1.8T M3.8.3 tuning

No, i do mean bov (as a general term). And here is why:
The diverter/bov should only operate (dump) when:
> there is boost pressure
> the throttle plate is closed
At all other times the valve should be shut.
Now, in the case that the throttle valve is shut and the turbo is still making boost, we know that the driving condition is basically engine overrun (decellerating engine speed). In this case the ecu will always tell the injectors to shut off (no fuel). All vag petrol engines have been this way since digifant1.
Therefore, how much mixture control is the ecu doing overrun? None at all!
Ergo - it is irrelevant whether you are recirculating or venting - when you are, the ecu is going to deliver 0 fuel in either case.
Now, besides all that - the valve i bought is configurable as a dump or a recirculate.
I hope that helps... I've read this myth about dump vs recirculate so much but as a mechanical engineer, i cannot rationalise the argument regarding the maf readings.
 
Because in real world driving you get back on the throttle after engine braking, if you choose to run lean and reduce throttle response venting to atmosphere that is your choice
 
Why would it run lean or reduce throttle response?
Firstly, if there is less actual air mass than the ecu thinks, then it will be rich, not lean.
Second, if you correctly adjust the bov, you might actually vent less boost pressure, not more, giving better throttle response.
In either case you have not fooled the ecu.
There is so much air mass movement, and so much disconnect between the throttle plate and the maf, the insignificant amount of air vented (through either recirculation or vent to atmosphere) by a diverter valve or bov is going to be insignificant.
 
Typo saying lean, all the experienced tuners saying atmospheric dumps post MAF reducing driveability must be wrong then
 
If you were tuning for it, it would make no difference.
You seem to have your mind made up based on what seem to be anecdotes. I am simply rationalising based on logical analysis... It would be much more helpful if you could engage in similar vein, or otherwise offer some evidential basis for your claims.
Simply because it is written, does not make it true :)
 
The affect of using an atmos valve over a BOV on an ECU that is load based is subjective but... its an air leak no matter how you dress it up... the ECU's only have +/-25% to play with and ME7 in particular is sensitive to variance in metered air ... a classic on bigger turbo builds is fitting the valves return feed to the TIP too close to the MAF... the flow of air on idle is enough to disturb the MAF enough to confuse the hell out of the ECU and throw stable idle out the window...

Point being that while the ECU can typically deal with the 'air leak' on an on going basis subjectively it will have to work harder to reign in actual AFR to target AFR and its at this point you can catch the ECU out....

The affect varies too depending on narrow or wideband application.... Running over rich on narrow band depending on condition could cause the engine to stumble more as the ECU will be blind to AFR on anything other than idle/part throttle conditions... wideband will cope better but can potentially throw in a massive correction is the issue is bad enough to warrant it...

MAF/Load based ECU's are designed around a leak free sealed charge air system... introducing an air leak just because you want a pffft sound is in reality daft...

On mafless applications (speed density etc) its fine but 'air leaks' on MAF based systems just cause issues

<tuffty/>
 
It is anything but subjective... We are discussing mechanical systems, not philosophy.
My understanding is that whatever device you are using, it should only operate when you close the throttle.... Exaclty when it doesnt matter how much fuel is injected.
Am i wrong?
 
Well... it is subjective as yes, while the valve will open under vacuum conditions from a closed throttle and the ECU will shut off the injectors air is still being drawn through the MAF and should the next throttle action be the application of a little part throttle then chances are the manifold will still be under vacuum and the valve partially open... this will allow unmetered air to enter the charge air system that the ECU won't see...

If back on full throttle then the valve will shut and its unlikely that the 'airleak' will present as an issue

<tuffty/>
 
Well you could reduce KFVAKL decel enrichment and KFTVSA switch delay time for overrun cut.

Even stock if you have a straight through exhaust with a double blip on the throttle it will backfire.

Aslong as the BOV was fully closed before idle it would prevent stalling.

There are caveats though, an atmosphere dump still reduces transient throttle response compared to recirculating, moving the recirc closer to the throttle is noted to help even more.
Also the ecu is relatively slow to catch up to inputs so I would expect minor driveability annoyances but yes it would work.
 
I think i need to figure out a way to accuratly monitor diverter/bov state and log it along with mass airflow over a range of driving states.
 
I think i need to figure out a way to accuratly monitor diverter/bov state and log it along with mass airflow over a range of driving states.
 
OK, My new cheap ebay BOV was delivered 2 days ago. I fitted it straight away.
I initially set it up using a vacuum pump in place of the manifold vacuum. I know my car idles with about 18-19 in.Hg, and with higher rpm and shut throttle is about 20 in.Hg.

By pulling a vacuum on the hose from the manifold tap, I could pump unti lI showed Idle vacuum on the boost/vacuum gauge, and adjust the spring tension on the BOV so that it is NOT open at idle vacuum (infact, still seated properly) - however with gentle finger pressure on the boost hose side, I could unseat the piston.

You want to achieve a balance of force such that some small amount of pressure is required on the boost hose side of the BOV to unseat the piston when vacuum is being pulled on the boost tap side. This means that the valve will not open and unecessarily bleed air at part throttle (say 10in.Hg - about what my car pull at cruise on flat road) but will vent when the throttle snaps shut AND some boost pressure pushes on the piston (the exact condition I was describing a few posts up, when the injectors are delivering 0 fuel, and mixture is irrelevant).

I can report after ~150km of mixed driving/thrashing that not only is the car slightly faster now, it also idles better (my old DV leaked when pulling vacuum on it with the vacuum pump - it was working, but also leaking vacuum itself a little).

No negative effects so far at all. I will try and take a video on the weekend. Its funny, I dont remember ever noticing a turbo car make BOV noises that wasnt also modified in other more obvious ways.... my car is completely stock apart from the BOV and manual boost controller running in series with the N75 (MBC is set at about 7psi, so I get a much more sensitive throttle/quick spool which I like, its more like a TDI to drive haha) - what that means is the exhaust is very quiet, so you can hear the BOV more obviously - its quite fun in a very non-grownup way.
 
gldgti said:
OK, My new cheap ebay BOV was delivered 2 days ago. I fitted it straight away.
I initially set it up using a vacuum pump in place of the manifold vacuum. I know my car idles with about 18-19 in.Hg, and with higher rpm and shut throttle is about 20 in.Hg.

By pulling a vacuum on the hose from the manifold tap, I could pump unti lI showed Idle vacuum on the boost/vacuum gauge, and adjust the spring tension on the BOV so that it is NOT open at idle vacuum (infact, still seated properly) - however with gentle finger pressure on the boost hose side, I could unseat the piston.

You want to achieve a balance of force such that some small amount of pressure is required on the boost hose side of the BOV to unseat the piston when vacuum is being pulled on the boost tap side. This means that the valve will not open and unecessarily bleed air at part throttle (say 10in.Hg - about what my car pull at cruise on flat road) but will vent when the throttle snaps shut AND some boost pressure pushes on the piston (the exact condition I was describing a few posts up, when the injectors are delivering 0 fuel, and mixture is irrelevant).

I can report after ~150km of mixed driving/thrashing that not only is the car slightly faster now, it also idles better (my old DV leaked when pulling vacuum on it with the vacuum pump - it was working, but also leaking vacuum itself a little).

No negative effects so far at all. I will try and take a video on the weekend. Its funny, I dont remember ever noticing a turbo car make BOV noises that wasnt also modified in other more obvious ways.... my car is completely stock apart from the BOV and manual boost controller running in series with the N75 (MBC is set at about 7psi, so I get a much more sensitive throttle/quick spool which I like, its more like a TDI to drive haha) - what that means is the exhaust is very quiet, so you can hear the BOV more obviously - its quite fun in a very non-grownup way.
Click to expand...

I think you may just have answered your own question there dude, you state your old dv was not holding vacuum. If it's leaking it's doing anything but working correctly, hence, since changing to a bov it's no longer leaking at idle and would run smoother than before, just like you said.

With the zero corrections during throttle closure, I think what Thomas was saying about deceleration enrichment and overrun cut would indicate that there is indeed fuel being injected and thus calculated during this period.

If it's cool whooshing noises you want just stick a cone filter or velocity stack on with a recirculation valve and you'll get plenty. Especially when you get it tuned and running higher boost correctly.

I can appreciate your desire to bust a myth, like you said earlier, but this subject has been covered many times by many tuners in the business, so I'm afraid I fear you're attempting to reinvent the wheel here. If you can find a reputable mapper who says that a maf based system works well with a atmospheric dump valve I will be astonished.

If you'd like to contribute further, maybe some logs showing your afr, with and without a bov would be useful to highlight the difference between the two setups and offer you some solid information to work from. What can't speak can't lie and all that bud.
 
AGUMK4 said:
With the zero corrections during throttle closure, I think what Thomas was saying about deceleration enrichment and overrun cut would indicate that there is indeed fuel being injected and thus calculated during this period.
Click to expand...

No - the ecu is not injecting fuel on overrun. It just doesnt. I will take some logs to prove it.
AGUMK4 said:
If you'd like to contribute further, maybe some logs showing your afr, with and without a bov would be useful to highlight the difference between the two setups and offer you some solid information to work from. What can't speak can't lie and all that bud.
Click to expand...

I will try and take some logs this weekend. Not sure how I can log AFR without a wideband but I will try logging air mass, TPS, rpm and injector pulse width. I suppose I could try logging lambda too but I'm not sure how useful it will be.

I totally agree that data is the key to this, but I do not accept "the wisdom of the consensus" in this case, as I've never seen any data for that case either. As far as I'm concerned its still an open case.

Regardless, this is but one part of the tuning effort (perhaps even a very small one) but the general concensus on tuning 1.8T's is alarmingly uninformed (in my judgement) and I just want to make sense of it all. Believe me when I say I'm new to 1.8T's but not to modifying cars, and certainly I will make more effort than most to actually understanding things. This is why I do not accept claims above that this whole BOV thing is subjective, its simply not. These are mechanical systems. They act in predictable ways (when you understand them). This is engineering. Its what I have been doing for a living for 15 years.
 
There is no injection programmed when you are in Overrun state in Group 004.

But you can notice that for driveability purpose, when you go from 100% throttle position to 0%, engine state will switch from Part Throttle to Idle and then Overrun => Only when you reach Overrun state, the engine stops injecting.

This delay is adjustable and if you're silly, you could increase it together with delayed ignition in those areas for annoying gargles like those fools like so much:blink:
 
audi upgrades
This thread is technically incredibly interesting, but seems like an awful lot of effort to modify a 150/180bhp into a 170/195bhp engine. It really is a hobbyists experiment, I would like to see the k03 put into an old 1100 A- Series engine in a mini or similar - see if it goes from 45bhp to 85bhp, you must be able to draw enough fuel and run off actuator pressure, or maybe an additional electronic fuel pump kicking in based on a positive vacuum pressure?
 
I have to say that it is quite fun to read same topic that is same as 10 years ago. Where I live, once guy did exactly same as glgti is doing.
Spent lots of time trying to prove everyone else wrong and in end came to same consensus as others and manufacturer: with Maf you cannot use blow-off valve or valve that vents to outside.

Even the hybrid bow/dw that vents just tiny bit, messes up your fuel.
I have tested this myself too and got lots of people here who have tested it too and it just doenst work.

Love your enthusiasm tho :)
Get wideband AFR to monitor more and post the findings to us as pics so we can all study it together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: <tuffty/>
This delay is adjustable and if you're silly, you could increase it together with delayed ignition in those areas for annoying gargles like those fools like so much:blink:
Click to expand...

For gargles ?
Even that is easier on a me7.5 simply massively ****** the timing how 10% load less than 2000 rpm, it's about 6 settings on the timing map, but makes motorway driving awful.

For bangs you need to add some extra fuel, but that will destroy the cat.
 
Stuart B, why so much hate ? For gargles, it's more work on ME7.5

And I don't get your point on 1.8T tunes only to 170/195 bhp ! It's the same engine as the ones put in ME7.5 1.8T except it has big port head and no VVT and already the 20mm rods. Through a K03S and you get exactly the same engine capable of up-to 250bhp and even slightly more with E85 fuel
 
there's no hate, I am enjoying the effort you are putting in - but doubt your 250BHP K03s estimates.
 
I dont understand about comments that BOV doesnt work though..... I've been driving around like this for weeks (450km/week) with no ill effects.
Actually im getting 30-40km/tank more than before so far.

I did take some logs the other week but been so busy havnt even looked at them yet. Maybe soon.

BTW - I am putting in almost no effort with this - its all good fun to me. Warsuperior - you CAN use a BOV - I am :)
 
A BOV will 'work' but its certainly not what the intake system (MAF based) is designed for... a BOV is an airleak allowing un metered air to enter the charge system when operating under negative pressure... fuel trims will compensate by up to 25% but bear in mind that the airleak goes away under positive pressure forcing the ECU to readapt...

The issues you typically get are the same as you would have from airleaks derived from split pipes etc...

Just because it 'works' doesn't mean its right....

If you are happy then thats fine... its your car, you do what you want but... MAF based ECU's are not designed to run BOV/Atmos valves and do cause running issues under certain circumstances...

<tuffty/>
 
  • Like
Reactions: antwan64og
Thomas_20VT said:
Happy new year to all !

Chapter: LOAD calculation

As there seem to be one main fear about M3.8 leading to people saying that this ECU is sh*t and should be replaced by either standalone ECU (which can't do half of what a stock ECU does!) or switch to ME7.5 (way better than M3.8 but require money and electrical skills)

I decided to investigate a bit with my stock AGU to figure out if there may be a way to tune those M3.8 ECUs for big HP figures.

The main worry was the side effects caused by scaling load by KHFM as all the MAPs using load as an axis will be wrong and must be redone. This can be a very time consuming process and the reason why most people don't bother with this ECU

Here is data from VCDS logs on my own car:
View attachment 145105
I am able to back-calculate theoretical Load purely from MAF (g/s) read by VAGCOM and using KHFM in the following formula:

Load [ms] = (4/2) x 3,6 x MAF x KHFM /1000 / RPM

where: 4/2 is the number of cylinders divided by the number of cylinders being ignited per revolution (4-stroke engine) and the other factors are only for unit conversion.

How to proceed from here:

First, scale your KHFM factor (43860 as stock value) so that you keep load in a safe area with enough marging against the 12,75ms hard limit.
Then, you scale FGATO (injector constant) by the same factor as you used for KHFM so that all the injection maps using load will still be correct.

The work you need to make on your own is then for timing advance where you should recalculate your load axis supporting points so that they match with the scale you made on KHFM.

This way, all should be functional at once and require only slight fine-tuning but as you would do anyway with any kind of ECU.

(on the graph, load calculation error range is very narrow between -0,7% to 0,9%. Considering there is already a 0,7% error only from VCDS accuracy at 7ms with only 0,05ms steps, I think that this formula is the right one)

Any opinion ? or data from some other vehicles ?

Next time, I will try to have a better understanding of fueling strategies as there are still some few parameters which I need to figure out first
Click to expand...

First I want to say hello, the info in this thread is really great. You have done an amazing work with that old Motronic ECUs. It can tuned for big HP numbers with proper knowledge but takes some good time (no wideband and poor protocol/datalogging speeds). A last comment, from my point of view, KHFM translates MLHFM (gr/sec) in a LOAD (ms) "WINDOW" that affects entire ECU functionality. I think that will be better to scale bigger injectors (if it was the case, via FGAT0 for example and other constants) prior than going to a bigger MAF first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: badger5
I do recommend to tune for big injectors with FGATO, TVUB settings (injector latency) and TEMIN first. Once done, play with KHFM to still be in a "safe" zone (below 11,5-12ms load) and adjust FGATO to compensate for this KHFM change.

Then, you will need to adjust the ignition tables.
 
Thomas thanks for yr sharing
Do u have any sharing start from the beginning
Say how to flash or remap the m3.8.x?
Thanks


從我的iPhone使用Tapatalk 發送
 
Hi, I thought I'd reply as I went through the same thing a few months ago. All the information can be found on the web. I bought a harness connector off aliexpress so I could flash it on the bench but they can be flashed on the car as long as you have a method of providing power to pin 43. If you google M3.8.3 flashing there are images showing the wiring.

Then you need MPPS and a cable (I got mine off ebay). MPPS (needs to be set to M5.92 for flashing). You can find the original bin files easily if you search for your part number.

You then need something like WINols or TunerPro and a mechanism of calculating checksum (WinOLS has a built in checksum calculator). KP files can also be found online with a bit of searching which are used by WINols to define the locations of various tables/maps.
 
antwan64og said:
Some M3.8.3 can be mapped via OBD.
Those cars that have a wire going from pin 43 on the ecu to pin 13 on the OBD can be flashed through the port.
This seems to be present on AGU MK4 Golfs but not on all AGU A3’s which means you have to bench flash the ECU.

I use MPPS to flash the ecu and tunerpro to edit the file, MTX provide a Checksum for Tunerpro.
Some people prefer Winols.
Click to expand...

Jooo,

I have the original .bin file from my 06A906018R. How can i load it in tunerpro? I downloaded the orginal file because i cant read my ECU. Is that right?
What is the XDF? I converted the .bin to .xdf but tunerpro gave me in error ( Unrecognized encoding (parser does not support UTF-8 language encodings). I am new in this topic. Would be very nice if someone give me a little help. btw sorry for my bad English :D
 
You can’t convert the bin to an xdf, you have find one or write one.

There’s no widely available xdf for that ecu variant. You can use other m3.8.3 variants.

Send me your email and i’ll send you a bin file with xdf and the basic explanations. It’s a nightmare to be honest, since some of it is hardcoded you have to work around it.
 
Hi, I am new here and I hope this is the right place to ask my question. But I think it’s although interesting for others.
I tried to Golf IV V6 MAF sensor on a 1.8T AGU. But it’s runs unsteady and misfires.

I changed the pin out for the 5 pin new MAF housing.

  1. -
  2. 12V
  3. Sensor Ground ECU Pin 12
  4. 5V
  5. Sensor Signal ECU Pin 13


my approach at the tune:

I locate the MLHFM Maps and convert them into Airflow in kg/Hours.


AGU with M3.8.3: factor 0,125/ offset -200

V6 with ME7.X: factor 0,1/ offset -200


Now I scale the V6 map from 1x512 to 1x246 and change the negativ Values to 0.


Does anybody know where my mistake is ? Or can explain how to rescale the M3.8.3 KLHFM Map correctly for the newer generation of MAF sensors?

Thank you
 
Thomas_20VT said:
Don't be afraid, it's rather (very) simple. LOAD is injector opening time to reach lambda=1 and Tv compensates for injector latency (injector is supplied but does not inject). When you are in closed-loop lambda regulation with O2 sensor feedback, nothing else is taken into account. You see: simple!

Now, the tricky part, when load threshold for lambda control is overcome, ECU uses some multiplicative factors. 95% is given by the so-called Lambdakennfeld bei Teillast MAP which gives a factor that can be almost seen as an AFR target (example from my AGU below)
View attachment 144265
Click to expand...

Hope theres still some interest in this topic :)

Now I have been looking for this map for some time.

I then found "Lambdakennfeld bei Teillast" KFLF in a M3.8.2 and M5.92 Damos, but not with the values you have, mine is 0.0-2.0 with factor 0.007813.

In my M3.8.3 Damos the KFLF is translated to "Fuel Injection Main Correction Map"
-06A906018CG (Map is the same in both 06A906018R Files I have)

And in the Comment Tab it states this:

KFLF - Lambdakennfeld bei Teillast

Lambda Map at Partial Load / Main Fuel Correction
X/Y/Z = Load (ms/RPM) / RPM / Lambda Correction Factor

KFLF has nothing to do with lambda request. It is the first injection correction map and the values of this map are factor.
KFLF = 1 mean 0% correction
KFLF = 1.05 means +5% fuel correction

This map is suggested to be tuned in extreme power high rev applications.

For K03 and K04 setups it isn't needed to be tuned at all. A well calibrated file will give you the appropriate results!

KFLF is a prior injection correction map and not a lambda map. You can increase by 10% the KFLF but your fuel will be the same as lambda request.

KFLF stores correction factors

While KFLF is 1.00 is inactive
Richer = KFLF > 1.00
Leaner = KFLF < 1.00

Anyone have the Funktionsrahmen for M3.8 or M5.92??
 
Try playing with KFLF and look for changes of AFR with wideband lambda sensor during WOT and report ;)

When you are not with O2 feedback, KFLF can't be corrected anymore and is applied.

You don't have to change KFLF when tuning for increased boost with K03 (or K04). BUT, if you want correct AFR to ensure best performance and engine protection, then my recommendation is to make some changes to KFLF at least for high load area. In stock form, this map is made to protect engine to a point that AFR would be so rich, you could see some misfiring in some cases with aged hardware.
 
Hi, I am new here and I hope this is the right place to ask my question.
I have problem with 1.8t AGU.
The controller introduces very large load corrections. This is very apparent at low speed. Corrected load is twice as high as specified. Which sensor can cause such large corrections? The flow meter measures ok, the probe works, temperatures also look OK, I just don't know where to check the reading from the atmospheric pressure sensor.
After disconnecting the MAF, the controller still sees the flow, where does it get from? The driver is modified, 5 years was fine.
Thank you in advance for your answer.
Log
 
Thomas_20VT said:
Try playing with KFLF and look for changes of AFR with wideband lambda sensor during WOT and report ;)

When you are not with O2 feedback, KFLF can't be corrected anymore and is applied.

You don't have to change KFLF when tuning for increased boost with K03 (or K04). BUT, if you want correct AFR to ensure best performance and engine protection, then my recommendation is to make some changes to KFLF at least for high load area. In stock form, this map is made to protect engine to a point that AFR would be so rich, you could see some misfiring in some cases with aged hardware.
Click to expand...


Long time ago :D Not active on here.

The info I got in my damos is mixed for M3.8/M5.9 and ME7.

but for M3.8 KFLF and KFLFLAV is the same, and the map is used to add a % of correction to the actual load in ms (load in this ECU is non-corrected injection time)

so when it goes to Open Loop it will run only on KFLF/KFLFLAV (and other correction maps) else it will just run on the narrowband in Closed Loop.

and when asking more boost, you will need to edit this map to correct AFR :)
 
bonjour excuse carte un travail sur ME3.8 018R sur gti agu.
avez-vous le réglage et la localisation de chaque carte s'il vous plaît
ou non.
réservoirs: nogarors4:
 
audi upgrades
I know this is an old thread but I'm hoping there might still be some interest!

Thanks to this post I've been doing some self tuning on and off when I get the time. I calibrated some Saab 359 injectors by altering FGATO (0.7266), TEMIN, TLST and making a small change to TVUB. My approach was to look at fuel trims (Block 8) and tweak things once new values had a chance to be learned. With the original injectors I had 0.8% idle and -1.6% multiply, with the Saab ones I now have -0.8% for both.

I have an MOT in the next week, but after that I will add a VW Sharan VR6 MAF by scaling MLHFM.
 
David Hook said:
I know this is an old thread but I'm hoping there might still be some interest!

Thanks to this post I've been doing some self tuning on and off when I get the time. I calibrated some Saab 359 injectors by altering FGATO (0.7266), TEMIN, TLST and making a small change to TVUB. My approach was to look at fuel trims (Block 8) and tweak things once new values had a chance to be learned. With the original injectors I had 0.8% idle and -1.6% multiply, with the Saab ones I now have -0.8% for both.

I have an MOT in the next week, but after that I will add a VW Sharan VR6 MAF by scaling MLHFM.
Click to expand...
do you have any Tunerpro definitons for this ECU ? Old hat for most but of interest to me.
 
Hello ! I try to remap my 1.8t AEB with 3.8.3 ECU from AGU.I dont understand how to calculate theoretical load.I find formula but dont understand.

Tl=Q / (n*Ki)
Q=MAF
n=RPM
Ki=injector constant

I try this way:

Example

Q= 500 kg/h air in 4500rpm
And Ki=32895

Tl=500/ (4500*32895)
 
Thomas_20VT said:
My goal is not to show how I tune it but more to make people understand how it works so that they can benefit from it and tune it by themselves.

Later on, I would be able to propose a short comparison between AGU 150hp and AJL 180hp (supposed to be 180hp because in reality, it appears they are dynoed closer to 163hp and map file suggests around 161hp worth of airflow...)
Click to expand...
Hi Thomas and everybody, sorry to revive this old thread but it is very interesting, the dicoveries you did by yourself are awesome.

I am in the process of as you say of understanding the ecu and trying to do changes myself. I have developed a guide to start to understand stuff and have been comparing maps to see the changes made and how should I proceed.

For the moment I have seen KFLDS has higher values across the map than LDSMXN allows. Can we confirm that besides having 8,50 ms/umdr in KFLDS for example, if LDSMXN has only 8,00 ms/umdr, the computer won't inject more than 8ms¿? Still trying to understand how manufacturer tuned them and how they worked.

Thanks in advance to anyone that can help!!! :)

KFLDS LDSMXN comparison
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
1.8t tuning?
Replies
24
Views
2K
1animal1
1animal1
C
A3 1.8T Tuning
Replies
4
Views
1K
RichA3Turbo
RichA3Turbo
macpdm
Tuning A3 1.8T Sport
Replies
3
Views
1K
macpdm
macpdm
M
tuning a 1.8t quattro
Replies
3
Views
1K
Mcblow
Mcblow
C
Tuning a 1.8T further?!
Replies
5
Views
1K
HTC
HTC
Top
Back