Does anyone knows this company, there is not much info about their chip.

http://www.steinbauer.cc/neu/index.p...et_news_id=205
http://www.steinbauer.cc/neu/pdf/_ST...6_128_kW_1.pdf

how it works:
http://www.steinbauer.cc/neu/index.p...es&select_l=en

P.S. Sorry is BHP no NHP hehehe

 

Wow, 52 HP with JUST a chip??? Color me skeptical.

 

Those power / torque curves are totally wrong. Since when is max power @ 4k revs on a MCS ?.

 

why is that so crazy?
Companies like APR, GIAC, Revo are getting in the +50hp range with ecu upgrades on the 2.0T Audi & VW's...also direct injection engines.....not to mention for much less...($500)

 

They had a stand in the Frankfurt Autoshow, they claim 255PS (hp?) just with the repro and exhaust. I saw this in a spanish forum
http://www.formulamini.es/foro/showthread.php?p=71630
(images taken from the forum cited)

 

Well its not an actual dyno readout, they might have just copied their graph to their standard graph background. They supposedly got 61hp on the bmw 335i. I wonder if it would work on the US spec ECU.

 

...just getting closer to the edge of the envelope.....from the thread on the PnP chip, i understand Alta could have cranked it up a notch higher as well, but descretion prevailed

 

That's true, of course that's bhp I believe. That's a great little engine as well. It's crazy they put the exact same engine in the $40,000 Audi TT as they do in the $22,000 GTI. It is a great powerplant though. If VW would just put LSD on the GTI's I may not even be posting here!

 

The 2.0T VW motor is making quite a bit more power than ours is to begin with though. 50 more HP on a motor that makes 210 stock is nowhere near as much as 50 HP on a motor that makes 170 stock. Just sayin'...

 

I think the VW is 200 stock. With the APR "lowest" rated chip it makes 253 hp.

 

it´s 200hp stock, actually there is another version with just 180hp of the same engine

 

First of all, I would LOVE this to be true, but their "dyno-chart" is leading me to think otherwise. the line for teh supposed stock R56(w/o chip) is missing the distinct dip in power at 3000 RPM that is common for the R56 and according to this, we lose all our power at 4800 RPM?? err... yeah...

 

I have two issues with this that I would like to point out:

First... what correction factor are they using? Most of the European dynos I've seen out there are using 22% to figure bhp (which is absurdly high IMO).

If that's the case, 226bhp and 288nm would calculate ot to be about 176 wheel horsepower and 216lbft... hich is a hair less hp and a bit more torque than what I'm putting out with the MINI JCW Stage I without overboost kicking in (180whp, 206lbft torque). If I would have got into the overboost, I think the numbers (torque, at least) would have been a bit higher.

Second, the "before" figure that they are quoting (174bhp) is MINI's own figure. It's been proven that that number is drasticly underrated, as I've seen a handful of dynos for the stock R56S... and they all seem to be in the low 160's at the wheels. A CONSERVATIVE 12% correction factor would come out to be 181bhp. A more realistic 14-15% would be 186-188bhp. An outlandish 22% would be more like 205bhp.

So, if Steinbauer is using the usual Euro Maha dyno using 22%... the chip is really making about 21bhp. A more realistic figure means its pushing the 40bhp mark, which is feasable, I guess. But 50-52bhp for a chip alone!?! No way, no how.

 

Now if it was a Jan RMW tune... no one would question it.... LOL

 

I think what you are confusing yourself with :

the car had another tune on it.... the tune was LOSING 20+whp due to timing being pulled So gaining 50whp isn't that hard

 

a big 10-4 on that...

 

nope

 

Not exactly. After 3 inch exhaust, test pipe, upgraded fuel pump (http://www.goapr.com/VW/products/fsi_fuel_pump.html $1100) APR Stage II program and many other upgrades totalling more than 500 dollars themselves, put down 248.6whp 296.8wtq.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1NgQiA5wSrg If you don't believe me.

Those companies can produce them so cheap because there are far more modified GTI's on the road than modified MCS's so production costs go down when they produce more.

Those engines are 2.0 liters and ours are 1.6. That does make a big difference. He put down 202 wheel on his stock.

I'm curious as to what 226NHP translates into and how they got that number.

 

Actually I wrote this at the en of my post:
Also you're comparing apples to oranges

WHP it´s not the same as BHP

I don´t know if the term even exist but it´s equivalent should be WBHP hehe or BHP at the wheels.

APR, GIAC, etc. claim +-50HP (NOT WHP) only with the chip. If you want to compare a GTI with APR Stage II exhaust, etc. with the 226BHP number you should not use WHP but it´s HP numbers, and certainly those should be much higher than 248.6WHP.

 

This article here shows "just the chip" gave 218 whp and a whopping 271 wtq. This was on a car that dyno'd poorly when stock compared to other stock GTI's they had tested. Pretty impressive.

http://www.automobilemag.com/feature..._The_Dyno.html

 

I wasn't comparing WHP to BHP. I was explaining how hard it was to get 50whp out of just a chip. I didn't didn't know that APR claimed their gains in BHP. Most people measure in WHP because at the end of the day thats how much you put down on the road. Companies advertise with BHP sometimes because it make the rating seem like you get more hp for your money.

Whp is at the wheels. Bhp is at the crank before drivetrain loss. I'm aware of that. Average of 18% drivetrain loss in fwd cars so 50bhp / 1.18 ~ 42.37 whp gain is an honest measure.

We'll see how well Steinbauer ratings hold up when using an indepedent dyno. APR definitely holds their own and has their software on a lot of my friends cars. They do impressive things and have been around a long time. I'm curious to see what Steinbauer has for us in the states.

I know from VAG cars that their euro models are more powerful than ours. Is it the same with BMW?

 

i dont recall stating that the +50hp was "W"hp.

Its bhp....APR and most other tuners will always use bhp #'s.
its a marketing thing....looks much more appealing.
just like auto manufactures use bhp....its all a numbers game.
and comparing a random dyno run to anything isn't very valid IMO.
to me dyno runs/#'s only mean something if its done as a before/after the same day with all the same parameters. way to many variables to use a dyno graph stand alone when comparing things.

 

I was under the assumption that you were stating the gain in WHP that was the reason that I tried to explain that 50 whp out of a chip would be pretty hard to do and still daily drive it. Nothing more. If you read the rest of my post we are on the same wavelength about tuners using BHP. I in no way was comparing WHP to BHP on purpose.