From Audi 100 to urS4 in a week

[UrS4boy]

Thanks. I will sort the running issues out first before spending on chips, maybe the bad fuel economy is down to the running issues

When you get the grey UrS4 avant running, put the ECU from the red avant in it and compare how well (or not) it runs things in that chassis. Could be further proof that the red avant's issues have nothing to do with the ECU or its chips.

[hunker7]

Thanks. I will sort the running issues out first before spending on chips, maybe the bad fuel economy is down to the running issues

[UrS4boy]

I have seen 1.267.357.248 before (I think) but I can't find a reference for it.

Okay I found the "reference". It was a fellow Canadian (in Calgary) with a 92 spec UrS4 that was built in 03/92. He too had an ECU with socketed chips under those plastic clips. His ECU had a 1.267.357.248 chip (the other one looks like it was 1.267.357.249 but I am uncertain about that).

So your chips are probably correct for the era and the situation, i.e. the factory socketed chip set. At some point Audi must have felt confident enough about the software and decided that they didn't need the sockets for potential factory/warranty upgrades/replacements and just had the chips soldered directly to the PCB from then on to the end in 1997.

[UrS4boy]

PN on the other chip is 1 267 357 250
Where could I look for both chips?

At least the one with 250 at the end of the PN would seem to be of the same era as the 248 chip.

Normally I wouldn't say this until you have your issues sorted out but due to the fact that the ECU is already socketed, I would suggest that you consider getting a "Stage 1" chipset (for the 250 kPa MAP sensor) from either Paul Nugent (S2Central.net) or pry (dmitri). You would get more horsepower (around 260) and better mileage (this assumes that you don't have a fuel supply issue - which I am still convinced of).

Otherwise, put a WTB advert in the Wanted section here, asking for a known to be good UrS4 chipset with the 92 or 93 PNs I posted earlier today. Should be quite inexpensive (because normally people remove them and never use them again after they upgrade to Stage 1 and behond).

[hunker7]

All? I only see a photo of the fuel chip, nothing for the boost chip.

There is something about the 1.267.357.248 chip that is bugging me but, for the moment, I can't find a reference as to why. (Like very early chip set).

If the boost chip has a "normal" PN on it, it might be possible to get a fuel chip from somebody with an AAN who has upgraded their ECU with Stg 1 or Stg 1+ chips sets. Normally chips are sold in matched pairs.

PN on the other chip is 1 267 357 250

Where could I look for both chips?

[UrS4boy]

So it's all standard in there? Is it possible to buy fuel chips?

All? I only see a photo of the fuel chip, nothing for the boost chip.

There is something about the 1.267.357.248 chip that is bugging me but, for the moment, I can't find a reference as to why. (Like very early chip set).

If the boost chip has a "normal" PN on it, it might be possible to get a fuel chip from somebody with an AAN who has upgraded their ECU with Stg 1 or Stg 1+ chips sets. Normally chips are sold in matched pairs.

[hunker7]

So it's all standard in there?
Is it possible to buy fuel chips?

[UrS4boy]

Some OE MAP and chip part numbers:

Bosch Motronic ECU FAQ
Part Numbers

Pressure Transducers

Bosch 0.273.003.210 (250 kPa)
Bosch 0.273.003.211 (300 Kpa)

'92 Stock chips
TOP 1.267.357.391 (L27C512E/321063)
BOT 1.267.357.394 (7142437NBB, Intel B57 922 U2090657)

'93 Stock chips
TOP 1.267.357.391 (TI / B 58 157 / LEP9206 / L27C512E/321063)
BOT 1.267.357.483 (TI / B 58 235 / LDP9349 / L87C257D/301687)

'95 Stock chips
TOP 1.267.357.391 ??13 (TI -20JT / B 58 157 / BLUP9431690 )
BOT 1.267.357.483 S933 (TI -20JT / B 58 235 / LD4CA47EP )

Hoppen MTM Stage 1+ Mod:
TOP MOT S4 3.0 264 PS HS Key 02.10.97 39EA
BOT LDR S4 3.0 264 PS HS 02.10.97 9B55

I have seen 1.267.357.248 before (I think) but I can't find a reference for it.

[hunker7]

I've done little miles on both ECUs, and ECU from grey one shows better mpg than the ECU from red one. On red one it was usually 16mpg going to my girlfriends, by the time I get back it's 14mpg, this one was around 18 all the way.

[hunker7]

Yes. Proper photo formatting with no "url", ".html" or "/url", just [img] then for image's url at photobucket and then [/img].

Finally I can see that ECU in the photo, was socketted at the factory and than the MAP sensor is the stock AAN 250 kPa (2.5 Bar) sensor.

Will change it ftom now

So, is it possible that fuel chip is bad? Has that ever happened?

[UrS4boy]

Your data sample needs to be at least a tank brim to brim (calculated not from the OBC).

the OBC is not that accurate, especially after only a few kilometers.

[UrS4boy]

BETTER?

Yes. Proper photo formatting with no "url", ".html" or "/url", just [img] then for image's url at photobucket and then [/img].

Finally I can see that ECU in the photo, was socketted at the factory and than the MAP sensor is the stock AAN 250 kPa (2.5 Bar) sensor.

[hunker7]

Can you take maf, lambda from another car?

Have had different MAF on mine, and I already replaced lambda.

[igor136]

Can you take maf, lambda from another car?

[hunker7]

Over how many miles did you test your new MPG?

Anything less than a half tank I would take with a massive pinch of salt! We are only talking 5 MPG.

The error for a 5MPG difference could be driver, weather ECU re-learning (if the motronic does that) etc.

Your data sample needs to be at least a tank brim to brim (calculated not from the OBC).

It wasn't a lot. But on original ECU even driving carefully for many miles it averaged 13-15mpg. I will leave it in for now, and see what happens, but it's definitely an improvement.