Rev 5 is for 93 octane and up only... it will ping badly on 91.

Rev 4 works great for 91 oct with cf's at about 6.
Thanks agentsmith988

Thanks, ill look at these when I get home today... its a jumbled mess to look at on my phone.
Good luck tracking down the boost leak.

I will make an adjustment and send see if that fixes the soft limp.  I have had success with a couple of cars on rev 4 and 5, I'm not sure what's causing the sluggishness in your case.  I can email u a new rev tomorrow if u would try it please.

Alright, I'm about 100 percent sure that I don't have a boost leak. I ran some comparison 3rd gear runs with the tune that's currently on my ECU (I have no idea what it is, but it runs pretty well, I'll include it so you can take a look at it if you'd like).

Soft limp mode is still engaging in the higher RPMs. Took a look at the logs and to me (I may be an idiot), but it looks like timing and requested boost need to come down proportionately in the higher RPM range.

They are interchangable.

For what it is worth, I flashed your original tune to my M-box and it would not start. I verified checksums before flashing and they were correct. I did not get any codes. I went ahead and copied all the maps into my stock M-box file and flashed it. The car started four times in a row, no issues. I've attached this M-box version.

Regarding limp mode. What exactly do you mean by limp mode? Do you get RPM limited? Are you just referencing the fact that boost is significantly pulled down? I have not tried the latest version, but my issue was that boost was cut.

Finally, regarding why the two tunes behave differently (specifically around limp mode). To me it doesn't seem to important that they run similar levels of boost/timing. Clearly, your original tune functions fine at these levels so it isn't the boost levels with the new tune. Timing made a difference for me, and Jude pulled some in the latest rev. Instead, I feel it's far more likely that the difference comes from how they are tuned. For example Tony, Nyet, Jude, myself, etc. are all increasing boost levels by increasing requested load while your original tune seems to be increasing boost by increasing requested/optimal torque and by reducing or eliminating the effect of the ECU cutting boost during overboost.

These two approaches will yield similar boost levels but with, I would suspect, drastic differences in side effects. But what I think your problem comes down to is that Jude's is a work in progress while your original tune likely has tens (hundreds?) of hours invested by professional tuner(s?) with small fixes over time for customers. It's more polished.

My 2 cents.

I guess we just proved your understanding about M vs T box since I was unable to use your T-box file. It was easy enough to copy over the maps though. I did drive that tune today and it felt pretty weak in comparison to what I've been running. I'm not certain why though.

None taken. I didn't intend any remarks to lead you to believe that I had. I'm new to this as well so we're both learning as we go. My comments were an attempt to explain how I see the difference between the two tunes and why one is causing problems while the other isn't.

I think your M file and the one in the other thread I linked to definitely give some ideas. I've been reading this site, nyet's, etc. since I bought my S4 last August and had never seen a tune approached in that manner before. It is a very different approach to tuning that is advocated on the sites I listed. That's actually why I took the time to copy it into a M-box file and post it; so that I and others could see what was done and how it behaves in comparison.

Here's hoping jude can work that out for you. I'll see if I can get some time this weekend to run his tune and get some logs.