2.0 TDI 190HP engine, software modification does not achieve stated power output

Hello everyone,

I drive an Audi Q5 2.0 TDI with 190 horsepower and S tronic transmission, all-wheel drive (quattro).
Baujahr 2016. Engine code: CNHA

Six months ago, I had a software optimization performed on my car, resulting in 224 horsepower and 460 Newton-meters of torque.

Unfortunately, I sometimes feel that he's not delivering the performance expected of him.
Sometimes it feels like he's heading in the right direction, but other times he just can't seem to get things together.

I then had an Insoric power measurement performed, and the results were "only" 211 horsepower (at 3727 rpm) and 447 Nm of torque (at 2650 rpm).


The error memory is clear, and the engine is running normally so far.

Die Tage habe ich folgende (max) Werte geloggt im 4. Sure, here is the translation of the text from German to English:

"Gang:"

"Gang:"

This word can be translated in a few different ways, depending on the context. Here are some possibilities:

* **A group of people who associate with each other.** For example, "a gang of teenagers."
* **A narrow passageway or corridor.** For example, "the gangway between two ships."
* **A type of machinery used to move materials.** For example, "a conveyor gang."

If you can provide more context, I can give you a more accurate translation.
Average injection volume: 81.6 mg per cycle, within the range of 2600-3400 RPM.

It then decreases to 4000 revolutions per minute, resulting in a value of 72.6 mg/hub.

Air mass at the air flow sensor: 1300 - 1400 mg/stroke.

Absolute boost pressure: 2.85 bar.

Engine torque: 499.9 Nm. What is the actual, real-world value corresponding to this?
Torque limit: 499.9 Nm.
Limit for smoke: 528 mm.

Are these performance specifications even achievable with these values?

What could be the possible causes?

Thank you very much in advance.

Hi there.

I would contact the "tuner".

If the testing was conducted professionally, performance measurements were likely taken on a dynamometer both before and after the optimization process.

I highly doubt that the users here are capable of resolving programmed issues.

I'm just trying to figure out if I might be wrong and everything is actually okay.
I don't completely trust the Insoric measurement. That day, it had snowed and the temperature was around 0 degrees Celsius.

"Unfortunately, my tuner doesn't have its own testing equipment and claims that the Insoric measurement is unreliable (due to factors like headwinds or inclines)."


He's been in the business for 30 years and has been working with a well-known tuning company since then. Every software solution they offer is tested on a dynamometer and installed on numerous cars. So, this isn't some backyard tuner who just changes a few values on a laptop. At my request, he even had the programmer review the software, and the programmer confirmed that everything was fine with it.

The performance figures can be found for every tuner and are absolutely standard for this engine when performing a Stage 1 performance optimization. It's not even close to the limit and remains within the factory protection parameters.
The more I think about it, the more surprised I am that my copy might have fewer [items/features].

I'm only interested in whether the values indicate good performance and whether any engine faults can be ruled out.
"For example: Mass airflow sensor failure, a sensor is reporting implausible values, etc."

You check these things before tuning to ensure that there's a good foundation in place beforehand.

And as I said, for me, it's important to have both input and output measurements so that I know how much power was available beforehand.

It is quite possible that a certain amount of loss already exists due to clogged channels from the EGR system.

So, my driving habits aren't ideal for a diesel engine.
It usually amounts to 14 km driving to work and back each day. However, the engine is now reaching just under 90 degrees Celsius in oil temperature during the winter. This isn't a problem at all in the summer.
On weekends, or at least once a week, I try to give the car a good workout as a way to relax and let off some steam by pushing it on the highway.

Every DPF regeneration is completed fully. If necessary, I will even drive extra rounds specifically to ensure it finishes, especially if I see that it's still regenerating when it reaches its destination.
We could verschandeln the AGR channels to potentially recover more material if that's the cause of the problem.
As far as I know, the EGR (Exhaust Gas Recirculation) system doesn't operate at full load. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I fix everything on my cars myself; it's not a problem for me.

Not only do AGR channels become clogged, but entire intake manifolds can also become blocked.

And that's how you gradually lose performance.

"He's been in the business for 30 years, and from what I gather, he's just a "slave tuner," meaning he only reads data and re-flashes it. He receives an encrypted file from his "master" who creates it."

And the major tuning companies often focus on quantity. I've seen a lot of tuning work from large companies, and most of it is just marginal adjustments. If you can get an EDC17 file in 20 to 30 minutes, it can only be a very small percentage adjustment.

I do about one or two tuning jobs per month; it's not my main business, and I'm not a professional. For VAG vehicles, I always start with a baseline log run, then upload my file (no percentage-based tuning), and take the car for another test drive. I check the logs and optimize until I'm satisfied. The customer is usually happy with the initial version, as they can't analyze the logs themselves. For example, working on an EDC 17 system takes at least half a day to three-quarters of a day. With everyone else I know, it only takes about half an hour.

I've made a little more progress now.

It appears that the torque is internally limited to approximately 470 Nm in gears 1 through 3. (Torque limitation).

I logged this one on Peak.

Starting from the 4th gear, the value reaches 499.9 Nm.

What was also noticeable was that it stayed within the smoke reduction range in the lower three gears. This range is always approximately 10-20 Nm below the torque limit.
Starting from the 4th gear, the smoke limit is reduced to 528 Nm at peak power, and the torque limit, as mentioned above, is capped at a maximum of 499.9 Nm.

Hello,

There's only a difference of 13 horsepower between the measured output and the target performance, which is just about 5.8% of the desired power.
Die Messung hat eine Streuung und der Motor selber auch. Beides kombiniert ist u.U. mehr als 5,8%. Die angezeigte Einspritzmenge bei 4000rpm ist nur dann aussagekräftig, wenn man weiß ob sie auch stimmt. DYou don't know that.

Then there's the issue with things like the AGR valve, auxiliary air intakes, DPF (diesel particulate filter), and injector holes, etc. At 300,000 km, you almost certainly have less power than at 100,000 km.

Torque readings via diagnostics: Includes internal friction. At least subtract the value at idle, as the engine outputs 0 Nm there.
It seems like 499 Nm is a value limited by a diagnostic conversion factor (i.e., for the display), and internally, these conversion factors used for the diagnostic display are irrelevant. Therefore, you can ignore it; you simply know that the actual value is likely higher than 499 Nm, unless the internal calculations have been tampered with or if an expansion has been overlooked.

Best regards, Rainer.

Okay, so the car has 154,000 kilometers on it. I bought it when it was 3 years old with 110,000 kilometers.
The previous owner only drove it on the highway.
So, it only ran on long distances. The engine should be well broken in by now.
The oil change is performed at the latest every 15,000 miles (or kilometers).
Make sure to drive carefully in both warm and cold weather conditions.
Do not use gas if the oil temperature is below 90 degrees Celsius, and do not exceed 2000 RPM.

When warmed up and idling, it shows values of 41-43 Nm. It fluctuates within this range.

Regarding fuel injectors:
Injection volume deviation is always within the range of +/- 0.01. No anomalies detected.
The individual nozzles have a variation of +/- 0.1.
The engine starts up immediately, even if it's been idle for two weeks, and runs smoothly.

Could it be that he's losing power in the lower sections because he's not getting enough air down there for some reason? A smoke limiter means there's insufficient airflow.

Are there other metrics that can be used to more precisely determine whether it's doing what it's supposed to do, or from which performance can be derived?

Unfortunately, there isn't a testing facility near me, and I would have to travel a very long distance to reach one.

Pea counter.

The most helpful thing for you would be to understand the EDC17 system.

The documentation for the EDC17 is about 10,000 pages long. Have fun trying to figure out what, where, how, and why everything happens. And you still have to understand it. Without basic knowledge, it's unrealistic to get through it in a reasonable amount of time, and just reading it will take you ages.

No one here has the time or inclination to speculate about what might be, so don't expect anyone to waste their free time on such things for you.

Just be happy that the car drives well and reaches its top speed without falling apart.

kevin272 wrote:

Meanwhile, I have made some progress. It appears that the torque is internally limited to approximately 470 Nm in gears 1 through 3. (Torque limitation). I logged this one on Peak. Starting from the 4th gear, the value reaches 499.9 Nm. What was also noticeable was that it stayed within the smoke reduction range in the lower three gears. This range is always approximately 10-20 Nm below the torque limit. Starting from the 4th gear, the smoke limit is reduced to 528 Nm at peak power, and the torque limit, as mentioned above, is capped at a maximum of 499.9 Nm.

Naja wenn ich ins Blaue schießen sollte, würde ich sagen hier ist schon ein Problem. Die Rauchbegrenzung wird im Normalbetrieb nie erreicht. Wenn's denn nun nicht die Software sein soll/darf bleibt nur Turbo/VGT müde oder LMM taub... sowas in die Richtung halt. Abgasgegendruck zu hoch wäre auch noch ein Kandidat für Rauchbegrenzung, wie schon erwähnt Saugrohr zugesetzt... halt alles restriktive zwischen Endrohr und Ansaugschnorchel. St"Arke's weather sensitivity can always be found somewhere within the cooling area (charge air cooling)."

When you look at the maximum load capacity, it must be within the range of peak performance and proportionally larger, even more so (simply because the efficiency in the higher power range is lower than in the standard configuration). If the load capacity isn't sufficient, then the desired level of performance cannot be achieved.

At 150,000 km, the performance is still good, but the paintwork is starting to show some wear and tear, which is fair to mention. Many tuners offer reduced or no warranty after 100,000 km for a reason.
I would simply doubt that he actually had a speed of 190 [km/h] before.

I contacted the tuner again because of the smoke limitation or torque limitation.
He told me that this was normal because the turbocharger only builds up full boost in the higher gears, and therefore generates more power there. So it's a technical limitation and completely normal. No engine would produce maximum power directly from first gear.
I have no idea if this is true.
The boost pressure doesn't seem to have been increased much at all. I don't know exactly what the standard boost is for the 190 hp engine, but it's currently running a maximum of 2.85 bar absolute pressure / 1.85 bar of boost.
According to various forums, the engine's boost pressure is normally 1.83 bar, which means it only increases by 0.02 bar with the software modification.
Perhaps this is actually normal? With diesel engines, power comes from more fuel. The programmer must have had some reason for doing it.

Regarding the boost pressure range:
A few days ago, I cleaned the AGR cooler because it was clogged with AdBlue, which caused the check engine light to come on (this is not related to any tuning and is a known issue with this engine, and therefore also occurs frequently in standard configurations).
"In the process, I had to remove the turbocharger boost pipe including the intake manifold. Everything looked very clean. It's a stark contrast to the 2.0 TDI in my wife's VW Golf. In that one, everything is completely dirty, and it only has 70,000 km on it. However, that's the EA189 Euro 5 engine. I have the EA288 Euro 6."
The EGR valve and cooler were not heavily carbonized, but rather slightly dirty, likely with more AdBlue residue.
The intake passages look surprisingly good and are not blocked. I actually expected the opposite.
I also had a direct view of the turbocharger, and it looked great. The shaft has no play, neither axially nor radially. Visually, everything is fine; there are no noticeable issues.
The engine also features an indirect, water-cooled intercooler mounted directly on the engine. This is cooled with coolant via a separate radiator located at the front.
Therefore, there is no potential for any leaks in that area either, as there is no further section of the pressure charging system.
A continuous pipe connects the turbocharger to the intake manifold.
I then used the endoscope to inspect the intercooler, but I didn't find anything unusual.
The DPF seems to be okay as well. The differential pressure is 10 hPa at idle and 350 hPa under full load.
Der Wagen regeneriert auch seltener als vorher Serie. Ich gehe also mal davon aus, dass er eine sauberere Verbrennung hat als Serie. Less soot?

Visually, the DPF still looked great.
Once the AGR cooler was removed, I had a direct view of it.

After cleaning the EGR cooler, the engine check light went off and I was able to clear the error code.
But I don't think that's the reason why he's not achieving his potential.
You can only tell from the lower frequencies that it sounds better there.

It might be necessary to measure and compare the performance figures, or perhaps cross-reference them. In other words, how much horsepower is needed to accelerate to 100 or 200 km/h within a certain time? Then we can see if it really corresponds to the supposedly measured value of just under 212 hp.

There are indeed several formulas related to it, involving weight, cw value, etc.
I still have the exact weight from the Insoric measurement. The car was weighed precisely to 1 kg there.
I also think that the performance measurements from Insoric might not be 100% accurate.
Perhaps it also has the 220 horsepower under certain conditions.


I also suspected the mass airflow sensor, but I'm not sure if it's faulty. It's still the original one though.
At full load, I recorded values of up to a maximum of 1420 mg per unit.
The maximum recorded injection volume is 81.82 mg per injection.
According to the internet, the original concentration is a maximum of 72mg per hub.
So, that would be approximately 13.7% more.
I'm not sure if that can be directly translated into performance figures. In tuning, the injection duration is often changed, not just the amount of fuel injected.
You never know what has been changed.
Unfortunately, I don't have the exact specifications for the engine, so I can't compare it to anything.

From a purely personal and subjective perspective, the engine feels very responsive and runs smoothly. When you press the accelerator fully, it delivers good power and propels the car forward, despite its weight of 1980 kg, which isn't exactly light.
I recently drove a nearly identical Q5 with the same engine and 190 horsepower, and you could definitely notice a difference.

I don't think there's a major defect in the engine.

Nevertheless, one would naturally like to know the exact power output. It feels like more than 211 horsepower.

Regarding mileage and peak performance, I know many people who have seen their TDIs reach 250,000 km and even over 300,000 km, and all of them had power outputs within +/- 3 horsepower of the factory specifications. This includes the EA288 engine, among others.
More often than not, they actually had more torque than stated.
And then there are many who treat their engines anything but gently. They run them at full throttle constantly, without proper warm-up or cool-down procedures, etc.
So, I don't think the engine has any noticeable or significantly measurable loss of power, nor do I believe it's nearing the end of its lifespan.

Hi there,
Reliable values for torque and power can only be obtained on a dynamometer. And with a good, calibrated dynamometer, these values are provided with compensation for environmental conditions. The discussion here is pointless speculation. A 3% deviation in torque is simply due to the quality of the dynamometers used. I agree with the statement "nitpicking."
Why don't you just buy a vehicle with the desired performance from the start?
hg
Herbert.

Herbert wrote:

Hi, Reliable values for torque and power can only be obtained on a dynamometer. And with a good, calibrated dynamometer, these values are provided with compensation for environmental conditions. The discussion here is pointless speculation. A 3% deviation in torque is simply due to the quality of the dynamometers used. I agree with the statement "nitpicking." Why don't you just buy a vehicle with the desired performance from the start? hg Herbert

.

Good evening.

I was primarily interested in the Q5. However, models with over 200 horsepower are only available as either a 3.0 TDI or a 2.0 TFSI.
At first, I thought that 190 horsepower would be enough for me.
Coming from an Audi A4 B7 2.0 gasoline engine with 116 horsepower.
But especially when loaded or in situations where you need to react quickly...
Although he needed to speed up, I found him to be too slow.
I drove the car for two years before deciding to modify it.

I didn't want the 3.0 TDI because it's too complex for someone who likes to work on their own car. If there's a problem with the timing chain (which is something you often hear about with the Q5), you have to remove the entire engine, including the transmission. It also has higher taxes, more fuel consumption (especially at partial load), more weight, 6 injectors instead of 4, etc.

The 2.0 TDI is more economical to maintain and has a simpler design. It offers plenty of space in the large engine compartment, making it easier to work on. You can easily access all components.
Instead of a timing chain, it has a timing belt, which needs to be replaced at the specified interval, and then you can simply continue driving.

The 2.0 TFSI engine, on the other hand, consumes too much fuel for my liking, and there are also frequent reports of problems with the piston rings.
A powerful diesel engine simply fits better with a 2-ton SUV.

I don't use the full power all the time, but only occasionally. Overtaking, on the highway... 90% of the time, I drive exactly like I did before the tuning. On my daily commute to work, I can't even use it because it's only 15 km long, and the engine isn't fully warm until almost the end. So, I just drive slowly.
It's important to me to have a reserve of power available, so that it's there if you need it.

"The Audi Q5 is a good compromise; it offers enough horsepower for enjoyable driving without the high fuel consumption and maintenance costs."
In my case, since I do everything myself and don't rely on a workshop, the maintenance costs are already very low.

And 220 horsepower is far from the maximum that the engine can produce. It's still a healthy and practical power output, and it operates within all of the factory-set safety limits of the engine control system.
The engine block should be able to withstand well over 250 horsepower, potentially up to around 300 horsepower.

Quote:

And 220 horsepower is far from the maximum that the engine can produce. It's still healthy and suitable for everyday use, and within all of the factory-set safety features of the engine control unit. The engine block should be able to withstand well over 250 horsepower, even up to 300 horsepower.

However, the unscrupulous manufacturer, despite all expertise, does not offer a 2.0 TDI engine with these performance figures. Pure sabotage.
Herbert.