NefMoto

Hi, I am trying to read an Audi RS4 2007 B7 with MPPS v16 but it won’t find the master or slave ECU...?

It won’t even show the ECU info.... I know it has a map on it but thought it would still show the ECU ID?

I have removed fuse 15 for cluster in case this has any effect but it has not done anything.

Any help appreciated.

Mike

Why bother? You can't get any more power out of that motor. Waste of time; its crap.

This is not quite true. There is a torque limiter in the first few gears that limits the throttle angle between 60-70%.
Lifting this limiter makes a noticeable difference around town.

I wanted to look at improving low rpm throttle input as it is very jerky when cold. Only been like that since map installed.

Also wanted to lower the cold rpm limiter down from 7k to 5k but can’t even read th ECU.

As for not getting any power it is already 430bhp (carbon clean and intake flap delete)

Thanks for the input.

Mike

Totally disagree, there are some significant gains to be made tuning any of the N/A Audi engines. I've personally tuned 2 BBK 4.2 V8's my 3.0 AVK and my folk's AXQ 4.2 V8. In all instances, overall performance was increased as well as transitory responses.

In the case of the touareg,  the tune I wrote made a significant difference despite it being completely stock. Even my parents think it's a marked improvement.

In the case of a modified N/A engine (especially one with the cats removed), dialing in the cam phasing is critical if you want to get the most out of the engine. Adding in timing as well as enriching the A/F ratios will also make more power especially under the curve. Finally, dropping the time it takes to go into closed loop makes a significant difference to transitory responses. 

So while you certainly won't see the gains you'd see in the case of a turbocharged car, it's certainly worth remapping an N/A car

Please show some dyno graphs to back up your claims.

Most VAG V8 engines run lambda 0.9 flat until temperature limit at WOT through lamfa.
Adding more fuel does absolutely nothing to power. Timing has been MBT on 98 RON for me.
Camshaft timing has been on point apart from a couple very specific engines.

Let me guess, you never dynoed before and after. I have on my dyno.
Waste of time.

Here is a recent example of where dialing in the cam timing resulted in another peak 12 AWHP and a noticeable gain between 6000-7000 RPM on my recent S4 build.

MODS:

-Headers
-dual X pipe
-shaved throttle plate
-re-engineered intake manifold
-3 inch smooth bore intake tube
-My own ECU tune

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4662/25561464467_911ee4186e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EWMbQB)DOUBLE VS TRIPLE PUMP CAM TIMING DYNO (https://flic.kr/p/EWMbQB) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4711/39536853195_3362bee8be_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23eJH1F)DOUBLE VS TRIPLE PUMP CAM TIMING DYNO POST 6200 ZOOM (https://flic.kr/p/23eJH1F) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

Triple pump cam timing (best cam timing)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4610/40433129681_c5e436355e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24AWmMx)triple pump cam timing (https://flic.kr/p/24AWmMx) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

Double pump cam timing (drops off from 6000-7000 RPM)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4715/38622390520_cdabd6eca2_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/21QVR7Q)double pump cam timing (https://flic.kr/p/21QVR7Q) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

As well, here are pictures of my data logs of how my B6 S4 Cabrio lost a ton of power when I went to 2.5 in straight pipes on the stock cam phasing and manifold changeover.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4788/39821775665_b8eedccfb8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23EV1x4)STOCK VS CATLESS DOWNPIPES VS NEW VS OLD CAM PHASING MAF READINGS (https://flic.kr/p/23EV1x4) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

I don’t think Virtual Dyno will cut it...

lol virtual dyno.

SMH

Sorry, that motor is a POS

Well, if it's good enough for the guys at MotoIQ, it's good enough for me.

Please tell me exactly how it's a deficient metric? Assuming that the pulls are done in 3rd gear, same day, same stretch of road, how is it NOT accurate?

I'm not using it for a measure of outright power, however when two pulls overlap so closely with a smoothing factor of 1 and my MAF readings jump in exactly the same spot between 6000-7000 RPM, please explain how there WASN'T a gain in HP.

prj, you wanted evidence that tuning these motors is worthwhile, I took the time to provide you with that evidence, the least you can do is address my point.

(Seriously, this place is starting to sound like the B6/B7 S4 forum on Audizine...)

Finally, here's an interesting thread showing multiple comparisons between Virtual Dyno results and actual Dyno results.

https://innovativetuning.wordpress.com/our-experiments-with-virtual-dyno/

If you take the time to read through it, you will find that the results are in fact, eerily close.

Note, that this is above the scope of my argument for Virtual Dyno being an accurate metric for pre-post changes. However, it's simply additional evidence which suggests (as I've been saying all along) that Virtual Dyno IS in fact accurate and therefore the 12 AWHP peak gain that I demonstrated between 6000-7000 RPM on my S4 is legitimate.

Finally, prj, if you could be so kind, I would honestly like to get your input as to why that 3rd rise and fall of the cam timing had such an effect on the engine vs just continuing to overlap the valve angles as the RPM's rose. (I have my own theory, but I'd certainly appreciate some extra input from another who is well versed on the subject).

Finally, I wish to point out that no one here addressed the post where I found that I was loosing major power with catless downpipes and the stock cam timing.

My conclusion was that this phenomenon was due to the internal construction of the S4 exhaust manifolds.

Basically, the fact that you had these tiny tubes keeping the pulses separated in that cloverleaf arrangement until they hit the end of the manifold, means that the exhaust gas is in a very high pressure area. Then, when it hits the end of the manifold and there's no longer any cat to slow the pulses down, they exit into a massive vacuum.

This causes a reversion as they exit, which likely pushes some of the exhaust pulse back into the chamber and out into the intake manifold during overlap before the exhaust valve even has a chance to close.

1. If you think "virtual dyno" is evidence, then LOL. I can't even be arsed to explain. I have my own 4x4 non-virtual-real-world dyno and I trust that any day over someone doing pulls on the road with different drivetrain temperatures, different wind, different outside temperatures and so on.
2. The car was not stock.

So if I understand you correctly, you're of the opinion that your dyno is a better measure of a car's power output specifically because it DOESN'T replicate the temperatures and airflow that a car encounters in normal operation???

You ARE also aware that the same confounds which you reference (i.e. different ambient temps, etc...) are still present on your dyno. Further, issues like heatsoak are probably exacerbated on your dyno vis a vis a moving car on the highway.

When I look at the content of your reply, you really haven't addressed why Virtual Dyno isn't reliable. Nor have you addressed the dyno vs virtual dyno testing I sent you in that link above.

While it may seem that I'm nitpicking, I am only doing so because I expect well thought out / logical responses from members on this forum (especially senior ones).

Dodging valid questions and stating opinion evidence as a fait accompli is what I expect out of Audizine forum members. Maybe I'm mistaken, however I think that we're better than that here.

Sorry, still gonna disagree with you Nyet.

While they may have their issues (re: cam adjusters and rails) the BBK 4.2 with it's variable independent inlet cam phasing, dual length intake manifold,  11:1 compression, lightweight valvetrain and sheer size (relative to other Audi offerings) make it an incredibly responsive and torquey engine which will still happily rev to 7200 RPM and sound knee droppingly gorgeous while it does it.

In fact, I have yet to see another crossplane V8 of this size which is more rev-happy as this engine.

As indicated in my earlier posts, my 2004 S4 has absolutely every modification you can make without going internal and (corrected for elevation) it's putting out between 380-400 CHP which puts it just about perfectly at that 1/10 HP/Lb ratio which I find to be ideal (fast enough to be fun, but not overpowering the chassis and/or tempting you to loose your licence).

Another often ignored concept which was made known to me by one of the owners of Cone Engineering (one of California's best exhaust system manufacturers) is the concept of 'time until torque'.

As it's name suggests, it refers to the delay from the time you put your foot down, to the time when the engine delivers your torque request. In may cases, it may only be 0.1 0.2 seconds difference N/A vs Turbo, but in the real world, where we all drive in cut and thrust traffic, ANY delay will be felt as a detriment by a decent driver.

What I can say, is that in the era of downsized engines we are living in, I'll probably never have another car that responds as quickly as my 4.2 S4. With a lightweight flywheel, throttle response and torque is INSTANT!!! If I so much as breathe on the throttle, the car just snaps to it.

Don't get me wrong, having done 7 different turbo set-ups on my Passat 1.8T and A4 1.8T ranging from a stock K03 to a fire-breathing Comp 5556, I have plenty of love for turbo cars and totally agree that for ultimate power, F/I is the way to go.

However, if I was asked to pick one Audi engine to live with for the rest of my life in daily driving, I would give SERIOUS consideration to a well modified and sorted 4.2 V8.

There are gains to be made over stock programming on the 4.2 fsi engines.

Precisely that, especially when one uses a tiny desk fan for cooling. I am a dyno believer myself (especially proper direct axle steady state one like Dynapack), but I am not dismissing reasonable field methods.

It's a fine motor stock. For tuning purposes, it's a POS

Actually Nyet, while I can totally see why you might have that impression (due to so many incompetent tuners and vendors selling crap for these engines) these motors respond well to PROPER tuning (BIIIIGGG emphasis on the proper part).

Having tuned and owned 2 of them (2004 S4 sedan and a 2005 S4 cabrio) I found that when you uncork them, they're a gem of an engine.

I think where a lot of the misconceptions stem from is the fact that VERY few people know how to:

1) fabricate the proper hardware (i.e. headers, collectors, exhaust, intake manifold, etc...)

2) tune the ECU once the hardware is bolted on

With respect to tuning it, I've literally spent in the thousands of cumulative hours and hundreds of file revisions. I don't exaggerate when I say that I've looked at over a gigabyte worth of logging data, trying to work out the optimal cam phasing and manifold changeover points whenever I made significant VE changes to the car.

Since I'm not on Audizine, I can finally let go and rip on JHM lololol. Having looked at their almighty tune (courtesy of Daz (God rest his soul)) I was amazed that JHM did NOTHING to change the cam phasing!!!!

Why this is, I'll never know, because whenever I challenge them about it on the 'zine, JHM suddenly goes very very quiet.... But what I can tell you from having tuned these engines 1) stock, 2) catless downpipes and 3) w headers is that the optimal cam phasing is VERY VERY VERY different for all three.

For example, with catless downpipes, as I indicated earlier, you need to keep the lobe angles separated much farther into the RPM band than you do with the cats on.

However, with headers, you can introduce overlap much earlier. That said, I found that in order to keep the airflow from flatlining, i had to introduce another 'pump' (i.e. quick retard over 150 RPM) and then quickly drop back into overlap for that last 1000 RPM.

Interestingly enough, you can actually feel it in some gears, almost like the engine takes another gulp of air and shoots towards 7200 RPM.

To make an analogy of it, think of it like body surfing. When you start dropping into overlap, the air pulses become excited as the engine starts scavenging and you get a sudden surge in torque.

However, since your range of cam phasing is limited, you eventually loose momentum and the airflow starts stalling out.

That's when I pull the cam timing back, usually to coincide with an event like the manifold runner changeover. When you do that, it's like going down to the bottom of where you're standing and pushing off into another wave.

Any of that make sense?

In any event, due to the comparative rarity of these engines, there is NO information online about how to tune them. Everything I've learned has been gleaned from other platforms and many, many many scientific journal articles on pulse dynamics and resonance theory.

So while I can certainly see how you may have gotten the impression that these engines were duds in terms of tuning, they actually respond very well IF you know what you're doing; and trust me, that's a BIIIGGGG if...

Agreed, same goes for the port injected 4.2 V8.

Ignition timing plays a huge part in the 5 valve engines making power.

After a lot of head scratching, I came to the conclusion that these engines need a lot of timing due to the 3rd intake valve shrouding the sparkplug.

Basically, in order for the flame front to ignite optimally, you need a lot of advance compared to a 4 valve configuration.

Question, have you played around much with the cam timing on the 4.2 FSI? In particular, on engines with the cats removed and a proper X pipe exhaust?

Makes sense. I understand what you are are saying about being uncommon, and that being the reason the 4.2 seems to not respond well to tuning.

Also, remember i'm accustomed to tuning solely FI motors. Tuning NA motors just doesn't feel that gratifying because of the outrageous cost/benefit.

that said, the non-rs4 4.2 is definitely a dog.

Ohhhh, trust me man, I totally agree with you that tuning these engines to go fast can be an excruciatingly long process lol ;)

That said, I find it kind of rewarding, especially since so few people have really taken the time to figure out how to go about it properly.

Finally, as for the non RS4 4.2 FSI, well I've never tuned or owned one, so yeah, let's both agree it's the dog of the bunch hahaha.

On a bit of a different note, I would REALLY like to see what kind of gains you could make on a 4.2 with a set of upgraded cams.

I know Schrick sells some, but they're ungodly expensive and I have yet to see ANY information other than one thread on Audizine where the guy just kinda mumbled some dyno number (without a graph) and said that he wasn't very impressed.

Again though, I'll bet that IF the tune was dialed in right, he would have noticed some substantial gains.

When I look at the Schrick specs, it appears that they pretty much used the grind from their VR6 cams and just ported it onto the V8 cams. This would make sense given the relatively low rate of return they would be getting from a 4.2 camshaft.

With all that said, the Shrick VR6 cams seem to make some solid gains on an R32 (15 WHP or so IIRC).

If you were to extrapolate that to a 4.2 v8, I would think that a set of upgraded cams could let you crack 420-430 CHP if everything else was done correctly.

(PS: in my experience, the stock cams seem to choke out at about 380-400 CHP in terms of absolute output).

Any N/A tuning experts care to weigh in here?

Yo dude.
Call back when you have actually tuned of these on a real dyno. Until then, no amount of typing walls of text will make anything you say true.
Simply, you have no evidence to back up your claims, end of story.

Actually they are not present. My dyno's cooling is better than you driving on the highway. By far.
Unless you're doing 200+ km/h.
You know how they say assumption is the mother of all fuckups? I can pull a 1000 hp car back to back in my dyno cell and the ambient temp never goes up, because the whole volume of air in the dyno cell is fully changed every 8 seconds.

My 15kw dual centri blower setup would like to have a word with you.
My cooling blowers make more power than the anecdotal "power gains" discussed in this thread LOL.

Dude, I'm not questioning your knowledge as a whole. So calm down, take a breath and drop the chest pounding. I see enough of these responses on VWVortex and Audizine and it certainly doesn't help further your argument.

Look, I don't beat around the bush. So I'll say flat out, I've read your posts. You're very good at what you do. We all know that.

However, NONE of us knows it all and that includes you (and me for that matter).

Assuming the previous statement is true, then that means none of our statements here are above question and that includes you

I'm a smart guy, smarter than 99% of the rest of the population according to my IQ test scores (and the 3.93 GPA over the last 2 years of my undergrad) and the convocation ceremony for my Juris Doctor Degree (after 7 years of post secondary) which was held along with Medical Doctors and Veterinarians.

NOTE**I don't add that last part to be a pretentious dick. I only include it to establish that I use my head for something other than a hat rack.  

Further, these smarts I refer to also apply to anything else I take an interest in, such as all things automotive. You should also know that It's more than a hobby to me. Ask anyone one who knows me and they'll tell you and it's all I eat sleep and breathe.

So, now that we've pulled our respective dicks out and measured them. I'm going to suggest that since NEITHER of us knows it all, perhaps it would serve our respective interests if we showed each other some mutual respect. I'm certainly open to if you are.

However, if you choose otherwise, while I certainly won't go out of my way to antagonize you, be advised that I'm also not going to pull any punches or questions. Nor will I back down if confronted.

In any event, I leave the ball in your court. I think we both make better allies than enemies. What do you think?

It's simple.
Nothing you do on a stock car will amount to anything, which is of statistical importance.
I can't be arsed to argue about virtual dyno, it's a waste of time. Anyone who is remotely serious about this knows that runs on the road are not repeatable.
Even on the dyno every run will have somewhat different whp, but the coastdown measurement fixes that issue.

Advance the timing, you hit knock -> you lose power due to timing pull.
Change the camshaft adjustment -> you lose power unless the car has stretched chains, which means it needs repair.
Adjust the fueling -> gain absolutely nothing because they already run best power.
Try tuning one on standalone in a race car -> you have a hell of a time getting it to run as well as on the stock ecm.

If you want to make power, slap a nitrous kit on or turbo/supercharge it. Probably a waste of time at this point though.

There are very few OEM NA engines where you can make actual power gains that amount to more than insignificant variance.

Cool, I take that as a yes (in your own way ;)

Thank you for providing a constructive response.

The other aspect that we haven't discussed about tuning a stock 4.2 is transient response.

Throttle mapping, fuel enrichment delays, ignition timing at part throttle, etc... are all ways to enhance a stock 4.2 V8 file.

The guys at Cone Engineering turned me on to the concept of 'time to torque' and I firmly believe that it's an important measure of how well an engine performs.

Problem is, all those transient responses don't show on a dyno.

However, on a heavy pig like a Touareg, VW/Audi the stock tuning is heavily biased towards fuel economy and numb/fuzzy throttle response. While this may only mean a couple tenths of a second delay, when you're driving in heavy cut and thrust traffic, those tenths of a second often translate into whether you can execute a quick move or not.

Ergo, I maintain that tuning these cars is useful, regardless of whether or not it makes a difference to the absolute WOT power output.

PS: I should add that I've had a number of people drive the stock Touareg that I tuned and 100% of them have agreed that there is a noticeable improvement to how the vehicle performs. As they say, 60 million Elvis fans can't be wrong ;)

Another point to mention with respect to ignition timing is that there are ways of getting the engine to hold it't timing.

In addition to adding more timing to the KFZW maps, I've found that altering the 1x16 maps in the ignition timing module such as the one which dicates how much initial timing is pulled in response to a knock event from 2.25 degrees to 0.75 as well as how quickly timing is added back (can't remember the name of the map offhand) will all result in the engine being willing to keep more timing advance overall while still keeping the stock knock protection measures in place.

Remember, factory settings on these cars are all set up with the expectation that some idiot will be towing a trailer through Florida in the middle of summer in 200% humidity with 85 octane fuel.

So long as the driver is willing to commit to 91-94 octane, you can certainly add timing to a stock file and hold it.

Finally, as I indicated earlier, due to the 3rd intake valve shrouding the sparkplug, these engines need as much timing as they can get to optimally ignite the flame front for maximum torque.

Thoughts on that anyone?

Another advantage I can think of in terms of tuning a stock N/A engine involves changing the cam timing to get rid of the EGR function at part load.

Your MPG might take a hit, but I didn't really find it amounted to much for the gains.

On my A4 AVK 3.0 V6 (which had exhaust cam timing) I found that eliminating the exhaust cam retard at low RPM made major improvements to throttle response when you were cruising around town in real driving conditions.

You can achieve the same thing on an engine with single intake cam phasing by setting it to full advance (so earliest IVC) from just off idle to about 4000 RPM.

Anyone else tried this approach?

Really stupid thing to do, the reason the pullout is done is to control cylinder temperature after a knock event.
If you do this you will knock more, not less and you will have runaway knock on a hot engine.

Man oh man, before you generate more crazy ideas, at least read something about efi.

I've read plenty on EFI, trust me...

You know as well as I do that no EFI tuning book is going to tell you what the net effect of these types of modifications will be.

That's why I'm taking the time to post this stuff up and get feedback from members who know Motronic works.

So my next question is this:

Let's say I set the initial knock pull to 0.75 and the engine needs 1.5 degrees to control the knock event, what's preventing the engine from pulling the additional 0.75 degrees if it sees that the knock event wasn't controlled by the initial pull of 0.75? I see no reason that the ECU wouldn't be able to correct the timing accordingly after it sees that the knock activity hasn't subsided after X number of combustion cycles.

I should add that in my experience, I haven't seen any excessive timing pull or knock activity on my own vehicles that I've tuned this way.

As I mentioned earlier, I think that the initial delta of 2.25 degrees is unnecessarily aggressive and is meant for worst case scenarios of drivers running WOT in 50C heat, up a hill with a trailer with 85 octane fuel.

No it's not "unneccessarily aggressive" blah blah blah. Where do you even come up with this bullshit?
You don't understand the very basics of combustion in the cylinder! How the hell are you tuning knock control?
You have no business there without per-cyl EGT and pressure measurement in cylinder!

Every time a knock event occurs there's massive heat.
After that that cylinder is more prone to knock until the heat subsides. If you don't pull enough and you fade it back in too fast, it's going to knock again right off the bat. Causing EVEN MORE HEAT, and now you can run even LESS timing.
And if you do stupid shit like 0.75 deg increments you're going to have runaway detonation and melt a piston.

The stock calibration is very good. By pulling less you will most of the time make less power because instead of a single knock event you will have multiple.
Not to mention you will destroy the engine at one point.

OK great, so will you please answer my previous question

Let's say I set the initial knock pull to 0.75 and the engine needs 1.5 degrees to control the knock event, what's preventing the engine from pulling the additional 0.75 degrees if it sees that the knock event wasn't controlled by the initial pull of 0.75? I see no reason that the ECU wouldn't be able to correct the timing accordingly after it sees that the knock activity hasn't subsided after X number of combustion cycles.

Because it's an engine not a goddamn computer.
After the first knock event where you needed to pull 2.25 to prevent further knock from happening on the next combustion event, the cylinder is hot. Once you knock on the next combustion event, the cylinder is still hot, and now it gets EVEN HOTTER. It's cumulative. So now you need to pull 4-5 degrees, not another 0.75. If you pulled the correct amount in the first place, you would avoid this situation and make more power.
That's also how you get runaway detonation and molten pistons.

Although a bit prickly, prj 9.9/10 backs up his claims with reasonable assertions when prodded.

I also find it difficult to believe OEMs would leave any HP on the table with N/A motors.

For FI, it makes sense for them to do so, due to reliability and mileage concerns. But N/A motors? They're generally tuned to within 1hp of what they are capable of by the manufacturer.

Correction, it's an engine that's managed by a computer.

Further to your response, then it appears that I'm correct in my understanding that the ECU CAN pull additional timing after the initial ignition correction.

Now, back to the original point of how much ignition timing needs to be pulled out to prevent a runaway detonation condition.

If I understand correctly, your position is that 2.25 degrees (or so) is required if the ECU senses that the engine is beginning to suffer from pre-ignition. If not, then the cooling of the combustion chamber surfaces is insufficient and either 1) the ECU will need to pull out MORE timing overall in order to control pre-ignition (than if it had just pulled out 2.25 degrees in the first place) or 2) the ECU will be unable to control the pre-ignition and your piston will do a meltdown.  

My position is that 2.25 degrees initial timing pull is unnecessarily aggressive and that this calibration is done in anticipation of a worst case scenario. My presumption is that if I lessen the initial ignition delta, I am doing so with the understanding that the vehicle owner will always be filling up on 91 octane or higher (94 octane fuel is common in our neck of the woods and I would always advise someone to use it whenever possible).

To see if my position was tenable, I dug up the data logs to compare the stock vs tuned ignition tables and ignition correction as well as the lambda actual vs requested. Here's a summary of what I found.

1) When I compare a WOT log of my tune (top) vs the stock tune (bottom) you can see the ECU juggling timing on both logs. However, with the ignition delta set to 0.75, the ECU is only pulling out as little timing as required to stabilize ignition. Whereas in the bottom graph, with the delta set to 2.25, the ignition timing is much more unstable when the ECU starts sensing knock.

(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4793/40063997294_45bae822c0_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/243jsA3)stock vs tuned touareg 5000 rpm ignition (https://flic.kr/p/243jsA3) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

I should add, remember that I'm talking about N/A engines here. With the additional pressure of F/I, I will concede that prj's point becomes much more of a concern. Proceed with caution.

2) Contrary to the position that a stock V8 can't take much more ignition advance Advance the timing, you hit knock -> you lose power due to timing pull. , I found that it can take much more than the stock tables call for. At full load, I was seeing up to 7 degrees more advance.

stock ignition
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4773/39878940825_4443bb7a34_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23KXZKg)stock touareg ignition table (https://flic.kr/p/23KXZKg) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

tuned ignition
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4792/38963463910_326de3b72e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22n4Wmw)tuned touareg ignition table (https://flic.kr/p/22n4Wmw) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

3) When I examined the ignition retard on a cylinder by cylinder basis, the ECU was requesting little to no ignition retard which suggests to me that the extra ignition timing can be added safely.

cyl 1
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4787/40063997554_f10d221916_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/243jsEw)tuned touareg ignition retard cyl 1 (https://flic.kr/p/243jsEw) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

cyl 2
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4793/40063997694_9c6930b399_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/243jsGW)tuned touareg ignition retard cyl 2 (https://flic.kr/p/243jsGW) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

cyl 3
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4798/38963464180_a3c402211a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22n4Wrb)tuned touareg ignition retard cyl 3 (https://flic.kr/p/22n4Wrb) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

cyl 4
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4779/38963464300_a5ebb34e03_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22n4Wtf)tuned touareg ignition retard cyl 4 (https://flic.kr/p/22n4Wtf) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

cyl 5
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4787/40063997924_afd017823d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/243jsLU)tuned touareg ignition retard cyl 5 (https://flic.kr/p/243jsLU) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

cyl 6
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4780/40063998004_f8b0222427_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/243jsNh)tuned touareg ignition retard cyl 6 (https://flic.kr/p/243jsNh) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

cyl 7
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4799/40063998114_9b2337e244_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/243jsQb)tuned touareg ignition retard cyl 7 (https://flic.kr/p/243jsQb) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

cyl 8
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4774/40063998224_8e0fdbd1fc_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/243jsS5)tuned touareg ignition retard cyl 8 (https://flic.kr/p/243jsS5) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

4) Contrary to the position that Adjust the fueling -> gain absolutely nothing because they already run best power I found that the stock fueling tables took much more throttle for it to make best torque (lambda 0.85) vs my revised fueling tables, where best torque was made as soon as you tip into the throttle.

stock lamba actual
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4799/40063998404_75567f2e46_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/243jsVb)stock touareg air fuel ratio current (https://flic.kr/p/243jsVb) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

stock lambda desired
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4802/40063998524_2662098595_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/243jsXf)stock touareg air fuel ratio desired (https://flic.kr/p/243jsXf) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

tuned lambda actual
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4802/40063998384_f0fb295931_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/243jsUQ)tuned touareg air fuel ratio current (https://flic.kr/p/243jsUQ) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

tuned lambda requested
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4784/40063998624_2662098595_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/243jsYY)tuned touareg air fuel ratio desired (https://flic.kr/p/243jsYY) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

While all this goes a little beyond the scope of your response. I think it provides some pretty solid evidence that there ARE gains which can be made safely, even on a stock V8.

5-7 degrees of extra advance and lambda 0.85 at tip-in vs WOT is going to make a substantial difference to how the vehicle responds, especially in transient throttle conditions. I would also submit that the extra timing will result in absolute gains through most of the RPM band at WOT.

To be honest, I'm inclined to agree with you.

I've seen many of his posts and it's obvious that he knows what he's talking about.

With that said, NONE of us (myself included) knows it all.

I want to reiterate that I'm NOT trying to prove prj wrong to make myself look better or to try and diminish his knowledge.  However, when I make a statement I also try and back up my assertions with as much empirical evidence as I can.

In this case, I can't ignore the evidence that I've gathered, which suggests that there are gains to be had tuning a stock V8...

Based on what I've seen, most N/A engines are tuned for fuel efficiency, emissions, driver 'comfort' (read: numb throttle) and worst case scenarios.

Getting the most power and response seems to be a distant second, especially in the case of a big heavy sport ute with a massive V8.

Unlike the case of some of the more sporting model V8s like the S4 and RS4,  the North American V8 Touraeg was most likely calibrated with the understanding that whoever is driving it will be filling it with 87 Octane and running it hard in hot humid conditions.

Further, as the stock fueling tables show, the calibrators' main concern was fuel economy. To knock it out of lambda 1.0, you pretty much have to push it into kick-down.

With that said, I see no reason to make it that resistant to adding fuel. All you need to do is take a good representative log, find out which map areas you use for cruise and static part throttle and keep them in lambda 1.0.

From there, my preference is to get right into best torque (lambda 0.85) ASAP. Again, it makes a MASSIVE difference in how the vehicle responds to throttle inputs.

Quick comment on cam phasing on stock engines.

While prj is largely correct with respect to cam phasing as it relates to WOT power gains on a STOCK engine, in my experience changing the cam phasing on a stock N/A engine can help during transient throttle response and tip in.

I've found that most stock N/A cam phasing tables request overlap during part throttle.

The reason for doing so is to lessen pumping losses and increase fuel efficiency (and help emissions) by recirculating exhaust gas.

To do so, the intake valve closing is delayed and if the engine has exhaust cam phasing, the exhaust valve opens early.

Here's an example of some part throttle logs of my S4 when it was stock (ignore the WOT portions, the're outliers)
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4779/38965252540_3074131845_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/22ne73Y)S4 STOCK CAM PHASING PT (https://flic.kr/p/22ne73Y) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

While this does help with fuel efficiency and emissions, I found in practice that it results in a 'sloppy' feel to throttle inputs (especially at lower RPM's) as the cam timing isn't set for peak torque.

I prefer to have the intake valve close as early as possible in all low RPM conditions. Throttle response and tip in is much improved as the engine is always generating peak torque that way.

Here's my tuned S4 cam phasing settings
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4790/39880761625_3cfe93be4a_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/23L8k1n)S4 TUNED CAM PHASING PT (https://flic.kr/p/23L8k1n) by zimbu themonkey (https://www.flickr.com/photos/156667009@N03/), on Flickr

Again, there is a trade off in fuel efficiency, but I much prefer to set my cam phasing that way.

I don't have time to read this.
But my data is based on personal experience on my dyno.

0.75 timing pull "controls" nothing at all in any engine - why, I already wrote.
Do as you want and melt your shit if you want to, not my problem.

Fair enough, as I said I'm not trying to prove you wrong, however your endorsement/approval of my post isn't necessary either. I'm simply presenting my own findings in the hopes that someone will find it useful or that it will generate some fruitful discussion.

Real data and useful information on N/A Motronic tuning is virtually non-existent because of the prevailing opinion that tuning these engines is useless. I'm hoping that the above information will at least cause people to reconsider that opinion.