S-Tronic Hesitation

Out in the car today, manual mode (M1) seems by far the quickest to get moving with full 1st gear engagement, S1 is barely quicker than D1 to engage (if at all, might've imagined the difference, it's so small).

I do wonder whether (outside manual mode) the 7 speed DSG has 2nd ready to go rather than 1st in D and S modes sometimes for moving off (and then has to find 1st), as if you decelerate to a stop in any situation other than a 3mph urban crawl, the box comes down the gears to 2nd and disengages as you brake to a standstill. In manual mode "M1", 1st is always ready to go.

If there are 3 components to the overall hesitation then it should be more noticeable for a TDI where the turbo lag is more significant.
 
Last edited:
A4B9 said:
But for the fact I’ve also experienced this lag on a 40 TFSI Q3...
Click to expand...

I suppose it's going to be hard to quantify the differences between different models.

If there are multiple components to the overall lack of response when you look to move from a standstill, if you eliminate turbo lag for the TFSI variants (as it'll be tiny), you still have clutch feathering by the S-tronic box and a lazy/dead initial throttle pedal response common to both TDI and TFSI models. It could be the difference between a 1 second lag (TFSI) and 1.5 seconds (TDI).

Audi could definitely do something about this, considering the lack of lag on our Polo GTI+ DSG.
 
Historically this goes back years, decades,more don't hold your breath. Besides I don't find it an issue like others seem to. I was pleasantly surprised by the lack of lag when I went from a lifetime user of manual cars to a stronic..
 
I much prefer manuals but VAG seem to be doing all they can to get rid of them.

You're not thinking about any lag when you've got a manual because your mind is occupied partially with changing gear. Anticipation and preparation of a situation (like a gap at a busy roundabout when you're at a standstill) is easier with a manual. Simply pressing the accelerator and waiting for full clutch engagement with S-tronic feels like an eternity in comparison.
 
monkeyhanger said:
I suppose it's going to be hard to quantify the differences between different models.

If there are multiple components to the overall lack of response when you look to move from a standstill, if you eliminate turbo lag for the TFSI variants (as it'll be tiny), you still have clutch feathering by the S-tronic box and a lazy/dead initial throttle pedal response common to both TDI and TFSI models. It could be the difference between a 1 second lag (TFSI) and 1.5 seconds (TDI).

Audi could definitely do something about this, considering the lack of lag on our Polo GTI+ DSG.
Click to expand...
Didn’t you mention that the Polo GTI has the 6 speed DSG box? The lag I’ve suffered on both diesel and petrol cars has been the 7 speed box
 
A4B9 said:
Didn’t you mention that the Polo GTI has the 6 speed DSG box? The lag I’ve suffered on both diesel and petrol cars has been the 7 speed box
Click to expand...

That's right, but as they both work in the same way (both wet clutch, dual gearbox with mechatronics system). I have 2 theories as to why that would be:-

1. The same engine as the "40" TFSI, but tuned to 200ps has very little turbo lag and the car's a hot hatch so maybe the gearbox map is set up for snappier (but less smooth) changes - less feathering-in of clutches. The A4 is set up for comfort (maybe not so much the S4?). Feathering in gears on the Polo GTI+ is still very much present between the higher gears.

2. The 6 speed DSG has bigger ratio gaps between the gears so it will always look to have 1st ready in a stand-still situation, whereas the 7 speed box may have 2nd ready and need to look for 1st at times.

This isn't fact, just trying to make a few logical theories based on my experiences with the 2 cars.

The selection and feathering in of 1st gear to full clutch engagement to move off do seem excessively long on my A4, unless M1 is selected in full manual mode.
 
Last edited:
Yes but there could be differences in the gearbox themselves, from a Polo to the A4, one obvious is that the Polo is transverse and the A4 longitudinal plus, with my version the DL3832, is the newest version with production commencing in 2015. Thus there could be software differences as well as mechanical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-shift_gearbox
 
cuke2u said:
Yes but there could be differences in the gearbox themselves, from a Polo to the A4, one obvious is that the Polo is transverse and the A4 longitudinal plus, with my version the DL3832, is the newest version with production commencing in 2015. Thus there could be software differences as well as mechanical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-shift_gearbox
Click to expand...

I'll probably find out tomorrow with OBD Eleven, but after looking at that link, do you think my 2019 "40" TDI Quattro S-Line has the DL382 box (rated for 500Nm) or DL501 (rated for 700Nm)? I'm guessing the DL382 if both boxes were still available in 2019 - it's really not in Audi's current remit to overengineer to such an extent to strap a 700Nm box onto a car with 400Nm output.

The reason i'm interested is that (after seeing your signature), i'm interested in a DTUK box and don't want to put more torque through the gearbox than it's set up for. Not keen on paying nearly £400 on the TCU remap dongle in addition to the engine tuning box.

I had one on my 2013 Golf GTD, taking it from 184ps and 380Nm to around 240ps and 500Nm. The difference was incredible, the car pulled in 6th like stock did in 4th. I was given a free upgrade by Andrew at DTUK to trial the (then) new "Trevor" box as I was giving it such high praise on the Golf GTI forum, and DTUK is local-ish to me, so I was able to try before I bought it.

Back then the tuning boxes were considered to be untraceable, but now people seeingly are a little more cautious in their use for fear of the box being detected and drivetrain warranty refused should the worst happen. I'm a big believer in VAG TDI tech being pretty robust - i've had 7 TDI VWs from new over the years and the only failure I had was on a 2003 105ps 1.9TDI Polo - the turbo went at about 6 months old - the actuator stopped actuating for the whole journey on about 1/2 my ignition cycles until it was fixed (same thing happened on my 2015 Golf R, so not purely a TDI issue).
 
audi upgrades

It certainly felt magic. Diesel tuning is pretty easy and needn't be complicated to get good results: It's as simple as more fuel in = more power out because (unlike petrols which require a stoichiometric ratio of air to fuel), diesels run on a huge excess of air, so there are no air requirement considerations to make. Also, as long as you don't overdo it, that diesel will burn almost completely due to the high pressures and internal temperatures of diesel combustion. The trick is how smoothly you overfuel with that box.

My first taste of tuning boxes was with "TDI-tuning". The overfuelling with that box was extremely crude. I could put my foot down in in 3rd at 60mph and induce wheelspin, but the DPF was almost constantly regenerating because it was overfuelling at all throttle inputs, and by a large margin vs stock. You could see this in the indicated mpg. My indicated mpg was up 15% because it was overfuelling to that margin over and above the amount the car thought it was getting.

The DTUK box had pretty accurate indicated mpg overall as it was overfuelling in a controlled and proportional amount to stock only in higher throttle inputs. As you're not under high throttle situations for very long in your journey (unless you drive like a nutter), the effect of the overfuelling on indicated mpg was very low.

If I was going for a petrol power increase, i'd be more tempted to go the remap route, there are more considerations to make (like measured air intake, among other things) to derive useable and smooth power/torque increases.

One thing that is BS with all tuning boxes is the claimed mpg increase. If you are deriving more power, you are are using more fuel to do it, there's no getting away from that. There are sizeable peak torque increases, but again, you are using more fuel to get it. These boxes fool the car into putting more fuel in than the car thinks it's getting, and so the indicated mpg increases, but it's a false high. For boxes like the DTUK one where it only overfuels significantly under much higher throttle inputs, the indicated mpg increase is very low because overall, you're only using significantly more fuel than normal under short bursts of acceleration, which are a tiny amount of most people's journeys.
 
Last edited:
Didn't feel the need to dyno after someone else on the forum did and came back with 242ps and 509Nm (stock dyno of 191ps and 401Nm - dyno inaccuracy or one of many examples of VAG being a little conservative with their official figures?).

Individual cars can differ a little, but if mine was actually 235ps rather than 240ps, I wouldn't give a toss, the difference the DTUK box made was significant.

There's a stretch of dual carriageway at home that I have long since used for comparing acceleration of my cars on a rolling start (as most have been 2WD and I don't want to include the effect of tramping).

I leave the roundabout and enter the dual carriageway, pass a sign at 20mph and hoof it, seeing what speed I'm doing when passing the next sign:-

MK5 Golf GT TDI 140 (PD) = 70MPH
MK5 Golf GT TDI 170 (PD) = 80MPH
Scirocco GT TDI 140 (CR) = 78MPH
Scirocco GT TDI 170 (CR) = 82MPH
MK7 Golf GTD 184 (CR) = 83MPH
MK7 Golf GTD + DTUK = 88MPH
MK7 Golf R 300ps = 97MPH
MK6 Polo GTI+ (200ps) = 84MPH
A4 B9 40 TDI Avant = 79MPH

I would like to add that these were done at 4am on an empty road and I was straight back down to 70.
 
Guess they work on some cars and not for others .

I know without a doubt on my Stuttgart 2.1 biturbo it would not give me an advertised + 100Nm , most remappers advertise +50Nm , 100Nm is not possible with the dpf in place and incase I'm wrong if it did gain 100Nm it would be over pressurising the fuel rail and injectors for sure .
 
A good tuning box does more than just over fuelling these days and I doubt if the ecu would allow it either. Not heard of any tuning boxes being actually traced and dtuk return all their test cars with no issues. However if you're clumsy at fitting or removing them then evidence could be discovered. As for which gearboxes are matched to what engines, I am not entirely sure which they are but I seem to remember that the 382 is only for the 2.0 tfsi engine..
 
Last edited:
Gazwould said:
Guess they work on some cars and not for others .

I know without a doubt on my Stuttgart 2.1 biturbo it would not give me an advertised + 100Nm , most remappers advertise +50Nm , 100Nm is not possible with the dpf in place and incase I'm wrong if it did gain 100Nm it would be over pressurising the fuel rail and injectors for sure .
Click to expand...

Not entirely sure what a Stuttgart 2.1 Biturbo is - Mercedes 220 (OM651) engine? Is yours the highest rated variant for that engine type? Perhaps there's not much ceiling to the manufacturer predefined fuelling/torque safety limits on that engine to add much more?

The 2.0TDI lump's biturbo variant is stock output at 240ps and 500Nm, about where the DTUK tuning box would put the 190ps "40" variant, so there's definitely some headroom there.

I've no reason not to believe that the DTUK box can give a 190ps 2.0TDI 240ps and 500Nm. When I had the DTUK box on my Golf GTD quoting the same figures, it would get away from my mates' 230ps Golf GTI PP quite easily once rolling.
 
Gazwould said:
So why don't they work on a 2.0 TDI 150hp A4 B8 ?
Click to expand...

Do they not? Wouldn't know the answer to that one if others report that engine being untunable or without appreciative gains. DTUK have 2 listing for B8 150ps 2.0TDI and they both get to 200ps and 460Nm according to their website. Assuming one is PD and one is CR variant.

Did the B8 always have the CR variant on the go? In 2007, PD was still the injection system used by VW TDIs, in 2009, CR replaced PD on the Golf (with the new MK6) and Scirocco. It's possible the A4 had an early introduction of the CR variant for the whole B8 lifespan, if it didn't have a short spell with the PD variant first.

Can't think of a reason why the PD variant wouldn't take a tuning box for meaningful gains. My Dad had a late 2006 Golf GT TDI 170 DSG and added a TDI Tuning box to get roughly 210ps advertised output, again the difference was noticeable between with and without the box.

I do know for sure that the DTUK box gave my GTD very significant gains, and as it's essentially the same EA288 lump as the "40" TDI, but shy of 6ps and pre Ad-Blue tech (not available in 2013), so i'd expect similar gains on my A4.

Easiest way to put it in terms most would appreciate is that with the box, the car pulled in 6th like stock does in 4th on a 6 speed manual box. Very noticeable.
 
Last edited:
It was a 2014 CR and the box made it loose 2bhp from stock instead of gaining a claimed +50hp .
 
Was that a general concensus that it lost 2hp, or was it just on yours (dodgy box or box loom perhaps?). What brand box did you have?
 
I'll take your word for it. Luckily I don't have that engine and expextations are that the "40" engine will work like a charm. Just looking into finding out if I will get reamed by my insurance company for having one

I suspect so, they reamed me for changing from Polo GTI+ to A4. Going on the comparison sites, my own insurer (quote me happy) had my Polo at £310 and the A4 at £412. On that basis I was expecting to pay about £45 pro-rata to Nov. My insurance company told me that new annual premium was £616 so pro-rata I had to pay £136. Absolute robbers. At renewal I'm expecting to pay about £360pa elsewhere and maybe 10% more for the box.
 
Just watched the video, what a painful, awkward and clunky presentation.

So you have a tuning company with a vested interest in rubbishing their competition actually rubbishing their competition.

You didn't see the dynos being generated and no mention was made of what settings each box had.

I can't comment on the Racechip and TDI-Tuning boxes, but the DTUK boxes have multiple settings (the very old ones used jumper pins with multiple "maps" and fine tuning within each map. If you put it on the lowest setting, gains are going to be negligible. The one I had on my GTD had 3 maps and 7 sub maps e.g. maps 1, 2 and 3 with fine tuning: -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3.

If you go Map 1, -3, you might as well not bother. My favoured setting was 2, 1. IMO, map 2, 3 and map 3 with any sub setting were too aggressive.

The later "Trevor" box I got a free upgrade to for doing a bit of trialling used electronic map switching rather than jumper pins.

You could also have the situation that the box or loom was faulty or hadn't been programmed. DTUK seemingly given the opportunity to check and rectify, can't know for sure on that score, just have to take the guy's word for it.

Only truly independent testing with the tuning box companies' full cooperation to ensure that they are set up as per expectations will assure that a true representation was given in testing.

My "roadsign acceleration" test done on my GTD and that it could beat a standard Golf GTI PP (230ps) was confirmation that mine was working fine to expectations.
 
Doesn't look like they always do .

Some making 200 bhp not 240 , limp mode , blown injectors , some of the comments are quite damming .
 
My Dad inherited my old DTUK box for his MK7 Golf GTD DSG when I got.my Golf R. He runs his cars for 200k miles as he does about 30k miles a year. He ran my box on his car to about 138k miles (from 35k miles). He had a few issues at that point rough idle due to almost permanent regen and took the box off, but now his car is regenerating often as his DPF is almost full with incombustible ash (as you'd expect with a DPF equipped car having now done 144k miles).

He's looking to have his DPF cleaned out soon and will give the box another go afterwards

103k trouble-free miles on his car with the box on is pretty good going.
 
I've had a look on the Seat and Briskoda forums for DTUK issues and the general concensus is customers having running problems are those that experience gross overfuelling because they set it to 3,3 (max) rather than something sensible like 2,1 or 2,2.

There's someone local to me on the Golf GTI forum who got a DTUK box for his manual GTD when I got one for mine. He gad juddering with his but it's totally attributable to his driving style. He likes to put his foot down in 4th at 25mph, doing 1200 revs and expect something to happen. A DSG will kick down if you try that, but on a manual, you get a laboured engine that you're trying to force extra fuel through.

The difference in performance between settings 2,1 and 3,3 are marginal, but the difference in how smoothly it's delivered are huge. When I had my box on, active regens were around half the frequency of stock (on setting 2.1).

Seems to me that in giving so much useable adjustment to the consumer, Andrew at DTUK has shot himself in the foot because there are so many people wanting all settings to the max and the max setting is beyond sensible.
 
monkeyhanger said:
I've had a look on the Seat and Briskoda forums for DTUK issues and the general concensus is customers having running problems are those that experience gross overfuelling because they set it to 3,3 (max) rather than something sensible like 2,1 or 2,2.

There's someone local to me on the Golf GTI forum who got a DTUK box for his manual GTD when I got one for mine. He gad juddering with his but it's totally attributable to his driving style. He likes to put his foot down in 4th at 25mph, doing 1200 revs and expect something to happen. A DSG will kick down if you try that, but on a manual, you get a laboured engine that you're trying to force extra fuel through.

The difference in performance between settings 2,1 and 3,3 are marginal, but the difference in how smoothly it's delivered are huge. When I had my box on, active regens were around half the frequency of stock (on setting 2.1).

Seems to me that in giving so much useable adjustment to the consumer, Andrew at DTUK has shot himself in the foot because there are so many people wanting all settings to the max and the max setting is beyond sensible.
Click to expand...
Have never experience any over fuelling with the two tuning boxes myself. I have also used custom maps and the difference they made seems clearly to be evidence there is far more to them than just shoving more fuel in. Like anything there will always be a handful of individuals who have experienced issues, but that is life with anything. I would also not be surprised if they were also running some other mod. Thousands of owners of these boxes who have had a positive experience cannot be wrong. As you state, some clearly do not understand, or can read, the instructions correctly or have the ability to drive a car properly.
We can go around arguing about tuning boxes for as long as anyone likes, however they work and they work very well for the majority..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
S-Tronic Hesitation
Replies
2
Views
882
AdrianWh
A
Eric Szekely
S tronic Sound
Replies
8
Views
1K
Jassyo06
Jassyo06
B
35tfsi s tronic service
Replies
2
Views
885
Booboo
Booboo
W
S Tronic Weird Sounds
Replies
3
Views
1K
NHN
NHN
A
38k S Tronic Service
Replies
9
Views
1K
cuke2u
cuke2u
Top
Back