Neuspeed chip!!!!!!!!!

Yep that's right, I finally took the plunge and got the .8bar Neuspeed on my recently purchased 99.5 1.8QTM.
WOW! Night and day! I love my Audi!!!
Why did I go for Neuspeed, well mainly price and also a conservative upgrade. I was also contemplating the Garret 1bar but I would also have to get new plugs and a new TT DV so the overall cost was a lot less for the Neuspeed and a lot less inconvenience for me to get this installed.
The "BIG" difference is the 1st & 2nd gear at @3.5k rpm and also downshifting on the highway.
Anyone thinking of chipping their 1.8T should just do it - this is a real beast!
Darren Montreal Canada
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Let me know what happens to your gas mileage. I have to commute 150 miles a day. I could definately use some additional passing power, but I don't want a big change in fuel economy.
Thanks

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In theory, mileage shouldn't be affected by increasing maximum boost pressure (which is essentially what the chip change provides). If you somehow manage to drive the same routes with the same "vigor" as pre-chipping, fuel consumption should not change.
But, that may be difficult - new toys can be such fun, and if your car *can* go faster, there's a good chance you'll make it happen ;-)
/daytripper '00 s4 6spd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I found that my Oettinger chip runs the car more economically than stock. At first I couldn't believe it, but then I checked and what used to be some 9.0 l /100km is now 8.7 l.
You may want to think it this way: given a certain amount of gas pedal flooring the car now offers more torque , which means you don't need to depress the pedal as deep as you used to. That is if we're talking the same roads, acceleration and speeds, granted.
JP Roberts
rpm and also

real
miles a

want
pressure
manage to

consumption
*can*
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But energy is energy - regardless of "foot position". Assuming the weight of the car and all sources of friction remain constant, the same amount of thrust should result in the same amount of fuel consumption, regardless of how deeply the throttle pedal is depressed.
Or maybe some of the laws of physics and some basic chemistry theory have been repealed?
/daytripper '00 s4 6spd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

of
thrust
deeply
You wrote "should" but the thing is it "does not" and a well-chipped car consumes slightly less. Your argument is as wrong as saying that because all people walk on two feet they eat the same if they exert the same amount of thrust.

been
If you want a more accurate explanation, what happens is that engine management is greatly improved. Now, in stock mode turbo boost is limited by the N75 valve and the wastegate actuator following management orders that set the average boost map at relatively low levels so that the engine feels more linear to the layman. Because the car is stock-set to run with 95 Octane gasoline, ignition timing is not optimal for 98 octane gas. With the chip, the timing is slightly advanced, so the same engine becomes thermodinamically more efficient for obvious mechanical reasons. Apart from this, average boost pressure is higher and the turbo spools at a more natural rev interval, thus resulting in a lower frequency of actuation of the above-mentioned valves, which means fewer "stop-and-goes", and which in turn translates into better efficiency. Now remember efficiency is the only real measure that trasnlates inversely into consumption and that is the most elemental of physics.
Back to school, maybe? :)
JP Roberts
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why - was there anything coherent and obviously true in the above?
What the heck is "spools at a more natural rev interval" supposed to mean?
And if boost pressure is higher, you must be using more fuel (that's a fact born of basic chemistry) so how does that reduce fuel consumption?
The basic premise you are offering is that Audi actually chose lower efficiency/higher fuel consumption than is possible on their own engine. Sorry - I don't buy that for a second.
And as I doubt you or anyone can actually prove their chip *improves* fuel mileage verses the stock chip maps created by the company that developed and tested their own engine, I chalk your entire theory up to misguided cheerleading born of an overdose of Unobtanium ;-)
But if it makes you feel better, so be it - I'm not challenging your ability or proclivity in that regard...
hth ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It means that Audi fitted 1.8T A4s with the kkk03 turbine and low boost engine management to keep engine response linear and thus make driving safer for the average Mary. However, it's easy to tell that the amount of boost mapped in stock mode is way under the optimal turbine revolution range - you will only be able to understand this if you test drive a well-chipped 1.8T. Now, you must know that optimality translates directly into better efficiency. It must also be said, that some "worse" chips abuse boost over optimal range thus jeopardizing turbo life and lowering efficiency.

fact
Because given a certain amount of energy at the wheel, it is more efficiently produced - for example every time a valve opens and closes it wastes energy, too.

Sorry
You're forgetting the whole point here. Audi made a car that was going to be tremendously easy to drive because of its linear torque curve. When chipping the car this curve becomes everything but linear and the average Mary will find it more difficult to drive - when overtaking, for example, once you get used to keeping revs between 2,500 and 4,000, if you want to make the most out of the engine you need to keep it within that range. Also, it must not be forgotten that the stock map is meant to be used with just about any octane gas, including some of the worst, which in turn means that if mapping had been advanced and you were using 95 octane gas you would be getting "knocking" or detonation every so often, thus reducing engine longevity.

and
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,
JP Roberts
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
[snipped]

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I hear that Audi's CVT is the best in the

Tip
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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's tempting. But I'm also really liking the idea of a used B5 S4. Steve Grauman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Daytripper- I too have heard that re-chipping _in some cases_ has increased mileage. I think it has to do with the amount of lead in a driver's foot. If you have a Yugo, lets say, and you drive it like you're trying to keep up to a pack of 911's coming out of a track corner - you'll get absolutely horrible gas mileage compared to that which is shown on the window sticker. You're used to the acceleration of the car, but then you make more acceleration available - not increasing the speed limit, just decreasing the time needed to get there - the amount of time your foot is buried in the floor mats (and then engine management is dumping fuel into the engine wholesale, neglecting the feedback of the oxygen sensor). You'll see a decrease in fuel consumption in this situation. Of course, with (ie:) a 5ktq turbocharger which is used to pressurizing the IM to 1.4 bar - and then increasing that to 1.8 bar - well, it's more work for the part (albeit, not above the capability of a K26 turbo) - there are some prices that must be paid in rechipping the car. You'll probably not see the decrease if most of the miles are put on the car are highway cruising miles and you don't drive with a 2-speed foot (on or off) - but if you only drive around in-town, and have felt the resistance of the throttle stop on your foot, you may notice a change. Cheers! Steve Sears 1987 Audi 5kTQ - QLCC'd - didn't notice a dif. in fuel consumption 1980 Audi 5k 1962 and '64 Auto Union DKW Junior deLuxes (SPAM Blocker NOTE: Remove SHOES to reply)
wrote:

weight
all
of
have
by
feels
the
from
in
only
most
fact
Sorry
and
ability
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.