AMD remap figures...

P

philsudbury

Registered User
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Points
6
Hi All, had my car (210 S3) remapped at AMD on Friday. First up I've got to say what a difference, the car is now truely awesome. I'm just wondering what torque & bhp gains everyone else has got post chipping. My print outs say 262bhp & 254lb/ft of torque. Looking at everyone else's torque gains this seems a little low to me? Minimum ambient temp was 22 deg C.

Cheers, Phil
 
I hope my torque comes out better i'm getting my 210 remaped at amd next tuesday,will let you know what it comes out at.Did you just get the remap done or exhaust aswell.Cant wait till next week i've got a nice 220 mile trip home with my new toy.
 
[ QUOTE ]
phils65 said:
Hi All, had my car (210 S3) remapped at AMD on Friday. First up I've got to say what a difference, the car is now truely awesome. I'm just wondering what torque & bhp gains everyone else has got post chipping. My print outs say 262bhp & 254lb/ft of torque. Looking at everyone else's torque gains this seems a little low to me? Minimum ambient temp was 22 deg C.

Cheers, Phil

[/ QUOTE ]

Dont rely purely on figures...there so much that affect power readings on a dyno it kind of makes them pointless for anything other than direct comparison (before and after) runs... On that note, what were your before figures?
 
I think the figures you have are realistic, and what would be expected of a stage 1 S3 remap. Perhaps a little more torque, but the figures are not easily comparable between different cars / rolling roads on different days.

Some figures posted here are at best optimistic, at worst exaggerated, so don't be dissapointed. Its the difference in the car that matters!
 
Remap & viper dump valve. I will say though the difference is outstanding and I'm well chuffed with it. The fig's just don't seem as high as some I have seen.
 
[ QUOTE ]
phils65 said:
Remap & viper dump valve. I will say though the difference is outstanding and I'm well chuffed with it. The fig's just don't seem as high as some I have seen.

[/ QUOTE ]

What were your before figures?

Rich
 
approx 50bhp / 50lbft, in the real world you cannot really ask for more. Of course, you could easily find another rolling road that would give you pretty much any figure you like...
 
Thats fine then... That is their stated gains afterall (more or less)

 
Cool, thanks guys. As I said I'm well chuffed with it, about to leave work and am itching to get behind the wheel again! Managed to get through 3/4 a tank yesterday just through driving it around aimlessly!

Is Barometric pressure the same as boost? If so 1006 mb!
 
[ QUOTE ]
jojo said:
My S3 (210) managed 300.2 lb/ft after the remap at AmD.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm. I would be very surprised if there was any difference between the 256lb/ft car and the 300 on the road .
 
hey all, when i had my a4 rolling roaded it made 191 hp and 158 at the wheels, could i be right in thinking that i might be closer to 200 in the real world, also ive fitted a new maff sensor since and this made a huge difference, but i dunno if this would increase hp or what, feels much more responsive.
 
A suggestion for a good independant rolling road operator would be G-Force in Aylesbury but when they tried to RR my old S3, they had difficulty tying the car down.

The RS4/S4's appear to have reasonably accurate figures on this road.

 
Ah ha... another AmD dyno debate! I love it!

As people have said before... don't rely on after map figures... look at the gain.... i.e. +46bhp and +40lb/ft. I would say that's a pretty accurate gain.

My car was mapped by AmD and its supposed output at 1bar boost is 266bhp and 299.9lb/ft. Who knows... all I know is the before and after difference is night and day - regardless of the "true" output figures.

Enjoy your "new" car!
 
[ QUOTE ]
MarkC said:
How much is the AMD remap for a 225?

[/ QUOTE ]

£550+vat... £522.50+vat if you book it through JBR with our 5% discount to members.

Rich
 
Do AMD put a warranty the work done?

I'm getting (fingers crossed) at 210 S3 in a couple of weeks and I've considered getting it remapped up to 265bhp
 
[ QUOTE ]
David R said:
Hmm. I would be very surprised if there was any difference between the 256lb/ft car and the 300 on the road .

[/ QUOTE ]

...and why would this be David?
Perhaps because you believe the 300 lb-ft car to actually be making similar torque to the 256 lb-ft car, despite what the bit of paper says?

An S3 with 45+ lb-ft more than another is VERY obvious...

I would be very intertested to see exactly what boost the car with a claimed 300 lb-ft runs?
AmD cars that I have seen tend to run approx 1.3-1.4 bar peak. You do not get 300 lb-ft from running 1.3-1.4 bar.
..my testing would indicate that 1.6ish bar is required for 300 lb-ft - no AmD car I have ever found runs this sort of boost pressure!
 
my REVO car showed 300 lb/ft on AMDs rollers running high boost 6, timing 4 (approx 1.5 bar ish), but obviously only showed this peak for about 1 second.

The same car on Interpros rollers running low boost 9 timing 5 did about 270 lb/ft (approx 1.3 bar)

These changes were made by the SPS3 and do make a difference on the road/track. Running the low boost 9 setting at bedford autodrome I couldnt keep up with chipped S2s down the straight, but change to high boost 6 and I could almost overtake.

I'm not saying 300 lb/ft is correct, but 254 lb/ft seems low compared to most remap figures - be interesting to see what figures we get on the 23rd @ AMD...

Dunc
 
Glenn, Who would you recommend for an S3 re-map? I had my GolfIV re-mapped by Jabbasport to 232BHP, which i appreciate is probably a bit optomistic judging by what people on here have said about rolling road acuracy. At the time i believed the plots as Micheal said it was the highest figure they had achieved for a 1.8T vvt 150bhp an he does seem to know his stuff.

Anyhow, ive considered AmD but they seem more expensive for less gains than APR/Jabba/Revo etc. In actual fact is it 6 and half a dozen except some make wild claims about gains whereas the likes of oettinger and AmD are more realistic???
 
Hypothetically, if someone messed with the temp probe on a rolling road and upped the corrected figure would the WHP and torque be correct?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ess_Three said:
[ QUOTE ]
David R said:
Hmm. I would be very surprised if there was any difference between the 256lb/ft car and the 300 on the road .

[/ QUOTE ]

...and why would this be David?
Perhaps because you believe the 300 lb-ft car to actually be making similar torque to the 256 lb-ft car, despite what the bit of paper says?

An S3 with 45+ lb-ft more than another is VERY obvious...

I would be very intertested to see exactly what boost the car with a claimed 300 lb-ft runs?
AmD cars that I have seen tend to run approx 1.3-1.4 bar peak. You do not get 300 lb-ft from running 1.3-1.4 bar.
..my testing would indicate that 1.6ish bar is required for 300 lb-ft - no AmD car I have ever found runs this sort of boost pressure!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, my car's boost peaks at around 1.3-1.4 bar, then settles to just over 1 bar at higher revs, so I guess my 300 lb/ft torque is optimistic /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Andy bS3 said:
Hypothetically, if someone messed with the temp probe on a rolling road and upped the corrected figure would the WHP and torque be correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically, yes.

That's the easy way of messing with figures...look at the pre-corrected figures and the corrected figures...if they are similar, and the temperatures were within a few degrees, they *should* be pretty accurate.
If you have 240BHP straight from the dyno, and 280BHP corrected, with the inlet air showing 78 degrees for instance, it's [censored]!


The measurement for WHP should be accurate, if the dyno and all it's settings are accurate.

The torque figure *should* be the most accurate, as this is where the power figure is derived from...again, dependant on dyno set up etc.

But, as always, there's the calibration of the rollers, software used and dyno pack settings (acceleration rates etc) to consider.

 
[ QUOTE ]
DuncS3 said:
my REVO car showed 300 lb/ft on AMDs rollers running high boost 6, timing 4 (approx 1.5 bar ish), but obviously only showed this peak for about 1 second.

The same car on Interpros rollers running low boost 9 timing 5 did about 270 lb/ft (approx 1.3 bar)


[/ QUOTE ]

A torque peak is quite normal, then a fairly quick drop off.
The higher the boost you run, the sharper the drop off, and the peakier the torque curve - standard they have a flat torque curve.

I believe that 1.5 bar should = approx 285 genuine lb-ft.
...and 1.3 bar around 270 lb-ft.

Interpro seems spot on, in my view.



[ QUOTE ]

These changes were made by the SPS3 and do make a difference on the road/track. Running the low boost 9 setting at bedford autodrome I couldnt keep up with chipped S2s down the straight, but change to high boost 6 and I could almost overtake.


[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, the things I have found are this:
Increase boost and you get more torque at peak torque....not always more top end power for various reasons (heat soak, bad intercooling, ECU protection coming in - pulling back the timing)
Increase ignition advance, and you get more top end power.

Mine shows more and more torque for big steps in boost...but no more than 3-5 BHP for being able to hold more boost to the fuel cut out.

Conversely, switching from Optimax to optimax maps (only the timing changed) drops the peak power by 5-10BHP...leading me to believe top end power comes from adding ignition advance.

Of course, do this on a car with bad ICs (standard) and you melt stuff!

My car used to run 78 degrees at the engine inlet (after the ICs) on the standard SMICs...changed to my twin IC set up with FMIC and I was getting 23 degrees.
This allowed me ti run more advance on the map, and prevent the ECU winding back the timing for protection - a win-win situatuion.

REVO cars always make superb power / torque if the owners crank the settings up...however, for me to be confident that I could run such extreme settings I did years worth of testing...and had some very efficient ICs. I would not feel comfortable running some of the possible REVO settings on an otherwise standard car. But that's just my view...


 
[ QUOTE ]
berts S3 said:
[ QUOTE ]
RichA3Turbo said:
[ QUOTE ]
MarkC said:
How much is the AMD remap for a 225?

[/ QUOTE ]

£550+vat... £522.50+vat if you book it through JBR with our 5% discount to members.

Rich

[/ QUOTE ]now you ****** tell me,im getting mine done on tuesday,is that members on here if it is could you do me a favour give them a bell see if i can get it done any cheaper cheers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eyah thats members on here, UK-MKIVS, and PA.N... if its already booked though theres nothing i can do. Sorry!
 
[ QUOTE ]
berts S3 said:
******,i'll have to be cheeky when i get down there,see what i can blag out of them,i'll learn by my mistakes oneday.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to see you try, they give nothing away for free! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
 
I'll give it a ****** good go you never know,i'll bribe that ausie called paul and tell him i'll get him deported if all else fails. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/lol.gif
 
Quality post. Have to say, ran a 282lb/ft with a FMIC and when I read / heard about folk with 300lb/ft with just a chip, I found it really hard to bevieve!


 
[ QUOTE ]
ScotSTHREE said:
Quality post. Have to say, ran a 282lb/ft with a FMIC and when I read / heard about folk with 300lb/ft with just a chip, I found it really hard to bevieve!


[/ QUOTE ]

There speaks a voice of reason! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif

BTW Stevie,
I like your signature...like the sense of humour! Right up my street! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/lol.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ess_Three said:


In the order I would go for them personally:
APR, REVO, MTM, AmD, Jabba, Oettinger...
(For many reasons - power delivery, quality of code, features, respect for the company, quality of work etc)


[/ QUOTE ]

I am having trouble deciding between an MTM chip and an AMD chip. I like the MTM products, and the fact the name is well known the world over, mainly with the twin engined TT and that RS6 with two seats that laps as quick as a 911 GT3 RS (in the latest EVO). Bu the main reason for an MTM chip over an AMD one is the fact that QST are only about 15 minutes from my house. So for any problems or whatever, it would be useful.
The downside with them is a remap cost £850, £300 more than AMD. Is this price increase worth it for the convenience? I edging towards no...

Any help would be good, anyone had experience with both? Would an MTM remap be preferable to AMD when it comes to resale?
 
I believe that 1.5 bar should = approx 285 genuine lb-ft.

My a3 quattro is running that amount of boost , should i expect similar ? Or a lot less?



 
[ QUOTE ]
Robthehungrymonkey said:
The downside with them is a remap cost £850, £300 more than AMD. Is this price increase worth it for the convenience? I edging towards no...


[/ QUOTE ]

For convenience...probably not. For the more aggressive mapping...yes, if that's what you want.

I think I'd opt for MTM is I lived as close to QST as you do...I also like the aggressive torque delivery of the MTM map...very similar to that on mt S3.

If QST can now dyno before and after, I think that'd seal it for me.


[ QUOTE ]

Any help would be good, anyone had experience with both? Would an MTM remap be preferable to AMD when it comes to resale?


[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt there'll be anything in it when it comes to resale.
Both respected tuners, both quality products.


One thing you may consider:
MTM maps have been known to shorten clutch life by running boost spikes and the resultant torque...but they still aren't as high as mine and I've had no clutch issues in 3 1/3 years!
Sure, if you 1/4 mile thrash it, you'll cook your clutch....I get one good run, one bad run and one slipping clutch - in that order - but it recovers.

If you do a lot of miles, this may be a concern for you.

Of course, fitting an MTM / Helix clutch solves the problem...
 
[ QUOTE ]
jimboA3 said:
I believe that 1.5 bar should = approx 285 genuine lb-ft.

My a3 quattro is running that amount of boost , should i expect similar ? Or a lot less?





[/ QUOTE ]

Thats on a K04... boost depends on the turbo... Im running around 1.2 bar on the IHI and getting around those figures if not a bit more. The K03 really is a tiny turbo!

Rich
 
[ QUOTE ]
RichA3Turbo said:
Thats on a K04... boost depends on the turbo... Im running around 1.2 bar on the IHI and getting around those figures if not a bit more. The K03 really is a tiny turbo!


[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed Rich...
But we've only been speaking about the pathetic effore of a standard K04!
Not that thing the size of Bournemouth, that you have!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Ess_Three said:
[ QUOTE ]
RichA3Turbo said:
Thats on a K04... boost depends on the turbo... Im running around 1.2 bar on the IHI and getting around those figures if not a bit more. The K03 really is a tiny turbo!


[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed Rich...
But we've only been speaking about the pathetic effore of a standard K04!
Not that thing the size of Bournemouth, that you have!

[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif Was just making my point! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/beerchug.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
RichA3Turbo said:
[ QUOTE ]
jimboA3 said:
I believe that 1.5 bar should = approx 285 genuine lb-ft.

My a3 quattro is running that amount of boost , should i expect similar ? Or a lot less?





[/ QUOTE ]

Thats on a K04... boost depends on the turbo... Im running around 1.2 bar on the IHI and getting around those figures if not a bit more. The K03 really is a tiny turbo!

Rich

[/ QUOTE ]

Can i translate that in to English on Google ?..... or would you do the honours for me mate?! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
jimboA3 said:
[ QUOTE ]
RichA3Turbo said:
[ QUOTE ]
jimboA3 said:
I believe that 1.5 bar should = approx 285 genuine lb-ft.

My a3 quattro is running that amount of boost , should i expect similar ? Or a lot less?





[/ QUOTE ]

Thats on a K04... boost depends on the turbo... Im running around 1.2 bar on the IHI and getting around those figures if not a bit more. The K03 really is a tiny turbo!

Rich

[/ QUOTE ]

Can i translate that in to English on Google ?..... or would you do the honours for me mate?! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at it like this. Imagine you have a cylinder thats 30cm long and a diameter of 10cm, and you have another cylinder that again is 30cm long, but a diameter of only 5 cm.... Now both can have an internal pressure of say 1.5bar, but it doesnt mean that they are both holding the same amount of air does it? There is obviously ALOT more that affects it, but thats the simplistic way of looking at it. You also have to look at the restrictions on the engine, exhaust system, turbo exhaust turbine .etc

Rich
 
for what its worth AmD got 217bhp & 254lb ft out of my A3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A3tell
AMD remap
Replies
3
Views
1K
emery1990
E
nicklght
amd remap
Replies
4
Views
1K
aidank1981
aidank1981
I
AMD remap??
Replies
38
Views
1K
cybrey
C
?
AmD Remap - Review
Replies
21
Views
8K
Hopsta
H
audia3turrbo
revo remap vs amd
Replies
17
Views
5K
DJ_Troopa
D
Top
Back