AWE rsk04 updated software results
08-28-2007, 11:51 AM
#1
AudiWorld Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AWE rsk04 updated software results
I know others have already posted, but I thought I would throw in my 2 cents.
I installed the updated ecu today and took it for a spin. I am getting about 1.45bar (21 psi) if I run it out through the gears or downshift and step on it. If I just step on it while cruising, I'm only getting about 1.2 bar (17.5) psi.
I haven't hooked up the prodiag yet, but I'll do that later tonight. It doesn't feel like it's cutting throttle at all, but that can be hard to pick up on the butt-o-meter.
I'll update after another 40-50 miles and some logging.
-Matt
I installed the updated ecu today and took it for a spin. I am getting about 1.45bar (21 psi) if I run it out through the gears or downshift and step on it. If I just step on it while cruising, I'm only getting about 1.2 bar (17.5) psi.
I haven't hooked up the prodiag yet, but I'll do that later tonight. It doesn't feel like it's cutting throttle at all, but that can be hard to pick up on the butt-o-meter.
I'll update after another 40-50 miles and some logging.
-Matt
08-28-2007, 12:24 PM
#2
Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 4,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a possible adaptation issue.
The load created by steady state acceleration vs a downshift or standing start acceleration is much different. You may be getting trace knock when loading it up from a steady state, causing boost to dial back.
Give it several miles of driving like that and the ECU may find a happy place for your ignition advance, allowing full boost.
Maybe throw in a tank of major brand super unleaded to rule that out, too.
Give it several miles of driving like that and the ECU may find a happy place for your ignition advance, allowing full boost.
Maybe throw in a tank of major brand super unleaded to rule that out, too.
08-28-2007, 01:02 PM
#4
Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 4,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting results:
It seems that it has not been mentioned that this is how it works on a stock car, too.
GIAC gathered some info on our behalf:
We have checked three stock cars and they all do the same thing that the people with RSK04 mileage "issues" are experiencing. Our VW Toureg 4.2 showed over 400 mls remaining when it was first filled up but it only does the high 200's in mls per tank. Our BMW 335 does about 320 mls per tank, but when filled, it reads 430 mls to go.
The same was observed on an in house 2001 A4 1.8t.
All of these cars do get much more accurate as you get to the bottom half of the tank, which is also what online reports are saying with the RSK04 kit.
I think it's just been a long time since any RSK04 owner has driven a stock S4 to compare.
GIAC gathered some info on our behalf:
We have checked three stock cars and they all do the same thing that the people with RSK04 mileage "issues" are experiencing. Our VW Toureg 4.2 showed over 400 mls remaining when it was first filled up but it only does the high 200's in mls per tank. Our BMW 335 does about 320 mls per tank, but when filled, it reads 430 mls to go.
The same was observed on an in house 2001 A4 1.8t.
All of these cars do get much more accurate as you get to the bottom half of the tank, which is also what online reports are saying with the RSK04 kit.
I think it's just been a long time since any RSK04 owner has driven a stock S4 to compare.
08-28-2007, 01:12 PM
#5
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 8,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My BONE STOCK 2000 A4 avant reads 490 miles DTE when filled up
I have been getting about 330miles to the tank and never go WOT (I have a dead clutch, it just slips really bad if I do). It takes about 100 miles before it will hit the nail on the head.
08-28-2007, 01:24 PM
#6
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see no difference between the calibration with the last AWE stage 3 fueling software and the...
the current updated software AWE released a few weeks ago. Both say/said 550 or 585 miles when I fill up yet I get 230 - 240 miles per tank.
Again, there is no difference whatsoever.
From my stock days (ok, stage 2 days) I recall seeing 385 - 400 at fill-up yet ending up around 320. Much closer than 550 vs. 240.
Again, there is no difference whatsoever.
From my stock days (ok, stage 2 days) I recall seeing 385 - 400 at fill-up yet ending up around 320. Much closer than 550 vs. 240.
08-28-2007, 01:29 PM
#7
Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 4,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I said above, disregard "miles to empty" when full. Even stock is completely inaccurate.
The main complaint we got on the previous files was about "miles to empty" at less than a quarter tank, as people at that point only really started to pay attention to this reading.
Just like stock, our latest file appears to be much more accurate in this range.
Are your results different?
Or are you not happy that our file is a bit more inaccurate at full vs stock? If both are inaccurate at that reading, what is the difference? As long as our new file is as accurate as stock *when stock is accurate*, that is all that matters.
Just like stock, our latest file appears to be much more accurate in this range.
Are your results different?
Or are you not happy that our file is a bit more inaccurate at full vs stock? If both are inaccurate at that reading, what is the difference? As long as our new file is as accurate as stock *when stock is accurate*, that is all that matters.
Trending Topics
08-28-2007, 02:01 PM
#8
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 4,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually the 1/4 tank reading is more accurate... which is cool.
However, after reading this...
"MPG calibration has been fixed. When using a stock airbox, our MAF, and our injectors, instrument cluster MPG reading is now realistic for actual fuel consumption and miles left to empty. Due to our very large MAF, this took some time to dial in and appears to be on target."
... I assumed it would be closer from fill-up.
My GIAC stage 2 (never stock under my ownership) readings were roughly 20% off the actual final mileage reading. That's fine because it would be unrealistic to expect it be perfect. I was hoping the latest AWE stage 3 software would have similar "accuracy". However, 585 vs. 240 is no where near 20% off.
It's not a big deal. I was just expecting something different after reading the quote above.<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/2687890.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/2687890.phtml</a</li></ul>
"MPG calibration has been fixed. When using a stock airbox, our MAF, and our injectors, instrument cluster MPG reading is now realistic for actual fuel consumption and miles left to empty. Due to our very large MAF, this took some time to dial in and appears to be on target."
... I assumed it would be closer from fill-up.
My GIAC stage 2 (never stock under my ownership) readings were roughly 20% off the actual final mileage reading. That's fine because it would be unrealistic to expect it be perfect. I was hoping the latest AWE stage 3 software would have similar "accuracy". However, 585 vs. 240 is no where near 20% off.
It's not a big deal. I was just expecting something different after reading the quote above.<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/2687890.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/2687890.phtml</a</li></ul>
08-28-2007, 02:11 PM
#10
Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 4,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll admit that we focused too closely on low fuel level readings and made that statement.
It wasn't until we saw the discrepancy at full tank that we went back and forth with GIAC and they discovered the anomaly even with stock cars.
Sorry for the confusion.
Sorry for the confusion.