were using 95 octane gas you would be getting
"knocking" or detonation every so often, thus reducing engine longevity.

> And as I doubt you or anyone can actually prove their chip *improves* fuel
> mileage verses the stock chip maps created by the company that developed
and
> tested their own engine, I chalk your entire theory up to misguided
> cheerleading born of an overdose of Unobtanium ;-)

I would never say never, especially if I hadn't tried it. Some people - and
that apparently includes you - only subscribe to "seeing is believeing"; now
you must go and see for yourself

Cheers,

JP Roberts

Daytripper-
I too have heard that re-chipping _in some cases_ has increased mileage. I
think it has to do with the amount of lead in a driver's foot. If you have
a Yugo, lets say, and you drive it like you're trying to keep up to a pack
of 911's coming out of a track corner - you'll get absolutely horrible gas
mileage compared to that which is shown on the window sticker. You're used
to the acceleration of the car, but then you make more acceleration
available - not increasing the speed limit, just decreasing the time needed
to get there - the amount of time your foot is buried in the floor mats (and
then engine management is dumping fuel into the engine wholesale, neglecting
the feedback of the oxygen sensor). You'll see a decrease in fuel
consumption in this situation. Of course, with (ie a 5ktq turbocharger
which is used to pressurizing the IM to 1.4 bar - and then increasing that
to 1.8 bar - well, it's more work for the part (albeit, not above the
capability of a K26 turbo) - there are some prices that must be paid in
rechipping the car.
You'll probably not see the decrease if most of the miles are put on the car
are highway cruising miles and you don't drive with a 2-speed foot (on or
off) - but if you only drive around in-town, and have felt the resistance of
the throttle stop on your foot, you may notice a change.
Cheers!
Steve Sears
1987 Audi 5kTQ - QLCC'd - didn't notice a dif. in fuel consumption
1980 Audi 5k
1962 and '64 Auto Union DKW Junior deLuxes
(SPAM Blocker NOTE: Remove SHOES to reply)
"daytripper" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:47:03 +0200, "JP Roberts" > wrote:
>
> >
> >> But energy is energy - regardless of "foot position". Assuming the
weight
> >of
> >> the car and all sources of friction remain constant, the same amount of
> >thrust
> >> should result in the same amount of fuel consumption, regardless of how
> >deeply
> >> the throttle pedal is depressed.
> >
> >You wrote "should" but the thing is it "does not" and a well-chipped car
> >consumes slightly less. Your argument is as wrong as saying that because
all
> >people walk on two feet they eat the same if they exert the same amount
of
> >thrust.
> >
> >> Or maybe some of the laws of physics and some basic chemistry theory
have
> >been
> >> repealed?
> >
> >If you want a more accurate explanation, what happens is that engine
> >management is greatly improved. Now, in stock mode turbo boost is limited
by
> >the N75 valve and the wastegate actuator following management orders that
> >set the average boost map at relatively low levels so that the engine
feels
> >more linear to the layman. Because the car is stock-set to run with 95
> >Octane gasoline, ignition timing is not optimal for 98 octane gas. With
the
> >chip, the timing is slightly advanced, so the same engine becomes
> >thermodinamically more efficient for obvious mechanical reasons. Apart
from
> >this, average boost pressure is higher and the turbo spools at a more
> >natural rev interval, thus resulting in a lower frequency of actuation of
> >the above-mentioned valves, which means fewer "stop-and-goes", and which
in
> >turn translates into better efficiency. Now remember efficiency is the
only
> >real measure that trasnlates inversely into consumption and that is the
most
> >elemental of physics.
> >
> >Back to school, maybe?
>
> Why - was there anything coherent and obviously true in the above?
>
> What the heck is "spools at a more natural rev interval" supposed to mean?
>
> And if boost pressure is higher, you must be using more fuel (that's a
fact
> born of basic chemistry) so how does that reduce fuel consumption?
>
> The basic premise you are offering is that Audi actually chose lower
> efficiency/higher fuel consumption than is possible on their own engine.
Sorry
> - I don't buy that for a second.
>
> And as I doubt you or anyone can actually prove their chip *improves* fuel
> mileage verses the stock chip maps created by the company that developed
and
> tested their own engine, I chalk your entire theory up to misguided
> cheerleading born of an overdose of Unobtanium ;-)
>
> But if it makes you feel better, so be it - I'm not challenging your
ability
> or proclivity in that regard...
>
> hth ;-)

On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:34:31 +0200, "JP Roberts" > wrote:
[snipped]
>I would never say never, especially if I hadn't tried it. Some people - and
>that apparently includes you - only subscribe to "seeing is believeing"; now
>you must go and see for yourself

Cheers - I'm very big on "seeing is believing" when it comes to claims about
fuel mileage. After all, there's an entire industry producing dubious add-ons
that make similar claims that never pan out to rest my doubts on ;-)

When it's all said, I suspect the higher octane fuel you're apparently using
allows slightly more advanced timing which could indeed modestly improve
efficiency. The changes to boost management doesn't seem intrinsically linked
to efficiency - chemistry is chemistry unless you want friend exhaust valves -
and who can judge subtle changes in mileage with accuracy when boost is
anywhere near where the relief valve(s) are opening?

God knows when I'm enjoying significant boost I'm not paying much attention to
the HUD mileage reading - aside from some wonderment that I can get that down
to a "5" ;-)

/daytripper
'00 s4 6spd