2016 Audi S6 Dyno Results: Before and After APR Stage I Tune

[Pampedout6]

The title is self explanatory, so a little background on the tune. I had a 15K mile service due so I removed my tune and serviced the car, after the service I took my car to my local tune shop and had the car dyno'd 1 run in stock mode and 2 runs in Stage 1 (ECU/TCU) mode.

Note: All runs were conducted with the Roc-Euro intake installed on 93 Octane Sunoco Pump Gas

Factory Wheel HP: 414.8
Factory Wheel TQ: 436.2

APR Tuned Wheel HP: 531.4
APR Tuned Wheel TQ: 664.2

Enjoy video and pics.

[OF Hero]

Nice!

[Ze_Nardo6]

Those may be the highest awhp numbers from a stage 1 S6 in the world. Nevertheless, great results. Get that thing to the track!

[mjfloyd1]

That is a Mustang dyno too!

[gk1]

Nice. I couldn't tell from the video but did they have fans going pulling in some nice 20 degree air?

[MikeDwerks]

That is some monster torque gain... both stock and stg 1 done in the same gear? Just surprised to see that much of a torque gain over what APR publishes

very nice and thanks for documenting the results

[jmeenach]

That is some monster torque gain... both stock and stg 1 done in the same gear? Just surprised to see that much of a torque gain over what APR publishes

very nice and thanks for documenting the results

APR's page states "555-597 HP and 609-668 FT-LBS of torque" w/ Stage 1, which is weird, because you don't typically see THAT large of a range. But it looks like OP is pretty much near the top!

[saxon]

lol it's crazy how mustang dynos can read so different, I believe my stage 2 only put down 424 for my local mustang Dyno "the heartbreaker"

[Ze_Nardo6]

APR's page states "555-597 HP and 609-668 FT-LBS of torque" w/ Stage 1, which is weird, because you don't typically see THAT large of a range. But it looks like OP is pretty much near the top!

APR claims 504awhp and 594awtq for post-facelift S6 on 93 octane (as is the OP). OP is shattering that by a good bit on a MUSTANG dyno compared to the Dynojet equivalent that APR uses. Those are monster numbers! I've never seen Mustang dyno numbers anywhere close to that with any kind of software.

http://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_up...i_c75s6s7.html

[jmeenach]

APR claims 504awhp and 594awtq for post-facelift S6 on 93 octane (as is the OP). OP is shattering that by a good bit on a MUSTANG dyno compared to the Dynojet equivalent that APR uses. Those are monster numbers! I've never seen Mustang dyno numbers anywhere close to that on a Mustang dyno with any kind of software.

http://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_up...i_c75s6s7.html

Brain fart, I only looked at that top range, which I assume the range is for crank #'s. That is really even more of an impressive number!

[MikeDwerks]

APR's page states "555-597 HP and 609-668 FT-LBS of torque" w/ Stage 1, which is weird, because you don't typically see THAT large of a range. But it looks like OP is pretty much near the top!

I would guess that range is taking into account the different octane tunes they have, because they do publish their specific results, which of course can vary, for each stage and octane. But as Mickey posted below, C7.5 93 octane stg 1 they publish 504 594

[LINDW4LL]

Maybe that Roc Euro really is making a difference over stock?

[jmeenach]

I would guess that range is taking into account the different octane tunes they have, because they do publish their specific results, which of course can vary, for each stage and octane. But as Mickey posted below, C7.5 93 octane stg 1 they publish 504 594

I understand that, I'm just not used to seeing that big of a range due to octane/fuel changes, with the exception of some e85 numbers.

[RAF_S7]

Maybe that Roc Euro really is making a difference over stock?

This

[Ze_Nardo6]

Maybe that Roc Euro really is making a difference over stock?

Lol

I understand that, I'm just not used to seeing that big of a range due to octane/fuel changes, with the exception of some e85 numbers.

These cars seem to hate 91, but respond well to 93. The 100 octane levels are pure insanity compared to normal pump. The 4.0T loves high octane!

[Tidefan73]

Just saw this on APR's Instagram
https://instagram.com/p/BOQips6BVuu/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TT 4.0T]

He gained 117whp from stock to APR. APR advertises 103whp on a lower reading dyno using SAE correction. Sounds about right to me.

Mustang Dynos can be set up a bunch of different ways with regards to how the output is displayed. Correction factors, dyno software, vehicle weight etc.

[Pampedout6]

Maybe that Roc Euro really is making a difference over stock?

A lot of people are asking that question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pampedout6]

Nice. I couldn't tell from the video but did they have fans going pulling in some nice 20 degree air?

Yes they had a large fan in front of the car blowing air into my engine/intake...all variables to the insane numbers my car put down. I used Sunoco 93 pump gas as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pampedout6]

Nice. I couldn't tell from the video but did they have fans going pulling in some nice 20 degree air?

Wasn't 20 degrees lol, room temp air through the fan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[saxon]

Yes they had a large fan in front of the car blowing air into my engine/intake...all variables to the insane numbers my car put down. I used Sunoco 93 pump gas as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you plan on running it at the track this year?

[Pampedout6]

Those may be the highest awhp numbers from a stage 1 S6 in the world. Nevertheless, great results. Get that thing to the track!

Yeah for sure! I live right next to Atco so this spring I'll be logging some quarter mile times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TT 4.0T]

Just curious, why do you think your numbers are "insane?"

Yes they had a large fan in front of the car blowing air into my engine/intake...all variables to the insane numbers my car put down. I used Sunoco 93 pump gas as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pampedout6]

Ok, I'll bite, but just once. Torque numbers are the highest I or my tune shop have seen in any stage 1 S6. That is all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TT 4.0T]

https://youtu.be/sDwjfZvmPHg

Ok, I'll bite, but just once. Torque numbers are the highest I or my tune shop have seen in any stage 1 S6. That is all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[parkstr8]

So...no TD1 I assume? I want this tune...but my local Dallas dealer seems really picky. On my last service they even noted in big print my spacers. LOL REALLY?!?!?!?

[Ze_Nardo6]

https://youtu.be/sDwjfZvmPHg

Don't be that guy, again.

[Ze_Nardo6]

He gained 117whp from stock to APR. APR advertises 103whp on a lower reading dyno using SAE correction. Sounds about right to me.

Mustang Dynos can be set up a bunch of different ways with regards to how the output is displayed. Correction factors, dyno software, vehicle weight etc.

It's widely known that Mustang Dynos tend to read lower than Dynojet and other equivalents. Obviously these numbers for a Mustang Dyno are pretty insanely high for 93 octane stage 1.

[TT 4.0T]

5-10 years ago I'd agree with you. Not with the new Mustang dyno software though. They now read higher than the Dynojet.

It's widely known that Mustang Dynos tend to read lower than Dynojet and other equivalents. Obviously these numbers for a Mustang Dyno are pretty insanely high for 93 octane stage 1.

[Ze_Nardo6]

5-10 years ago I'd agree with you. Not with the new Mustang dyno software though. They now read higher than the Dynojet.

Then why are members in this forum continuously reporting lower numbers from Mustang dynos than Dynojets all over this section and all others I've seen on Audizine?

[TT 4.0T]

Different Mustang Dyno software mostly. Lots of other variables too. A shop can set up their Mustang Dyno to read however they want it to read. A smart shop owner would make all cars read extremely high to make customers like Pampedout happy so they keep coming back.

Saxon also dynoed on a Mustang Dyno and put down 424whp with a similar tune. Do you really think the OP's car is making 107whp more than him? He trapped 121 on 93 octane... So what's the OP's car trapping on 93? 127? Not a chance. He'll trap 120-121 like the rest of the APR Stage 1 cars.

In the end a dyno should only be used as a tool for tuning or to test modifications. Comparing absolute numbers from dyno one to another is pointless.

Then why are members in this forum continuously reporting lower numbers from Mustang dynos than Dynojets all over this section and all others I've seen on this forum?

[MikeDwerks]

its not the overall numbers that matter for the most part, as those will always vary, its the difference between the stock and stg1 runs. 220 torque gain, nice showing APR

[Pampedout6]

Then why are members in this forum continuously reporting lower numbers from Mustang dynos than Dynojets all over this section and all others I've seen on Audizine?

So I'll just say this, my Tune shop doesn't set their Dyno higher to "make customers like Pampedout happy"...do you even read the words that you type out loud before you hit "post"? These guys are dyno'ing cars by the dozens per week and I have to say my car is small potatoes to some of the 6 figure rides that roll through there, they're not fudging numbers to keep people happy...actually it would be the opposite...smaller numbers would spark more business to get faster but I'm not going down the rabbit hole any further. I digress, APR has released an updated TCU version that is new, that along with my Roc intake and all the other variables as small as they may be all have something to do with output. Driving home that night my car felt faster than it ever did. I love this new TCU update!!

[saxon]

found out this dyno isn't far from me and the guys there are pretty cool.

they have the dyno to spit out similar numbers to what their dynojet used to do.

i might meet up with a local apr stage 2 car and see what we put down on it :)

[TT 4.0T]

Unfortunately that's not always a good comparison either. Take the same car in your example and dyno it in stock mode and 93 on a super low reading dyno (like the one Saxon used for example) instead of a super high reading dyno. The delta between stock and 93 won't be anywhere near 220wtq. That's where this gets really tricky.

This is why I like real world acceleration data or timeslips the best. A lot easier to compare data especially when done on the same day, same track or stretch of road, same weather conditions etc.

its not the overall numbers that matter for the most part, as those will always vary, its the difference between the stock and stg1 runs. 220 torque gain, nice showing APR

[TT 4.0T]

Yes, the latest Mustang Dyno has a correction for Dynojet numbers. But the numbers can be further skewed in that direction from various other variables such as vehicle weight, atmospheric corrections and all the other things AMS points out in their video I linked above starting around 03:00.

found out this dyno isn't far from me and the guys there are pretty cool.

they have the dyno to spit out similar numbers to what their dynojet used to do.

i might meet up with a local apr stage 2 car and see what we put down on it :)

[TT 4.0T]

Yes, all that power and torque was from your TCU update. Get that beast to the track. I'm sure it'll be solidly in the 10's.

So I'll just say this, my Tune shop doesn't set their Dyno higher to "make customers like Pampedout happy"...do you even read the words that you type out loud before you hit "post"? These guys are dyno'ing cars by the dozens per week and I have to say my car is small potatoes to some of the 6 figure rides that roll through there, they're not fudging numbers to keep people happy...actually it would be the opposite...smaller numbers would spark more business to get faster but I'm not going down the rabbit hole any further. I digress, APR has released an updated TCU version that is new, that along with my Roc intake and all the other variables as small as they may be all have something to do with output. Driving home that night my car felt faster than it ever did. I love this new TCU update!!

[Ze_Nardo6]

Different Mustang Dyno software mostly. Lots of other variables too. A shop can set up their Mustang Dyno to read however they want it to read. A smart shop owner would make all cars read extremely high to make customers like Pampedout happy so they keep coming back.

Saxon also dynoed on a Mustang Dyno and put down 424whp with a similar tune. Do you really think the OP's car is making 107whp more than him? He trapped 121 on 93 octane... So what's the OP's car trapping on 93? 127? Not a chance. He'll trap 120-121 like the rest of the APR Stage 1 cars.

In the end a dyno should only be used as a tool for tuning or to test modifications. Comparing absolute numbers from dyno one to another is pointless.

Dude, you're being a troll again. We all know any dyno can skew it's numbers. That's not the discussion nor the point I'm making. You simply said that as of late, the last 5-10 years (in your own words), that Mustang Dynos have been reading higher than Dynojets on average. THAT IS NOT TRUE. You're wrong. It's okay to be wrong once in a while. You're starting down your old condescending spiral of the days of Vol. Look at the numbers that members are posting up. ON AVERAGE, dynojet numbers are higher than Mustang dyno numbers. When you're speaking to the average, outliers are irrelevant. For instance, this thread. The OPs numbers are an outlier for sure.

So I'll just say this, my Tune shop doesn't set their Dyno higher to "make customers like Pampedout happy"...do you even read the words that you type out loud before you hit "post"? These guys are dyno'ing cars by the dozens per week and I have to say my car is small potatoes to some of the 6 figure rides that roll through there, they're not fudging numbers to keep people happy...actually it would be the opposite...smaller numbers would spark more business to get faster but I'm not going down the rabbit hole any further. I digress, APR has released an updated TCU version that is new, that along with my Roc intake and all the other variables as small as they may be all have something to do with output. Driving home that night my car felt faster than it ever did. I love this new TCU update!!

I think you meant to quote 4.0TT, not me.

[TT 4.0T]

Here are some posts regarding the same shop (R/T Tuning) and how their dyno reads higher than a Dynojet:

http://www.evolutionm.net/forums/evo...ml#post9967005
http://www.iwsti.com/forums/3732841-post2.html
http://www.iwsti.com/forums/3733206-post5.html

If you read the shop's response you'll see they admit to fudging the dyno configuration to try to simulate Dynojet numbers. From everything I read it looks like it reads a little higher than a Dynojet.

Sorry to be a Debbie Downer again fellas. I'm all about transparency.

[TT 4.0T]

I'm not wrong. Around 5-10 years ago all Mustang Dynos read low. Customers complained that their cars were dynoing low so Mustang released a software update for the dyno to allow for the operator to essentially make them read however they want them to read. Case in point, the AMS video. Or better yet, the examples I posted above which are specific to the shop and dyno that the OP used.

I don't know how this is trolling? I'm simply pointing out to everyone that the OP's car isn't some RS7 stomping freak. It's the same as any other APR Stage I S6. Fast and healthy for sure. But it's the dyno that's the anomaly here, not his car.

Dude, you're being a troll again. We all know any dyno can skew it's numbers. That's not the discussion nor the point I'm making. You simply said that as of late, the last 5-10 years (in your own words), that Mustang Dynos have been reading higher than Dynojets on average. THAT IS NOT TRUE. You're wrong. It's okay to be wrong once in a while. You're starting down your old condescending spiral of the days of Vol. Look at the numbers that members are posting up. ON AVERAGE, dynojet numbers are higher than Mustang dyno numbers. When you're speaking to the average, outliers are irrelevant. For instance, this thread. The OPs numbers are an outlier for sure.



I think you meant to quote 4.0TT, not me.