>The Passat
>is auto

How did Neuspeed's new software affect the Tiptronic? I've always found the tip
to be a little slow and that it doesn't always like to hold it's gear. I've
spent some real time behind the wheel of a 1.8T Passat with Tiptronic and found
myself driving it in Manual mode the whole time. Kind of defeats the purpose of
having the Auto mode there at all. I hear that Audi's CVT is the best in the
world, and that the DSG is equally as impressive, but I've never liked the Tip
much.
Steve Grauman

 

I have a '00 Audi 1.8t and a '99 Passat 1.8t. I have the Nuespeed .8bar in
the Passat and the Nuespeed 1.1bar in the Audi. In both cases, the fuel
economy did increase. On average, about 1mpg, give or take .5mpg. The Passat
is auto, while the Audi is a 5spd. One thing that I can tell you is that I
find with the added torque, I'm not down shifting as much when slowing in
traffic or on slight inclines in the area that I live. Given that, my rpm's
can remain in a lower range than when down shifting. Higher rpm's mean more
fuel. Granted, I apply a little more throttle on the hills, but how that
compares to fuel consumed when down shifting to higher rpm range, I don't
know. If I had to guess, this would account for more of the difference that
I'm seeing.
Just a guess, I don't have any concrete scientific evidence to back it up.
Just two cars, with improved economy after chipping.

Glenn



"daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fkicj0hkmekm4iupurk9a55s62n68dden2@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:34:31 +0200, "JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snipped]
>>I would never say never, especially if I hadn't tried it. Some people -
>>and
>>that apparently includes you - only subscribe to "seeing is believeing";
>>now
>>you must go and see for yourself
>
> Cheers - I'm very big on "seeing is believing" when it comes to claims
> about
> fuel mileage. After all, there's an entire industry producing dubious
> add-ons
> that make similar claims that never pan out to rest my doubts on
>
> When it's all said, I suspect the higher octane fuel you're apparently
> using
> allows slightly more advanced timing which could indeed modestly improve
> efficiency. The changes to boost management doesn't seem intrinsically
> linked
> to efficiency - chemistry is chemistry unless you want friend exhaust
> valves -
> and who can judge subtle changes in mileage with accuracy when boost is
> anywhere near where the relief valve(s) are opening?
>
> God knows when I'm enjoying significant boost I'm not paying much
> attention to
> the HUD mileage reading - aside from some wonderment that I can get that
> down
> to a "5"
>
> /daytripper
> '00 s4 6spd

 

I have a '00 Audi 1.8t and a '99 Passat 1.8t. I have the Nuespeed .8bar in
the Passat and the Nuespeed 1.1bar in the Audi. In both cases, the fuel
economy did increase. On average, about 1mpg, give or take .5mpg. The Passat
is auto, while the Audi is a 5spd. One thing that I can tell you is that I
find with the added torque, I'm not down shifting as much when slowing in
traffic or on slight inclines in the area that I live. Given that, my rpm's
can remain in a lower range than when down shifting. Higher rpm's mean more
fuel. Granted, I apply a little more throttle on the hills, but how that
compares to fuel consumed when down shifting to higher rpm range, I don't
know. If I had to guess, this would account for more of the difference that
I'm seeing.
Just a guess, I don't have any concrete scientific evidence to back it up.
Just two cars, with improved economy after chipping.

Glenn



"daytripper" <day_trippr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fkicj0hkmekm4iupurk9a55s62n68dden2@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 10:34:31 +0200, "JP Roberts" <1234@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snipped]
>>I would never say never, especially if I hadn't tried it. Some people -
>>and
>>that apparently includes you - only subscribe to "seeing is believeing";
>>now
>>you must go and see for yourself
>
> Cheers - I'm very big on "seeing is believing" when it comes to claims
> about
> fuel mileage. After all, there's an entire industry producing dubious
> add-ons
> that make similar claims that never pan out to rest my doubts on
>
> When it's all said, I suspect the higher octane fuel you're apparently
> using
> allows slightly more advanced timing which could indeed modestly improve
> efficiency. The changes to boost management doesn't seem intrinsically
> linked
> to efficiency - chemistry is chemistry unless you want friend exhaust
> valves -
> and who can judge subtle changes in mileage with accuracy when boost is
> anywhere near where the relief valve(s) are opening?
>
> God knows when I'm enjoying significant boost I'm not paying much
> attention to
> the HUD mileage reading - aside from some wonderment that I can get that
> down
> to a "5"
>
> /daytripper
> '00 s4 6spd

 

I hear that Audi's CVT is the best in the
> world, and that the DSG is equally as impressive, but I've never liked the
Tip
> much.

Yup. Big Audi shame is there's no quattro to go with CVT, and DSG will be
fitted to cheapo Skodas, Seats and Golfs, but not to real Audis (A4s A6s or
A8s) - if you ask me, the A3 is more like a Golf thing. Now the question is
"Why on earth can't they fit a 4cyl. transverse engine with DSG into the A4
, if they can do so in the Golf - this having less room under bonnet?"
Granted I could possibly understand a longitudinal engine would not fit into
the Golf's engine bay, but the other way round?

The next bad news seems to be - needs to be confirmed, that the next
generation of 2.0T FSI engines have a higher compression ratio of 10.5,
which will make them less tunable and more prone to pinging. Then again the
intake is apparently plastic - too bad, and the turbo seems to integrate
seamlessly with the engine block - which reads as no more bolt-on bigger
turbos?

Want more nonsense? The new A4 3.0TDI will be offered at a detuned 204 PS,
when it delivers 233PS in the A8. Compound that with the fact that in the
1.8T engine they've been offering the opposite policy of detuning A4s (150,
163 and 190) in the face of the growing number of Seat Cupras (225) and
cheapo Ibiza Cupra (180) and you've got yet one more Audi fairy luring you
away from buying Audi again.

I think waiting for the next 3 series and getting a 330xd with the 276PS
biturbo engine will make more sense to me.

My two cents,

JP

 

I hear that Audi's CVT is the best in the
> world, and that the DSG is equally as impressive, but I've never liked the
Tip
> much.

Yup. Big Audi shame is there's no quattro to go with CVT, and DSG will be
fitted to cheapo Skodas, Seats and Golfs, but not to real Audis (A4s A6s or
A8s) - if you ask me, the A3 is more like a Golf thing. Now the question is
"Why on earth can't they fit a 4cyl. transverse engine with DSG into the A4
, if they can do so in the Golf - this having less room under bonnet?"
Granted I could possibly understand a longitudinal engine would not fit into
the Golf's engine bay, but the other way round?

The next bad news seems to be - needs to be confirmed, that the next
generation of 2.0T FSI engines have a higher compression ratio of 10.5,
which will make them less tunable and more prone to pinging. Then again the
intake is apparently plastic - too bad, and the turbo seems to integrate
seamlessly with the engine block - which reads as no more bolt-on bigger
turbos?

Want more nonsense? The new A4 3.0TDI will be offered at a detuned 204 PS,
when it delivers 233PS in the A8. Compound that with the fact that in the
1.8T engine they've been offering the opposite policy of detuning A4s (150,
163 and 190) in the face of the growing number of Seat Cupras (225) and
cheapo Ibiza Cupra (180) and you've got yet one more Audi fairy luring you
away from buying Audi again.

I think waiting for the next 3 series and getting a 330xd with the 276PS
biturbo engine will make more sense to me.

My two cents,

JP

 

>Yup. Big Audi shame is there's no quattro to go with CVT, and DSG will be
>fitted to cheapo Skodas, Seats and Golfs, but not to real Audis

It's been my understanding that the DSG's torque limit is 240 Ft. Lbs., making
VW's 3.2 VR6 the most powerful engine it can handle. This may be why they
haven't fitted it to the more powerful cars. When a newer unit with higher
power handling comes along, I'd like to see it replace the Tip, as I understand
that it's vastly superior. I don't know why the CVT can't be mated with
Quattro, Nissan's AWD Murano has a CVT in it.

>if you ask me, the A3 is more like a Golf thing.

The A3 really is a Golf, for all intensive purposes. It's just nicer, and as I
undertsnad it, has a better suspension.

>Now the question is
>"Why on earth can't they fit a 4cyl. transverse engine with DSG into the A4
>, if they can do so in the Golf - this having less room under bonnet?"

I don't know. It seems to me that a 2.0T powered A4 with Quattro and DSG would
be a great car. AFAIK, the only reason it hasn't been considered for the new
3.2 V6 is the power handling issue.

>The next bad news seems to be - needs to be confirmed, that the next
>generation of 2.0T FSI engines have a higher compression ratio of 10.5,
>which will make them less tunable and more prone to pinging.

I have a number of problems with the 2.0. Among them the fact that it's
unlikely to ever be factory matched to the WRX's 227 horspower or the Neon
SRT-4's 230. I know that speed isn't a priority for everyone, but it'd be nice
to see VW take that market seriously and make a car to compete. I don't count
the R32 because it's simply to much more money than either a WRX or SRT-4 and
it's slower than the WRX STi and Lancer EVO, which compete in the same price
bracket.

>Want more nonsense? The new A4 3.0TDI will be offered at a detuned 204 PS,
>when it delivers 233PS in the A8.

Well, Audi probably wants to distance the models in as many ways as possible.
It's the same nonsense that leads Porsche to keep the Boxster underpowered so
that it won't exlipse the 911 and Audi to keep the TT underpowered so that it
won't compete with the Boxster.

>you've got yet one more Audi fairy luring you
>away from buying Audi again.

We really liked the A4 we had and I'm really enjoying my Volkswagen. And I
certainly can't deny that I still like the R32, the TT VR6. the S4, RS6 and
Toureag. But there are simply to many other cars offering better performance
for the money and I'm kind of sick of keeping my fingers crossed that VW/Audi
will "get it" someday. I think my next car will probably be a BMW, even though
I'm really weary of being another 3-series driver.

>I think waiting for the next 3 series and getting a 330xd with the 276PS
>biturbo engine will make more sense to me.

It's tempting. But I'm also really liking the idea of a used B5 S4.
Steve Grauman

 

>Yup. Big Audi shame is there's no quattro to go with CVT, and DSG will be
>fitted to cheapo Skodas, Seats and Golfs, but not to real Audis

It's been my understanding that the DSG's torque limit is 240 Ft. Lbs., making
VW's 3.2 VR6 the most powerful engine it can handle. This may be why they
haven't fitted it to the more powerful cars. When a newer unit with higher
power handling comes along, I'd like to see it replace the Tip, as I understand
that it's vastly superior. I don't know why the CVT can't be mated with
Quattro, Nissan's AWD Murano has a CVT in it.

>if you ask me, the A3 is more like a Golf thing.

The A3 really is a Golf, for all intensive purposes. It's just nicer, and as I
undertsnad it, has a better suspension.

>Now the question is
>"Why on earth can't they fit a 4cyl. transverse engine with DSG into the A4
>, if they can do so in the Golf - this having less room under bonnet?"

I don't know. It seems to me that a 2.0T powered A4 with Quattro and DSG would
be a great car. AFAIK, the only reason it hasn't been considered for the new
3.2 V6 is the power handling issue.

>The next bad news seems to be - needs to be confirmed, that the next
>generation of 2.0T FSI engines have a higher compression ratio of 10.5,
>which will make them less tunable and more prone to pinging.

I have a number of problems with the 2.0. Among them the fact that it's
unlikely to ever be factory matched to the WRX's 227 horspower or the Neon
SRT-4's 230. I know that speed isn't a priority for everyone, but it'd be nice
to see VW take that market seriously and make a car to compete. I don't count
the R32 because it's simply to much more money than either a WRX or SRT-4 and
it's slower than the WRX STi and Lancer EVO, which compete in the same price
bracket.

>Want more nonsense? The new A4 3.0TDI will be offered at a detuned 204 PS,
>when it delivers 233PS in the A8.

Well, Audi probably wants to distance the models in as many ways as possible.
It's the same nonsense that leads Porsche to keep the Boxster underpowered so
that it won't exlipse the 911 and Audi to keep the TT underpowered so that it
won't compete with the Boxster.

>you've got yet one more Audi fairy luring you
>away from buying Audi again.

We really liked the A4 we had and I'm really enjoying my Volkswagen. And I
certainly can't deny that I still like the R32, the TT VR6. the S4, RS6 and
Toureag. But there are simply to many other cars offering better performance
for the money and I'm kind of sick of keeping my fingers crossed that VW/Audi
will "get it" someday. I think my next car will probably be a BMW, even though
I'm really weary of being another 3-series driver.

>I think waiting for the next 3 series and getting a 330xd with the 276PS
>biturbo engine will make more sense to me.

It's tempting. But I'm also really liking the idea of a used B5 S4.
Steve Grauman