Welp, the 2011 G37x did its duty - 10 years and ~183,000 miles, and the only serious repair, right before I sold it, was some sort of fuel system issue. I got that fixed, plus did a lot throughout 2020 - new shocks, new brakes, new battery - so she was good for many more miles. Didn't use or leak oil, and even the driver seat showed only minor wear. The NVH, ride quality and sluggish transmission performance were all getting quite old however, and though it looked like it had ~50,000 miles, owing to age+miles was one moderate repair from being just about worthless. So, out the door she went. Most everything else I found terrible, especially mediocre/poor ride quality and abominable infotainment, especially amongst ze other German and Japanese marques.
The good:
- World class NVH mitigation
- World class ride quality
- Best infotainment in the business IMO
- Excellent transmission response
- Good interior space/package (a few inches shorter than the G, but a lot more passenger and cargo space)
- Decent exhaust sound (w/Audi factory quad tip upgrade)
- Decent acceleration up to ~80 mph
- Decent handling/brakes
- Extended service intervals (shortest maintenance item is 10,000 mile oil changes)
The so-so:
- Acceleration a bit sluggish above ~80 mph
- Some turbo lag (less than expected however)
- Dynamic steering is blah
- Fake-ish "performance" queues (manufactured exhaust backfire on down shift and crackle on upshift, comically harsh 1-2 and 2-3 shifts when using launch control)
- Apple Carplay connection is a bit sketchy when operated wirelessly
- Numerous minor ergo/setup quirks that all added up are a moderate PITA ("dynamic" mode starts in 2nd gear, "sport" mode won't shift into 8th gear, digital dash not nearly as configurable as it should be)
The bad:
- Sport Diff went bad within the first week and then it was at the dealer for a month waiting for a replacement (so far so good)
(https://i.ibb.co/kMwxV7m/IMG-6387.jpg)
My only real complaint is it needs 50-100 more hp. Really should be quicker, especially at freeway speeds. Other than that so far so good. Oh, well, other than the bad sport diff of course (a $9,500 repair if not under warranty).
wat
Welcome back!
Quote from: GoCougs on May 06, 2021, 07:02:37 AM
My only real complaint is it needs 50-100 more hp. Really should be quicker, especially at freeway speeds. Other than that so far so good. Oh, well, other than the bad sport diff of course (a $9,500 repair if not under warranty).
It sounds pretty nice. 349 hp not enough?
Why an SUV?
Congrats! :cheers:
Thanks, all. Thing is not many good cars are made today IMO - the S4 sedan and RS5 made the short list, but they're actually quite small inside, and though ride quality was okay, it pales in comparison to Audi's cars with air suspension. RS6 wagon would be about perfect but it's insane trying to get one - even more so than the C8 Corvette it seems. S6 is nice but too much $$$ for what it is (esp. that it's now slower (downgraded from V8TT to V6TT) and more expensive than its predecessor).
Definitely should be quicker :dance:. 400 hp minimum I'd say. But whatevs, still quick enough, and the transmission is responsive enough that it makes it feel a bit quicker than it is.
This is not a Camaro
Someone finally rescued him from his train room!
Ha congrats! :lol:
I was expecting a Camaro, but new Audi is not surprising. I am surprised though you went all the way with an S trim. I thought maybe an A4 All road would be enough.
Oh, a fun/sporty car is still on the radar, and there are a few options under review - the major decision now is buy and mod/fix vs. buy survivor/restored/modded vs. buy new(ish). Have lots going on and coming up, so I'm leaning toward the latter two. My bday is in August, and plan to make a decision by then.
Audi's non-S/RS cars are not very good - dull, esp. the motors. Would only ever by S or RS.
Nice! Congrats!
Quote from: MrH on May 07, 2021, 12:02:13 PM
I was expecting a Camaro, but new Audi is not surprising. I am surprised though you went all the way with an S trim. I thought maybe an A4 All road would be enough.
I didn't actually expect a Camaro as his main car, since he goes skiing and mountain biking way too often for a Camaro to work.
Cougs if you get a second car and go older/classic, I highly recommend something as close to stock as possible with zero rust and then do a bit of light restomodding improvements but nothing hardcore or more than bolt-on. That's the sweet spot of fun to drive and minimal headaches.
That is correct. Many weekends I'm going somewhere, sometimes with people, carrying either bike or ski stuff, and usually driving on snowy or dirt roads.
I've had a number of old cars and have done lots of modding but over the last ~500,000 miles the most I've done is change air filters. I'd do a head or (pooprod) cam swap in a heartbeat but engine or tranny swaps are a bridge too far at this point.
Have a line a pristine and fairly rare local RS LT '78 Camaro but the old timer and original owner is causing drama so probably not going to go anywhere. Most I'd do is head work, cam swap, and new diff gears.
The weather here is so lousy for ~7 months out of the year a car typically befitting legit summer tires is fairly useless for much of that time. However, just recently Continental released a "max performance" all season performance tire in Camaro SS, Corvette, etc., size so that opens up possibilities.
Have thought about having a local shop do a resto-mod but like some industries the last year they are now booked out to infinity. Could also buy a resto-mod. Many out there.
You might want to look at CrossClimates, which are high performance ASRs that are also three peak snowflake rated.
Congratulations on your new car!
You got a lot of good use out of your old G. Too bad Infiniti lost their way many years ago. You got the best vehicle for your needs/wants. Sporty, luxurious, roomy, and can go to where the bike trails/ski slopes are.
Did you look at the Porsche Macan? CarandDriver said the Macan was more sporty but not as luxurious a ride.
Thanks! I don't trust Porsche from a reliability/durability standpoint. The SQ5 is super related to the S4/S5 (all of which are based on the A4, and there is even some sharing with the A6), so with all that volume I'm thinking/hoping they've got more kinks worked out vs. the Macan (which doesn't so benefit from such scale/scope of product).
Quote from: GoCougs on May 09, 2021, 09:17:22 PM
Thanks! I don't trust Porsche from a reliability/durability standpoint. The SQ5 is super related to the S4/S5 (all of which are based on the A4, and there is even some sharing with the A6), so with all that volume I'm thinking/hoping they've got more kinks worked out vs. the Macan (which doesn't so benefit from such scale/scope of product).
?
The Macan has so much similarity with the Q5, that Porsche in the EU managed to certify it as a facelift of the Q5 rather then a whole new vehicle.
I always assumed the Macan and Q5 were the same vehicle (since they seemed so similar and were both owned by the same parent company), but I never really checked on it.
Quote from: Laconian on May 07, 2021, 10:02:55 PM
You might want to look at CrossClimates, which are high performance ASRs that are also three peak snowflake rated.
They work surprisingly well of the Alfa
Jesus. I've only got 5,000 miles on it and the tires are ~40% worn. Michelins of some sort - plenty of Tire Rack complaints of extremely poor tread life. They're just all-seasons, not summer tires. And they're on the expensive side too. Not sure what the hell it is they do well. It does ride nice and is whisper quiet though. And of course the snow tires are colossally expensive with few choices (Michelin X-Ice, which is fine, as they're the best I've owned).
Also had to embark on the requisite interior rattle jihad, that I must say was quite successful, though to be fair, I was well practiced after owning a Honda and then Infiniti for 150,000+ miles each. One rattle the dealer had to fix (buried in the dash) and the other I had to resort to the InnerTruths (rear hatch latch motor assembly, solved by extending the hatch bump stops thereby preloading said assembly into submission).
Quote from: GoCougs on May 17, 2021, 05:23:47 PM
Jesus. I've only got 5,000 miles on it and the tires are ~40% worn. Michelins of some sort - plenty of Tire Rack complaints of extremely poor tread life. They're just all-seasons, not summer tires. And they're on the expensive side too. Not sure what the hell it is they do well. It does ride nice and is whisper quiet though. And of course the snow tires are colossally expensive with few choices (Michelin X-Ice, which is fine, as they're the best I've owned).
Also had to embark on the requisite interior rattle jihad, that I must say was quite successful, though to be fair, I was well practiced after owning a Honda and then Infiniti for 150,000+ miles each. One rattle the dealer had to fix (buried in the dash) and the other I had to resort to the InnerTruths (rear hatch latch motor assembly, solved by extending the hatch bump stops thereby preloading said assembly into submission).
Come fix the fuel door on my Miata. I think it's missing a spring to hold it tight, so it rattles at stop lights.
Quote from: GoCougs on May 17, 2021, 05:23:47 PM
Jesus. I've only got 5,000 miles on it and the tires are ~40% worn. Michelins of some sort - plenty of Tire Rack complaints of extremely poor tread life. They're just all-seasons, not summer tires. And they're on the expensive side too. Not sure what the hell it is they do well. It does ride nice and is whisper quiet though. And of course the snow tires are colossally expensive with few choices (Michelin X-Ice, which is fine, as they're the best I've owned).
Also had to embark on the requisite interior rattle jihad, that I must say was quite successful, though to be fair, I was well practiced after owning a Honda and then Infiniti for 150,000+ miles each. One rattle the dealer had to fix (buried in the dash) and the other I had to resort to the InnerTruths (rear hatch latch motor assembly, solved by extending the hatch bump stops thereby preloading said assembly into submission).
I can't remember any of the new cars I've owned having anything other than shitty factory tires.
Quote from: Morris Minor on May 22, 2021, 05:36:16 AM
I can't remember any of the new cars I've owned having anything other than shitty factory tires.
The Bridgestones that come on new Miatas seem decent. (My only problem is that they're a summer tire, but not a sticky autocross tire. So they don't fit into my 2 sets of tires scheme)
Stock Bolt EV tires are great for efficiency but not grip. Easy to do burnouts with all the torque.
Quote from: Morris Minor on May 22, 2021, 05:36:16 AM
I can't remember any of the new cars I've owned having anything other than shitty factory tires.
The 2009 Escape we got for my wife came with a set of Michelin something something. They were Summer tires but the emphasis was on fuel efficiency at the time so they were steel belted for firmer road contact and less rolling resistance...so they said. Seemed to do the job and lasted forever, though we had snow tires on for 4-5 months each year. My daughter had the car for the last four years and I finally convinced her to get a new set of Summer tires this Spring. The car's got close to 300 km so I figure they did about 100+ miles. Still had some pretty good tread.
Aren't all-season tires notorious for quick wear and tear?
I was thinking about getting some for my car but I was advised by a tire shop not to because they're a compromise tire - not that good in the summers or in the winters, made for people who don't drive much and who above all don't drive very fast [on the Autobahns].
Quote from: cawimmer430 on May 23, 2021, 03:44:25 AM
Aren't all-season tires notorious for quick wear and tear?
I was thinking about getting some for my car but I was advised by a tire shop not to because they're a compromise tire - not that good in the summers or in the winters, made for people who don't drive much and who above all don't drive very fast [on the Autobahns].
The opposite IME - summer tires wear super quick (like 10,000-20,000 miles), are not good in the wet, just about useless under 45-50 F, and have worse ride and road noise. If I want them, I'm going have to NEED them (i.e., ultra hi-po car), since where I live it's wet and cold-ish for at least 6-7 months out of the year.
I had various "high performance" all-seasons on my my last car and they averaged ~30-40,000 miles (I replace tires well before the wear bars present because of ride quality and road noise degradation - they probably could have gone 40-50,000 miles officially). They work fine enough and the usefulness in the wet and cold is hugely more beneficial. One has to really push the car to feel the limitations. I switch to a dedicated winter tire (Michelin X-Ice is my go-to) as I drive a lot in deep snow.
OEM tires generally come with less tread depth then what you would buy from a tire shop.... Better mpgs and initial driving experience
Quote from: GoCougs on May 23, 2021, 07:01:50 AM
The opposite IME - summer tires wear super quick (like 10,000-20,000 miles), are not good in the wet, just about useless under 45-50 F, and have worse ride and road noise. If I want them, I'm going have to NEED them (i.e., ultra hi-po car), since where I live it's wet and cold-ish for at least 6-7 months out of the year.
I had various "high performance" all-seasons on my my last car and they averaged ~30-40,000 miles (I replace tires well before the wear bars present because of ride quality and road noise degradation - they probably could have gone 40-50,000 miles officially). They work fine enough and the usefulness in the wet and cold is hugely more beneficial. One has to really push the car to feel the limitations. I switch to a dedicated winter tire (Michelin X-Ice is my go-to) as I drive a lot in deep snow.
:ohyeah:
12,000 mile Update:
Oil usage has been almost imperceptible which is surprising with 0W-20 and 10,000 mile OCIs.
Average MPG is, I kid you not, virtually identical to the G at ~21.5 mpg. I will note if I take it easy I get higher than the G (28 vs. 25) but if I get on it hard it sucks WAY more gas, expected of course with a turbo motor.
Had to chase down a couple of rattles but I defeated them. The interior is loosening up a bit overall though.
Sometimes when getting on it acceleration seems flat. Expected on a hot day of course, but it's happened at normal temps too. Could be gas. I dunno. But that's what you get with turbos if you don't want a blown motor.
Major ergo and driving issues remain as noted in the first post. APR tune addresses pretty much all of them, but it also turns up the boost for a bit more power, so it voids the power train warranty. Not there yet, but I'm getting there.
Sorta regret not going with the RS6. Had it not been like gold-plated hens teeth when I bought this ($25k markup on average, all presold) I may have done that. Even now, with lightly used examples now for sale, ~$140k is the floor. Still a bridge too far.
More boost solves everything
Get a JB4 piggyback and just take it off for dealer trips
Quote from: r0tor on October 09, 2021, 01:32:14 PM
More boost solves everything
Get a JB4 piggyback and just take it off for dealer trips
I'm not so interested in performance. It's quick enough for what it is, and when it feels like it starts to under perform a bit, it's not until speeds that are extremely rare for me.
Beyond a boost/power bump the APR tune fixes these (major IMO) problems:
Weak throttle response (almost dangerously bad in Dynamic mode)
Starting in 2nd gear in Dynamic mode
Not shifting into 8th gear in Sport mode unless using cruise control
Auto start/stop
3,500 rpm stand still rev limiter
There are ECU tuners (i.e., hook up some chintzy controller or USB bluetooth dongle to a smartphone app) that addresses a lot of these things too without touching boost, but reports are they're all fairly hokey. APR actually modifies the ECU hardware (you have to send it in to them).
Have been researching tunes (mostly to address the myriad drivability and configuration complaints I have).
It's now to the point that dealers are refusing to work on cars that have a tune. For example, there have been multiple reports of dealers refusing a TSB update to the ECU and/or TCU after detecting a tune, under the apparent auspices that the update in combination with the tune could be harmful, and force a warranty issue that would not be covered anyway. Not good in denying to perform any work on it whatsoever. Don't blame the dealer really.
VW/Audi dealer tools check the flash counter of the ECU, so any OBD2 flash tuner will set off alarms to them and flag your car.
The way around that is "bench flashing" which modifies the parameters on the current flash... But needs to have the ECU sent to the tuner. An alternative is to purchase a new ECU and have the tuner clone the original and send you a new modified ECU to swap in.
Oh, they have efuses? Bahhh.
So despite the fact I am NOT a fan of tunes, esp. for turbo motors, I've decided to go with the APR Stage 1 tune for 91 octane, plus the APR intercooler and warranty (that covers/displaces the original factory power train warranty should drama arise). Power is nice but I need the driveability issues fixed pronto.
Lots of tuners out there, but APR is one of the biggest, if not the biggest for Audi, plus they have a well-reviewed tuner dealer near me (https://www.achtuning.com/). Also, they've since updated their process whereby the tuner dealer can perform the ECU tune down load - no more sending ECUs to an fro.
As to the tune itself, in addition to the driveability improvements noted above, the tune + intercooler boosts power by ~100 hp (net at crank), thereby dropping 0-60 and 1/4 times by 0.6-0.7 seconds - so 0-60 in ~4s (~1 car length) and 1/4 mile in ~12.7s (~ 7 car lengths) - a right proper quick vehicle finally befitting of the price tag. Another metric that tuners are gloming onto; roll acceleration 60-120 mph; drops by ~3s (~9 car lengths!)
The deciding factor is that TONS of research I cannot uncover one claim of damage from an APR tune, let alone either a dealer or APR warranty denial. Even the drama I mentioned above about dealers not working on tuned cars for issues unrelated to the power train, was only a couple of posts, and there are 1000x more posts stating dealers never mention it.
There are only two caveats I was able to uncover. First is one absolutely cannot use lower octane fuel - 91 is 91. If you do, the car's driveability will be affected and the risk of damage is high and the APR warranty will be void (duh - and why the factory didn't tune it this way). Second is to keep the APR warranty oil changes have to be every 5,000 miles, not 10,000 miles. So I'm going for it.
Got to program a few more robots and then I'll get 'er done. Stay "tuned!"
Hell froze over
Intake/exhaust/blow off valve?
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on January 10, 2022, 04:31:54 AM
Intake/exhaust/blow off valve?
Nope. According to APR, the factory turbo is a limitation, so any mods beyond a stage 1 tune and intercooloer yield very small gains and gets expensive (and actually void the APR warranty).
Quote from: GoCougs on January 09, 2022, 11:34:17 PM
So despite the fact I am NOT a fan of tunes, esp. for turbo motors, I've decided to go with the APR Stage 1 tune for 91 octane, plus the APR intercooler and warranty (that covers/displaces the original factory power train warranty should drama arise). Power is nice but I need the driveability issues fixed pronto.
Lots of tuners out there, but APR is one of the biggest, if not the biggest for Audi, plus they have a well-reviewed tuner dealer near me (https://www.achtuning.com/). Also, they've since updated their process whereby the tuner dealer can perform the ECU tune down load - no more sending ECUs to an fro.
As to the tune itself, in addition to the driveability improvements noted above, the tune + intercooler boosts power by ~100 hp (net at crank), thereby dropping 0-60 and 1/4 times by 0.6-0.7 seconds - so 0-60 in ~4s (~1 car length) and 1/4 mile in ~12.7s (~ 7 car lengths) - a right proper quick vehicle finally befitting of the price tag. Another metric that tuners are gloming onto; roll acceleration 60-120 mph; drops by ~3s (~9 car lengths!)
The deciding factor is that TONS of research I cannot uncover one claim of damage from an APR tune, let alone either a dealer or APR warranty denial. Even the drama I mentioned above about dealers not working on tuned cars for issues unrelated to the power train, was only a couple of posts, and there are 1000x more posts stating dealers never mention it.
There are only two caveats I was able to uncover. First is one absolutely cannot use lower octane fuel - 91 is 91. If you do, the car's driveability will be affected and the risk of damage is high and the APR warranty will be void (duh - and why the factory didn't tune it this way). Second is to keep the APR warranty oil changes have to be every 5,000 miles, not 10,000 miles. So I'm going for it.
Got to program a few more robots and then I'll get 'er done. Stay "tuned!"
:orly:
I'm not big on tunes either, but APR is probably one of the most trusted of all of them.
Do you only get 91 octane in Washington? I thought that was pretty much only California? 93 octane is available every where in Ohio. Maybe I'm spoiled.
93 is everywhere on the east coast...
Cougs on his way to work now:
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ConstantElementaryEgg-max-1mb.gif)
Danger to manifold
We only have 92 octane here in WA, and 91 minimum is available in all states (I'm doing ever more road trips these days). Plus, the 93 octane tune is worth only 10 hp and is not available with the APR warranty.
Fast fact: you can get any fuel you want shipped to your front door.
https://petroleumservicecompany.com/sunoco-sr18-118-octane-race-fuel/
And it's leaded for taste, too!
Quote from: GoCougs on January 10, 2022, 10:05:30 AM
We only have 92 octane here in WA, and 91 minimum is available in all states (I'm doing ever more road trips these days). Plus, the 93 octane tune is worth only 10 hp and is not available with the APR warranty.
Actual 91 octane is pretty rare in Utah but with the altitude here 89 octane is equivalent to 91 octane at sea level. Regular unleaded here is 85 octane.
Quote from: RomanChariot on January 10, 2022, 03:39:48 PM
Actual 91 octane is pretty rare in Utah but with the altitude here 89 octane is equivalent to 91 octane at sea level. Regular unleaded here is 85 octane.
I asked APR about that - driving to Vegas next month (I'll pass through northern Nevada at ~7,000' elevation) and am planning on Moab in June.
To APR, 91 is 91, and altitude is not a factor. Not sure if it's APR or turbo cars, but the warranty caveat still applies.
A turbo engine probably needs to keep the same octane level since the turbo compensates for the thinner air at high altitudes.
Quote from: RomanChariot on January 10, 2022, 03:39:48 PM
Actual 91 octane is pretty rare in Utah but with the altitude here 89 octane is equivalent to 91 octane at sea level. Regular unleaded here is 85 octane.
I thought pretty much all stations have 91 as premium? I need to check that... I was planning on tuning the Miata and it will probably require 91 even with the altitude.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on January 10, 2022, 07:03:25 PM
I thought pretty much all stations have 91 as premium? I need to check that... I was planning on tuning the Miata and it will probably require 91 even with the altitude.
I haven't paid that much attention lately but it used to be that most carried 85, 87 and 89. With more turbo-charged cars on the road they may have changed that.
Maybe buy some octane booster to keep in the trunk of the car prior to driving through Utah :huh:
Quote from: RomanChariot on January 11, 2022, 08:38:32 AM
I haven't paid that much attention lately but it used to be that most carried 85, 87 and 89. With more turbo-charged cars on the road they may have changed that.
Might also be a difference between Chevron and non-Chevron. I'll have to check the Speedway, Smiths, and Chevron that are the 3 main stations I'll go to.
AFAIK, all states have at least 91 readily available. A quick perusal of my spring designation (Moab) shoes 85/87/91 available. I'll be fine with the 91 tune.
APR says octane booster is a no-go.
Sigh - went to the local tuner (pretty cool - they're just completing an RS3-powered VW Jetta Alltrack, and they had 911s and RS products galore on the property, so they're legit legit) and per an ECU check APR does not yet have the tune for my ECU lot code. I called APR and they said they have lots of requests for that lot code but it'll take some time as they'll need to buy an SQ5 to do the work or some shit. Jesus.
Quote from: GoCougs on January 11, 2022, 11:37:41 AM
AFAIK, all states have at least 91 readily available. A quick perusal of my spring designation (Moab) shoes 85/87/91 available. I'll be fine with the 91 tune.
APR says octane booster is a no-go.
I checked 2 local Utah stations and they had 85, 88, and 91.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on January 21, 2022, 09:31:44 AM
I checked 2 local Utah stations and they had 85, 88, and 91.
When you're running a turbocharged big block with 12:1 compression, 91 just won't cut it.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on January 21, 2022, 09:33:05 AM
When you're running a turbocharged big block with 12:1 compression, 91 just won't cut it.
I have no turbos and no big block. :(
I have a small block with 11.5/12:1 and a tiny 2.0L with 13:1
Got a dragy. Works pretty good. Best possible conditions really. AFAIK, dragy does not correct for atmo conditions.
This is a bit faster than the mags were getting. Fairly quick but doesn't really feel as fast as the stats show, esp. from a roll.
Still waiting on the tune, which should cut ~0.3 s from 0-60 and ~0.5 s from 1/4 mile and add 4-5 mph to trap speed.
(https://i.postimg.cc/tT4pSdsS/stats.png)
That's significantly faster than your old G. Does it noticeably feel faster?
Quote from: veeman on February 06, 2022, 09:20:58 AM
That's significantly faster than your old G. Does it noticeably feel faster?
Sorta quicker. The SQ5 has launch control and comically harsh shifts in the lower gears, whereas the G had neither. So, lined up in a structured manner at a drag strip, the SQ5 will be noticeably quicker. However, out on the road, esp. from a roll at higher speeds, the SQ5 is only somewhat to a bit quicker.
Does it have any turbo lag?
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on February 07, 2022, 07:57:07 AM
Impossible
Oh it's a V6. Thought it was a turbo 4. Because everything is a turbo 4 these days.
Quote from: CaminoRacer on February 07, 2022, 09:11:52 AM
Oh it's a V6. Thought it was a turbo 4. Because everything is a turbo 4 these days.
It's a turbo V6, but it also makes maximum torque just off idle.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on February 07, 2022, 10:09:34 AM
It's a turbo V6, but it also makes maximum torque just off idle.
Sounds like it's an EV.
Just FYI all USDM B9 (2018+) SQ5s are the non-hybrid 3.0T V6.
There is moderate lag off idle (i.e., when not using LC or brake torque) at max throttle from a stop, and I imagine also when flat footing it in a tall gear, but the 8ZF is so responsive (and has auto kick down even in manual mode) once underway lag is effectively never encountered. There is the typical turbo dull throttle response that is not exactly lag though - the G's gruff old lump was light years ahead in throttle response. FWIW, the APR stage 1 tune supposedly addresses this to some extent (how, not sure).
Of note, Audi's 2.9TT V6 uses a small electric supercharger to minimize lag.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 06, 2022, 09:17:29 PM
Sorta quicker. The SQ5 has launch control and comically harsh shifts in the lower gears, whereas the G had neither. So, lined up in a structured manner at a drag strip, the SQ5 will be noticeably quicker. However, out on the road, esp. from a roll at higher speeds, the SQ5 is only somewhat to a bit quicker.
I should also say the SQ5 feels substantially quicker in daily driving because the 8ZF is so much more responsive that the G's 7AT (exactly how much quicker is hard to quantify (i.e., performance at part throttle, esp. down shifting in auto mode)).
Quote from: GoCougs on February 07, 2022, 11:12:38 AM
I should also say the SQ5 feels substantially quicker in daily driving because the 8ZF is so much more responsive that the G's 7AT (exactly how much quicker is hard to quantify (i.e., performance at part throttle, esp. down shifting in auto mode)).
Yes, turbo torque + better transmissions is the big difference between early 2000s cars and 2014+ cars, in my experience. Even in cars with similar power, the torque curve and transmission gearing/# of gears helps the newer cars smoke the older cars.
I am a fan of throttle response. Nothing beats a well tuned carburetor, but a fuel injected AMC tractor engine comes close.
I'm really not sold on an 8 speed on modern turbo cars. The power bands are so damn wide that having a gear for every 1,500 rpms is nonsensical - especially when most turbo cars actually fall off pretty hard at the top of the rev range where it's locked into
Quote from: r0tor on February 07, 2022, 01:17:14 PM
I'm really not sold on an 8 speed on modern turbo cars. The power bands are so damn wide that having a gear for every 1,500 rpms is nonsensical - especially when most turbo cars actually fall off pretty hard at the top of the rev range where it's locked into
More gears = narrower RPM operating range near/at:
peak HP rpm = higher average power put to the street = quicker acceleration.
BSFC rpm = better mpg.
daily driving RPM = narrower process window = easier to tune emissions.
This will be the case for N/A or forced induction, diesel or gasoline.
These modern turbos in heavier-than-ever cars with an old-school 4/5/6 sp AT would suffer in performance, mpg and emissions (er, testing for emissions).
This is all presuming the transmission is up to the task - shifts quickly, shifts efficiently, efficiently transfers power and isn't overly big/heavy. Prior to ~10 years ago, that probably wasn't really possible, at least not cost effectively.
Also of note, Ford and GM recently upgraded their HD diesel pickups with a 10sp AT from a 6sp AT, no doubt a monumentally expensive undertaking, that wouldn't have been done if there wasn't a material benefit.
Quote from: GoCougs on February 07, 2022, 10:00:07 PM
More gears = narrower RPM operating range near/at:
peak HP rpm = higher average power put to the street = quicker acceleration.
BSFC rpm = better mpg.
daily driving RPM = narrower process window = easier to tune emissions.
This will be the case for N/A or forced induction, diesel or gasoline.
These modern turbos in heavier-than-ever cars with an old-school 4/5/6 sp AT would suffer in performance, mpg and emissions (er, testing for emissions).
This is all presuming the transmission is up to the task - shifts quickly, shifts efficiently, efficiently transfers power and isn't overly big/heavy. Prior to ~10 years ago, that probably wasn't really possible, at least not cost effectively.
Also of note, Ford and GM recently upgraded their HD diesel pickups with a 10sp AT from a 6sp AT, no doubt a monumentally expensive undertaking, that wouldn't have been done if there wasn't a material benefit.
Largely driven by fuel efficiency numbers. An 8, 9 and 10 speed with a small turbo generally try to keep the engine in the optimal rev range for fuel efficiency...unless you want to "drive it like you stole it," then the efficiency numbers go out the tailpipe.
APR still doesn't have the tune for my ECU S/N. Have researched many tunes - IE, 034, EPL, etc., - that do exist. Thing is APR is the only stage 1 tune that is both CARB/50-state legal and available with a warranty that supplants the manufacturer warranty. Bummer as I'm dying a bit here - the SQ5 simply isn't as quick as it should be, esp. from a roll at freeway speeds. Anyway, hope it's ready soon.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 10, 2022, 05:27:35 PM
APR still doesn't have the tune for my ECU S/N. Have researched many tunes - IE, 034, EPL, etc., - that do exist. Thing is APR is the only stage 1 tune that is both CARB/50-state legal and available with a warranty that supplants the manufacturer warranty. Bummer as I'm dying a bit here - the SQ5 simply isn't as quick as it should be, esp. from a roll at freeway speeds. Anyway, hope it's ready soon.
Maybe sell it and get a Macan.
The SQ5 is a better vehicle overall IME, esp. rear seat space and light-years ahead in infotainment.
Any updates on your satisfaction with the car, Cougs?
I took my car in for servicing on Wednesday. I needed my 2 year oil change but there were a couple of other issues. I was having an issue with the central locking mechanism which sometimes locked passengers in the car so the door had to be opened from the outside. Also, there were 2 outstanding recalls on the car.
The parts for one of the recalls were not in stock, so I will have to bring it back for that.
But the remaining recall was more serious than I realized. There was a problem with the rear axle that caused uneven wear on the tires. Even though I have only 9,400 miles on the car, the portion of the rear tires that actually hit the road were bald. Almost two weeks ago, I was driving to Norwalk, CT (about a 20 minute drive) down I-95 during a blinding rainstorm, and it felt as if the back of the car was swaying. I got pretty scared and had to slow down to a slow speed. Driving home, the rain had stopped and the car seemed OK.
But when the guy at the dealer told me about the bald tires in the rear (which I had realized), a light bulb went off and I connected that to my swaying incident. Bottom line is that they gave me 4 new tires free of charge.
Eek that's crazy
The SQ5 is holding up well enough. Expectation are still being met, though it is an SUV (small but still weighs ~4,500 lbs) so I am more than starving for the APR tune (not ready yet). Now have ~30k miles on it and it's getting a smidge rattlely and the factory tires are just about shot. Getting it serviced has been an absolute nightmare however.
I don't lose my temper often but I've let the dealer have it after ~18 months of absolute incompetence. I've gotten screwed on the last two service appointments (ultimately I had to do it myself), which isn't a big deal, except like a moron I let them scam me on prepaid service. I don't have the energy to go into the details, but the other Audi dealers have heard the same. Will go to a different dealer now, but it's much much further away, and I leave ~$2k in prepaid service on the table. Fucking morons.
:confused:
Quote from: GoCougs on August 03, 2022, 10:40:56 AM
The SQ5 is holding up well enough. Expectation are still being met, though it is an SUV (small but still weighs ~4,500 lbs) so I am more than starving for the APR tune (not ready yet). Now have ~30k miles on it and it's getting a smidge rattlely and the factory tires are just about shot. Getting it serviced has been an absolute nightmare however.
I don't lose my temper often but I've let the dealer have it after ~18 months of absolute incompetence. I've gotten screwed on the last two service appointments (ultimately I had to do it myself), which isn't a big deal, except like a moron I let them scam me on prepaid service. I don't have the energy to go into the details, but the other Audi dealers have heard the same. Will go to a different dealer now, but it's much much further away, and I leave ~$2k in prepaid service on the table. Fucking morons.
Sorry to hear about your troubles man. So far, I am doing Ok with my Audi. I had a recall that was related to some problem with the rear axle. As a result, my tires had uneven wear and were partially bald after <10k miles. They gave me 4 new tires without charge as a result.
In Lake Tahoe for 10 days for mountain biking. Driving up to ~9,000 feet and 90F+ temps and all seems to do well. Power drops a bit, esp. when not on boost, but obviously holds on vastly better than a N/A power plant.
Ran over a goddamned pick axe on the freeway so had to scramble to get new tires - found 'em in Reno, but cost me a day of riding to get it all sorted. The factory sucky-ish Michelins were 90% cooked anyway, so upgraded a bit to Michelin something or other grand touring.
Still needs more power however esp. at the price point. APR is still MIA, and it's more than disappointing.
Quote from: GoCougs on August 25, 2022, 09:51:54 AM
In Lake Tahoe for 10 days for mountain biking. Driving up to ~9,000 feet and 90F+ temps and all seems to do well. Power drops a bit, esp. when not on boost, but obviously holds on vastly better than a N/A power plant.
Ran over a goddamned pick axe on the freeway so had to scramble to get new tires - found 'em in Reno, but cost me a day of riding to get it all sorted. The factory sucky-ish Michelins were 90% cooked anyway, so upgraded a bit to Michelin something or other grand touring.
Still needs more power however esp. at the price point. APR is still MIA, and it's more than disappointing.
One thing I have noticed to my dismay is that my car sometimes hesitates when I am getting on the highway and hit the accelerator. It doesn't hesitate for long, but it's still disconcerting. Ron's wife had the same complaint about her Audi. I don't understand that in a performance car.
A Pick axe?
Were you following Yukon Cornelius?
Quote from: dazzleman on August 25, 2022, 06:08:58 PM
One thing I have noticed to my dismay is that my car sometimes hesitates when I am getting on the highway and hit the accelerator. It doesn't hesitate for long, but it's still disconcerting. Ron's wife had the same complaint about her Audi. I don't understand that in a performance car.
It had 42 gears and two clutches, all run by an algorithm that takes into account everything from the temperature to what donuts are on display at the nearest Tim Horton's. Sometimes when you press the torque request interface switch, it has to mull things over for a bit.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 25, 2022, 09:01:24 PM
It had 42 gears and two clutches, all run by an algorithm that takes into account everything from the temperature to what donuts are on display at the nearest Tim Horton's. Sometimes when you press the torque request interface switch, it has to mull things over for a bit.
This is actually fairly accurate.
The improbability drive takes a while to resolve.
Quote from: dazzleman on August 25, 2022, 06:08:58 PM
One thing I have noticed to my dismay is that my car sometimes hesitates when I am getting on the highway and hit the accelerator. It doesn't hesitate for long, but it's still disconcerting. Ron's wife had the same complaint about her Audi. I don't understand that in a performance car.
I'm in Lake Tahoe currently for mountain biking, which means driving at 5,000 - 9,000 feet at temps into the 90s, and my car has stumbled a few times here when getting on it - both from a standstill and when already under way - it's mos def the engine and not transmission.
Turbos have huge compromises to make WRT engine safety and emissions, and thin air and high temps only makes it more so. It hasn't happened at home however.
Quote from: Eye of the Tiger on August 26, 2022, 05:10:18 AM
This is actually fairly accurate.
We have normality.
Any problems with your current reality are now yours to sort out.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on August 27, 2022, 02:23:22 PM
We have normality.
Any problems with your current reality are now yours to sort out.
When did you get the Aviator?
Quote from: GoCougs on August 26, 2022, 08:32:21 PM
I'm in Lake Tahoe currently for mountain biking, which means driving at 5,000 - 9,000 feet at temps into the 90s, and my car has stumbled a few times here when getting on it - both from a standstill and when already under way - it's mos def the engine and not transmission.
Turbos have huge compromises to make WRT engine safety and emissions, and thin air and high temps only makes it more so. It hasn't happened at home however.
I quite like the turbo in the Mazda - its a rorty impertinent little bastard in ordinary housewife grocery-getter clothing.
Got the APR Stage 1 (91 octane) tune today. Throttle response and part throttle performance are improved, but the lone full throttle pull (traffic was more dysfunctional than average today) was underwhelming TBH. Turbo power bands are always underwhelming though, and the APR tune actually pushes the average power down the rev range, which probably makes it seem more so. In fact, for quickest acceleration it is recommended to shift at 6,000 rpm vs. 6,500 rpm red line (note the shift points on the graph are for a 6,500 rpm red line). I'll try both 6,000 and 6,500 rpm shift runs on Saturday night. Any guesses? Hoping to lop 0.5 sec off both the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times:
(https://i.postimg.cc/13fG5fwL/accel-results.png)
Results are in: 0-60 in 4.3 s and 1/4 mile in 12.9 s @ 104 mph.
About what I expected, though trap speed seems low for those times. Only got one run in due to conditions, so did not try short shifting. This about what it should have felt like from the factory. Now having had it for a few days, part throttle performance is significantly improved - both response and acceleration. Finally satisfied with the vehicle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/VktrG8JV/accel-results-2.png)
Was going to get the APR intercooler installed but they didn't have a tech available until November. Not worth much power but does give margin on hot days and at higher elevations.
That's pretty damn quick. :rockon:
Faster than my old five oh, I got a 13 flat at 107 I think when I took it to the strip.
Quote from: GoCougs on October 12, 2022, 09:11:51 PM
Got the APR Stage 1 (91 octane) tune today. Throttle response and part throttle performance are improved, but the lone full throttle pull (traffic was more dysfunctional than average today) was underwhelming TBH. Turbo power bands are always underwhelming though, and the APR tune actually pushes the average power down the rev range, which probably makes it seem more so. In fact, for quickest acceleration it is recommended to shift at 6,000 rpm vs. 6,500 rpm red line (note the shift points on the graph are for a 6,500 rpm red line). I'll try both 6,000 and 6,500 rpm shift runs on Saturday night. Any guesses? Hoping to lop 0.5 sec off both the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times:
(https://i.postimg.cc/13fG5fwL/accel-results.png)
What's the downside? Are the tradeoffs pushing against any kind of tolerances?
Have modded many many many cars in the past, but that was 25+ years ago. Haven't touch a goddamned thing since I started buying Japanese ;). Nowadays most everything is turbocharged, so the methods have changed completely. Here, it was but a ~1 hour download to the ECU.
Having driven it a few days now, the part throttle response is monster - the barks and pops and thrust is a whole other level, esp. when manually shifting. There is a bit more turbo lag, which is understandable, but the net is hugely positive. No check engine light or other issue. She moves out REAL good.
Per the various 1/4 mile HP calculators, stock is ~375 hp and tuned is ~420 hp vs. 349 hp rated. Due to the increased boost (= increase air flow obviously) the stock intake is a limitation but APR does not have an intake for the SQ5 yet (they're working on it). That, plus the intercooler, will be worth another ~30 hp judging by the S4/S5 (which APR does have an intake for).
Quote from: Laconian on October 15, 2022, 10:28:54 PM
What's the downside? Are the tradeoffs pushing against any kind of tolerances?
There is one caveat - one must ALWAYS run at least 91 octane. If one doesn't, and there is damage, APR will be able to tell, and any warranty claim will be denied. The manual says less than 91 octane can be used but only under emergency situations, and that rapid acceleration is to be avoided, so not really a big caveat TBH. Not a problem as everywhere I've ever been at least 91 octane is available.
I bought the APR warranty that stands in for the factory power train 4 year/50k mile warranty. If there were risks I'd have to think APR would not offer the warranty. The local tuner that did the tune (Actuning in Redmond, a rather large outfit actually) said of all the ARP tunes they've done they've not had one warranty claim they're aware of, and that includes a lot of RS cars.
I mined the various Audi fanboi forums, and didn't fine ONE failure or engine damage warranty denial from the APR 91 octane. The closest I found is some emissions recall claims (such as replacing cats or front radiator block off actuator) were denied but of course the owner simply ignored it because fuck you and went on his merry way.
There is a smidge of lag/hesitation when I get on it say from 2-4,500 RPM, but it's not terrible.
Stage 1 turbo tuned are always great for daily driving. They give you huge mid range improvements that feel great in normal driving. The only downside is on engines where the turbo is small the boost tapers back down towards stock and can feel like a bit of a letdown at upper rpms.
Sucks paying for premium gas, but it's still cheaper than diesel. Wtflol.
Now that I've got the mod bug, I'm lined up for the APR intercooler and hopefully the APR air intake (not sure it's available yet - might be the same as the S4/S5).
The IC gives 10-15 hp across the range, and the intake adds power (10-15 hp) only after 4,500 RPM, which is great, as that is when the tune starts to notable taper off. Average power increase will be ~75 hp and peak of ~125 hp.
The tuning shop is crazy busy, so it'll be a couple more weeks before they can fit me in.
Car's pretty fast but TBH I'm still a bit insecure about it - the full stage I should drop another 0.1-0.2 s from both 0-60 and 1/4 mile.
(https://i.postimg.cc/26d5dQfX/full-monty-stage-1.png)
Does Eisenmann make an exhaust for that? That's what it needs.
Actually, the factory exhaust with the Audi add-on factory exhaust tips (https://parts.audiusa.com/p/audi_2021_SQ5/Sport-Exhaust-Tips/97708107/80A071904.html) is one of the best sounding turbo exhausts out there. It's also very loud - any louder would be too much.
That's strange. Most stock Audis are pretty quiet.
Short vid (not my car) - cold start, warm start, and sporty-ish driving. She snorts, cracks and pops quite good.
Under the car there's a flap that closes the left side pipe except for sport mode above like 4,000 RPM. I disabled that of course and that adds some sound too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1fDqVJjLrQ
Another update. Things have not gone so well with APR.
Firstly, I bought the APR intercooler, and it was a fucking disaster. I get the entire front of the car torn apart only to discover the mounting brackets were wrong. And taking apart a modern car is rough - the fasteners for pretty much everything are not meant for repeated use, and many are not replaceable, so all that stuff takes a beating. There's even Styrofoam! So much as look at it, and it breaks. Can't see it from the outside but I know the sins lurk beneath. Ugh. Anyway, finally got the right brackets for a 2nd install atempt only to discover they didn't design/manufacture pressure sensor housing correctly. The factory housing has a beveled edge to ease in the o-ring - no such bevel on the APR housing, and I sheared off the outside of o-ring. Not trusting the damaged o-ring, nor the o-rings I tried off of Amazon, I had to buy a new $150 sensor. Plus of course I beveled the APR housing to about match that of the factory housing, and all went together like a champ.
Secondly, we have rare cold weather here (20-35F) and performance has dropped noticeably. From a roll, I'm now a bit slower than stock. Countless tests and data logs later (and $500+ in tools and test parts) and APR came back NPF, with the likely cause weird-ass environmental conditions the tune can't exploit, or maybe our winter gas is REALLY bad, or maybe traction issues. I mos def have a hesitation on shifting at full throttle too, which may be the cause of it all. Some say it may be torque throttle to protect the transmission due to the extra power being made at such advantageous atmo conditions, but that seems like a stretch. Anyway, hot rodding today is just like it was way back when I did it - the tech has changed but it's still the same - you're mostly on your own to figure it out (or not) and there are compromises so that's why automakers don't do it themselves.
Will not tune again.
Yeeeeep. Always make sure to have a stash of those one-time-use fasteners on hand when taking apart any modern car. Especially the front end where it's all clips and shit holding it on.
Quote from: giant_mtb on December 22, 2022, 07:15:17 PM
Yeeeeep. Always make sure to have a stash of those one-time-use fasteners on hand when taking apart any modern car. Especially the front end where it's all clips and shit holding it on.
I always have on hand the generic plastic push pins like those used for fender liners. I got caught out on single-use fasteners (as stated in the Audi documentation) that fastens the wheel trim to the fender - they're super brittle and break when pulling off the trim. Audi-only, and $4 a piece! There are also a number of fasteners that for wiring and tubing on the front bumper cover that are also Audi-only (they're plastic w/metal barb inserts). They didn't break but they tear up the plastic they have to be pulled off from. Ugh.
Does APR do a transmission tune as well as the ECU or just the ECU? The ZF transmission controller definitely has torque limits buried in it.
In the Alfa world piggybacks are working better than ECU tunes due to all the limiters buried everywhere - even for fairly large changes like running larger turbos.
I'm not surprised the fasteners were brittle. I used to work with vinyl fabric coming out of Germany. Germany outlaws plasticizers almost as fast as the manufacturers can create them, so many of their plastics ineffective or relatively unproven plasticizers. And in the case of our product they thought it was okay to change plasticizers without letting us know so we were blindsided with major problems with our end product.
Quote from: r0tor on December 23, 2022, 07:28:00 AM
Does APR do a transmission tune as well as the ECU or just the ECU? The ZF transmission controller definitely has torque limits buried in it.
In the Alfa world piggybacks are working better than ECU tunes due to all the limiters buried everywhere - even for fairly large changes like running larger turbos.
No, not yet. They're working on it and should be out soon. They said the factory has all sorts of torque limits, esp. for shifts, where I seem to be having a problem (though not sure that's what's causing my issue).
If I'm at -25F or something crazy, I could believe that being outside the tune's capabilities, but are my atmo conditions affording that much more power such that the transmission needs throttling back? Hard to imagine, but as viable an explanation as anything else.
In the next day or two I'm going to data log stuff related to torque limits to see if something looks interesting.
Charted measured motor torque (not sure how the car does that however). At the shift points noted, the torque virtually exactly matches the published APR torque curve so thankfully the engine's at least making the tune's advertised horsepower.
At the shift points (three big dips) engine torque is well under maximum permissible for the transmission (406 lb-ft as listed via OBD-II inquiry) so I doubt it's a torque throttling to protect the transmission, plus the forum I'm on guys are running WAY more power and no one complains abourt throttling.
The timing chart mirrors this chart - timing is cut hugely at each of the three gear shifts. APR says that's normal, to ease the harshness of shifts - thing is I'm in "sport" mode...
Wheel speed graphs (not shown) show no traction loss, but they do show the hesitation at gear shifts.
So, the conclusion I draw from this is the hesitation is what is killing performance (duh, no surprise). Revised my report and sent off to APR.
(https://i.postimg.cc/13Wc3NXG/torque.png)
RESOLVED.
Soon after purchasing the vehicle I disabled the actuator that opens/closes the flap in the driver's side exhaust tip. It bothered me to no end to see only one side emitting vapor on a cold morning! The actuator was still plugged into the wiring harness but a fault code was generated nonetheless (but no CEL - I could only see the fault code via an OBD-II reader). I figured it didn't hurt nuthin' so left it alone. Yesterday, just as a normal course of finding an excuse to work on cars, and no inkling that this would fix my problem, I installed a connector disable kit that tricks the ECU into thinking the actuator is working correctly. I then reset the code, and sure enough, that 100% fixed the problem, and now she is absolute screamer. Note the problem followed the code (which takes a bit of time to appear - I'm guessing the ECU needs to see a number of failed attempts to open/close the flap) and not the actual state of the flap. Also note I had this actuator was disabled prior to the tune and I did not experience any shift hesitation or bog as I did after the tune. So relieved. JMFC. Why this tripped up the tune I have no clue. LOL look at those times, and mind you, I was spinning a bit on launch due to snow tires, so there's probably 0.1 - 0.2 s still left in it:
(https://i.postimg.cc/GtmzJhvk/IMG-7381-1.png)
The other interesting tidbit is after I had the tune installed the tuner reset the fault code. I then did my acceleration testing. I had incorrectly presumed the correlating factor was temperature. Temps were in the 50s deg F when the tune was installed, and I tested again at 28 deg F.
TL;DR you outsmarted the engineers over an annoyance and crippled your car??? :thumbsup:
Got further info why from APR as to why the exhaust flap fault was pulling so much power: If the ECU doesn't know the state of the flap it presumes worse case (that it is closed) which at load can quickly lead to dangerously high exhaust gas temps, and the ECU will automatically pull power to be safe.
One very popular hack is to buy "delete" connectors that plug into the harness to convince the ECU that the flap is okay even though it's unplugged. One still gets a fault code (= electrical error) but apparently it doesn't affect power in any way . I thought I'd be crafty and simply mechanically disconnect the motor from the flap but leave it plugged into the harness. Turns out this caused a different fault code (= motor moving but flap was not closing) which cuts power per the above.
Quick-n-dirty charts showing before/after fix. Turns out it was costing me ~5 psi (27 vs. 32 psia) or about 5/27 = 19% peak power vs. tuned (410 hp tuned to 330 hp, or a bit slower than stock (350 hp) which is exactly what happened). Boo a bit on APR for not seeing that boost (both actual and specified) was significantly under spec for their tune. Should have been easy to spot.
Pretty much no one offers stage 2 hardware for the SQ5 (and it's way emissions illegal anyway) so this as far as I'll take it. Once the temps warm up and I can get better traction I expect 4.1/12.5 performance. Not bad really. I'll give it another year, to wait for the next crop of Audi product. I'm guessing it'll be a lot of EV or hybrid stuff, so will probably default back to the RS6 Avant.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mZYyPLNN/bosst-comparo.png)
Very quick! That is pretty crazy they didn't spot that in testing.
It's sort of frustrating these days as your ECU can be storing codes that are only seen with high level diagnostic tools. Simple OBD2 checks don't show them.
She's movin' now, boys!
Had to revise my launch method - emergency stop from about 80 mph to heat up the tires, then pump the brakes till the pedal goes dead (= max pressure) then skooch the driver seat way forward so that I can get max leverage/force on the brake. Even then I'm still getting some wheel spin and ~50% of the time I'm still pushing through the brakes (which negates sport shifts). But when she works, she works. I'll have to wait for warmer temps and my A/S tires to do better. I figure there's probably another 0.10 sec in her but satisfied with this. I've had the tune working correctly for ~2 weeks now, so I think there's been some ECU learning that has picked up some power as well:
(https://i.postimg.cc/rpcTgLMH/IMG-7390.png)
That's pretty spicy
Tuners that offer a TCU tune (which is everybody but APR, but APR says they're working on it) say a TCU tune is worth another 0.1-0.2 sec since it adjusts launch control shift points to match the new power bound (generally, shifts 500-600 RPM before red line). I'm not too obsessed with 0-60 and 1/4 mile times since it's not practical in everyday driving (i.e., drama of launch control setup) and I can shift manually when in M mode from a roll (which I do, when I want max acceleration). From 40-100 mph I went from 9.9 sec/1092 feet (stock) to 8.3 sec/916 feet (tuned) - yes, really, half a foot ball field ahead. If/when APR comes out with a TCU tune I'll probably opt for it (provided I still have the vehicle of course) but it's not so important to jump to another tuner, esp. since I'm still under the APR warranty. I might opt for an intake (worth maybe 0.1 sec) but for the SQ5 they're all carbon fiber at ~$1,000. APR says they're working on a PEX intake for ~$500 (same exact design as the carbon fiber intake) but they're notoriously glacial and haphazard with new product releases so not counting on it.
Try as I might - dry roads, warm tires, sun-warmed road - I'm still getting some wheel spin and can't do better than 4.0x seconds 0-60. I'll have to indeed wait till I get my snow ties off and probably a bit more temp.
Installed the just-released PEX intake from Integrated Engineering and dropped the 40-100 mph roll to 8.1 sec/886 feet. Good launch traction is still a lost cause. Even spinning a lot in first gear and short shifting into second (driver has no control over shift points during launch control) still running 12.45-12.50 sec in the 1/4 mile.
I'm not a fan of turbo woosh and whistle noises, especially that it is decoupled from throttle input (obviously). The decoupling adds to perceived turbo lag but I'm pretty sure lag is not actually more prominent. On the fence about keeping the intake TBH. Get my HP A/S tires on next week, and with a bit warmer temps, I'm hoping for 3.9 sec 0-60 and 12.3 sec in the 1/4 mile (and if so, I'll begrudgingly keep it on).
You need Audi's new mountain bike now to compliment
Got the A/S tires on today but it's still cold (37 deg F). Now, when launching at full boost/RPM (4100), I loose traction a bit and then bog. With the snow tires I'd lose traction on launch but it would roll out of it without bogging. Anyway, I had to launch at way less than full boost at lower RPM (3500), and though 60' and 0-60 times are unchanged I picked up a bit in the 1/4 mile. Will have to wait for temps probably in the 50s deg F at least (at night ;)) and that's going to be a number of weeks yet. My bet is there's another 0.10 sec to be had. Putting some estimates to it, taking into account typical turbo power band (less peaky than N/A), I'm guesstimating ~450-460 net crank HP. APR says 411 net crank HP but their graph I don't think takes into account a CAI or IC (both of which I have), plus I'm running E30. Oh, nelly!
(https://i.postimg.cc/xCW0TG9R/IMG-7443.png)
Uff da. This is as good as I'm gonna get on A/S tires and stock TCU tuning. I'm soon to embark on a road trip to Arizona. When I'm back I'm gonna jump ship to a different tuner to get dat TCU tune. I'm most def missing out on 0.1-0.2 sec on both 0-60 and 1/4 mile due to the inability to launch at full boost. I also dumped the aftermarket intake - could suffer turbo noises and not sure it was giving me any performance advantage now that I've done a lot more testing. All told, still not bad:
(https://i.postimg.cc/yx0tHQVN/IMG-7478-1.png)
I'm always skeptical about aftermath intakes on turbo engines. In the end the ECU is hitting it's boost target no matter what, and the intercooler probably doesn't care about the smidge more heat from the turbo having to work a smidge harder to pull in air.
The benefit is less flow restriction = better boost control = more boost (can play closer to the limit) = more power. This is (apparently) particularly important in lower bandwidth vacuum-controlled waste gate systems such as in Audis. There are a couple of independent B9/9.5 YouTube tuning channels I follow, and they report about 10 whp on stage 1 E85 with aftermarket intercooler (which is ~20% more boost vs. stage 1), so that's probably where the benefit begins. I rolled the dice and sure enough, I didn't detect a benefit, to the ability of the testing I could perform (i.e., acceleration vs. dyno). Just sold it on eBay for a better price than I expected, so all told worked out fine for me.
Sign me up! APR just released a stage 3 kit for the SQ5 and it's emissions legal (retains the stock cat) and doesn't need any add-ons like fuel pump, injectors, etc. Will be good for ~175 hp over stock, or IOW, 0-60 in ~3.5s and 1/4 mile in ~11.5s @ 117 mph, or thereaboots. Yes, there will be more lag but this turbo is a bit smaller than others' stage 3 kits, so I'm guessing/hoping there's no more lag than factory uber performance turbocharged cars (RS5, RS6, M3, etc.). Still a lot of lag, but I'll live. Still a bit of time yet before the kit (tune, esp. the transmission, which changed drastically from 2020) is available for my SQ5. It is hoped by the end of the year!
(https://images.goapr.com/1024x/t4100001_assets_web.png) (https://www.goapr.com/t4100001)
Hell yeah. Turbo lag is almost kinda fun to play with. I remember very well dealing with it on my A4 (6-speed manual) very well...eyes ahead, dig into the go-pedal just a moment or two earlier than you would a N/A engine to make sure you're on full power out of a corner. It was just an added little game to the driving experience. Though it was pretty instant in spirited driving when you were holding lower gears/high revs and the turbo's already spinning away.
I'd pass on turbo lag if I had the option.
In comparing various dyno curves now, this system still has significant turbo lag - the likes of which you'll not find in a modern vehicle. Will be fast AF from a boosted launch or when anti lagging it from a roll, but neither methods are practical in day-to-day driving.
Does this board still have an unhealthy relationship with Audi? Congrats on the car!