20-30 whp/tq is "negligible" ??? That's a big difference.
Also, Stage 2 spools faster and gets better gas mileage than S1.
7
APR Stage 1 vs. APR Stage 2
- Thread starter bszymko007
- Start date
20-30 whp/tq is "negligible" ??? That's a big difference.
Also, Stage 2 spools faster and gets better gas mileage than S1.
If you have the $ then stage 2 is perfect as fast DD street car. I don't track car and never used LC and APR stage 2 HO 2.6 and for me the added low end torque/throttle response makes the car way more enjoyable and faster at part throttle.
Not to mention induction/DV sounds and better exhaust note. I have res delete and the bangs and pops tune to to add the fun factor when I want. I know that my 7 yo son can't stop smiling every time i accelerate hard in sport/race mode. He calls it "fast mode and vroom pop pop"
Stage 1 is plenty fast enough but for me wanting the most responsive car possible and those added sounds stage 2 perfect.
If it's pure speed only and top end power alone then stage 2 prob not worth it alone but for the overall improvement and enjoyment driving the car then it's worth every cent.
Not to mention induction/DV sounds and better exhaust note. I have res delete and the bangs and pops tune to to add the fun factor when I want. I know that my 7 yo son can't stop smiling every time i accelerate hard in sport/race mode. He calls it "fast mode and vroom pop pop"
Stage 1 is plenty fast enough but for me wanting the most responsive car possible and those added sounds stage 2 perfect.
If it's pure speed only and top end power alone then stage 2 prob not worth it alone but for the overall improvement and enjoyment driving the car then it's worth every cent.
To me it is..... there are more hassles and costs associated with stage 2. Harder to go back to stock , etc... just not sure I need it and offered my .02.
DiscusInferno
Go Kart Newbie
- Location
- Kalifornia
FWIW I passed Nevada emissions with the AMS downpipe, but the cat readiness will not set. Fortunately I'm allowed to have one sensor not set.
If your state is more strict then smog will be a headache, unless you change out the downpipe and software yourself.
If your state is more strict then smog will be a headache, unless you change out the downpipe and software yourself.
Buguyed
Ready to race!
100% correct. I’ve beat my friends stage 2 GTI numerous times on the street and on the track. My car is bone stock 6MT.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
surrealjam
Ready to race!
- Location
- Birmingham, UK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tgdtVhQzJM or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5dRujiHbpA is quite an interesting watch. The Cupra is basically a 280 HP performance pack GTI.
Last edited:
GolfRProject
New member
- Location
- Chicago
I went straight to APR stage 2 ecu (93 oct, high torque) and DSG tune with APR downpipe, so cannot comment on stage 1 vs 2, but …
… I can say that I've enjoyed my stage 2. I like the sound of the APR downpipe. I'd say the car's throttle is not as responsive as I would like from a starting standstill (in sport mode) when traffic light turns green -- there's still a bit of a flat spot between a moderate foot on the gas and the car's decision to let you know it is ready to move.
Now, that said, I did happen to hit a backroad today and used launch control feature for first time (starting from 3000rpm), along with a TorquePro OBD application to clock 0-60 time. I'm not sure over what distance you want to race your friend, but the TorquePro measurement is trying to tell me the car is very fast 0-60. Car allegedly went from 0-60 in 3.3 seconds on three successive sprints and at 3.2 seconds on the fourth pull.
Note: I would be interested in others feedback on the trustworthiness of TorquePro 0-60 time ...
… I can say that I've enjoyed my stage 2. I like the sound of the APR downpipe. I'd say the car's throttle is not as responsive as I would like from a starting standstill (in sport mode) when traffic light turns green -- there's still a bit of a flat spot between a moderate foot on the gas and the car's decision to let you know it is ready to move.
Now, that said, I did happen to hit a backroad today and used launch control feature for first time (starting from 3000rpm), along with a TorquePro OBD application to clock 0-60 time. I'm not sure over what distance you want to race your friend, but the TorquePro measurement is trying to tell me the car is very fast 0-60. Car allegedly went from 0-60 in 3.3 seconds on three successive sprints and at 3.2 seconds on the fourth pull.
Note: I would be interested in others feedback on the trustworthiness of TorquePro 0-60 time ...
Last edited:
that's unrealistic. you're probably ~3.9/4 secs
miked617
Go Kart Newbie
- Location
- Boston, MA
- Car(s)
- 21 VW GTI
Torquepro isnt very accurate.
Get a dragy instead for accuracy https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077KKPMTB/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_REwBCbSA4PQXE
tknj99
Ready to race!
- Location
- Central VA
Fyi..the BMS Pedal tuner or any other pedal box resolves that issue
reallypeacedoff
Ready to race!
- Location
- Los Angeles
Or VCDS can change the throttle from curved to linear too. Definitely felt a quicker response with that.
Agreed.
With the DTE PedalBox, I also intermittently experienced a very, very jarring issue where the DSG would not shift into 3rd the first time accelerating after turning the engine on.
Again, it was intermittent. But it was absolutely terrifying, accelerating, 1>2, 2>3... CLACK - throttle inputs made no difference. Had to bring car to stop again. And then it was fine. I'd say it happened like 10 times over the course of 3 months before I removed the thing.
GolfRProject
New member
- Location
- Chicago
I'm thinking the car didn't really go 3.2-3.3 secs, hence my use of the word "allegedly."
But it is my sense that every tenth-of-a-second-point-in-time is a significantly different data point than it's neighboring one-tenth-of-a-second point … which is to say that the difference between 3.2 secs and 3.5 is quite large and the difference between 3.2 secs and 3.9/4.0 secs is simply enormous.
If I was forced at gunpoint to guess what an OBD tool's variance from the truth would be, then I would toss out a "WAG" of 0.2 to 0.3 secs differential (and would point out as well that the 0.2/0.3 secs deviation for the device would be expected to run "both ways" - sometimes understating times; sometimes, overstating them).
I'd like to know how a phone-app-OBD-device system comes up with time and speed data for 0-60 computations. If anyone knows how it works, I'd really love to be educated.
I would think (but am just pulling this out of thin air) that devices like Torque don't do much measuring, but rather they would (or should) rely on measured data stored on the car's computer. It would make a lot of sense to me if the phone app performed only simple calculations based on data stored on the car's computer, with the only function of the OBD unit to be transfer of the data between car and phone.
If neither the OBD unit nor the phone app are measuring time or speed or correlating the two, then I would think the error in 0-60 reports would be based on either or both of (i) data rounding limitations in the data the app gets from the car's computer (i.e., the more decimal places of stored time and speed data available to Torque from the car's computer, then the more accurate Torque's displayed 0-60 should be) or (ii) the car computer's method of determining speed or (iii) some combination of those rounding and measurements by the car.
If that was/is they way this stuff works, then Torque would be one part simple calculator (of the number of secs passing between to speed points reported by car computer) and a bigger part graphic interface with decorative themes. If - IF - that is the way these things work, then time lags between transmission of data between car computer and phone app through the OBD device shouldn't introduce more error. [And it would also be true then that accuracy shouldn't vary much between one phone-app-OBD-combination and the next.]
Finally, I know what a cynic would say about the data provided by tune sellers or some forum member's reporting of speeds, but there is a difference between cynicism (which can be funny but often not useful) and healthy skepticism (which allows for decent two-way communication and pursuit of better understanding). I much prefer skepticism ...
- I am somewhat skeptical of the Torque 0-60 report of the 3.2/3.3 secs because I am only guessing at how the app and other components work.
- Also am somewhat skeptical of 0-60 times reported by tune sellers like APR and some forum members, but my skepticism runs more along the line of (i)sellers cherry picking data that is uncommon and (ii) for some forum members outright fibbing or (iii) as someone else has said in these threads, for some members to report speeds significantly aided by wind and/or downslope pulls.
In another post reply that I added to one of these threads, I shared information from APR reporting it's stage1 tune being measured at 3.8 seconds for 0-60mph. If that speed has been achieved in truth (which I tend to believe), then it's not a stretch to think an APR stage2 car might be doing 0-60 in 3.5 secs.
WOULD LOVE TO BE CONTSTRUCTIVELY CRITICIZED/EDUCATED with data/research/expert opinion or thoughtful weekend warrior input!
Have a buddy hold a stopwatch in the back seat and see what you get. Of course the added weight won't do your time any favors; and please don't go all scientific on me either, I already know this adds a tremendous margin of error. How did we ever survive without computers....