Do i need to change the r201 in my aan ecu

[prj]

All MAF's are the same. RS2, AAN etc.
All ECU's are the same as well, except for MAP sensor, R201 and other changes not related to engine management.

The question is whether these chips used RS2 software as base or AAN. You won't know that unless you understand the software and can compare MAF calibration.

Also, 2 bar boost mapped properly on safe rods is much safer than 1.6 bar on lotto chips.

[UrS4boy]

Comparison of RS2 and AAN G70 MAFs

All MAF's are the same. RS2, AAN etc.

And by that, you mean electrically. Out of the box, the RS2 MAF has fewer flow restrictions than the AAN(ABY) MAF.

http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4s6/msgs/20442.phtml

[prj]

And by that, you mean electrically. Out of the box, the RS2 MAF has fewer flow restrictions than the AAN(ABY) MAF.
http://forums.quattroworld.com/s4s6/msgs/20442.phtml

Yeah, electronically.
All this flow restriction stuff is theory anyway. I am not aware if anyone measured pressure drop between turbo and MAF on the same car with two different MAF's.
Something tells me it is going to be irrelevant.

[UrS4boy]

Yeah, electronically. All this flow restriction stuff is theory anyway. I am not aware if anyone measured pressure drop between turbo and MAF on the same car with two different MAF's. Something tells me it is going to be irrelevant.

Not true. I guess you didn't follow my link to this:

http://forums.audiworld.com/showthread.php?p=18926132

[prj]

Not true. I guess you didn't follow my link to this:

http://forums.audiworld.com/showthread.php?p=18926132

Yes, it's true.
Testing the maf on a flow bench is useless, when the MAF is one of the biggest components of your intake tract.

I will say again, you will need to measure pressure drop between maf and turbo on the actual car. I am convinced there won't be much difference.
It's the same like putting a 3.5" exhaust on a stock turbo. Yes it's less restrictive, but it is not the bottleneck.

[UrS4boy]

You don't have any data to support your suggestion but you say the information that I point to is incorrect.

[prj]

You don't have any data to support your suggestion but you say the information that I point to is incorrect.

I did not say it is incorrect. I said it is irrelevant.
To find out how much of a restriction the MAF is you would need to flow the entire intake swapping out the MAF's, and not just the MAF.

I think I explained that pretty well now.

[UrS4boy]

I did not say it is incorrect. I said it is irrelevant.
To find out how much of a restriction the MAF is you would need to flow the entire intake swapping out the MAF's, and not just the MAF.

I don't think so, but once again trying discuss something with you is like

[prj]

Presenting arguments, rather than insults might help your cause
What's there to understand? If the turbo's inlet is like 2/3 the size of the MAF, how is that mesh going to be restrictive?
You don't measure the component alone, you measure the entire system.
I don't care what it flows on a flowbench, when it might not even be the bottleneck.
It's pretty damn simple to measure - stick a T-piece on one of the hoses going to a MAP sensor, do a pull, swap the maf, do a pull (or three), overlay data.

In practice I saw no difference whatsoever on many a 400hp car.

P.S. The thing I'd be more worried about is the mesh going through the turbo as a result of material fatigue.
P.S.P.S.
If you did not notice, I never disupted the fact that the RS2 MAF flows better, I just said it makes nada difference, as the mesh is not the bottleneck.

[UrS4boy]

So the Porsche engineers that spec'd that MAF for the RS2 are complete idiots? Man o' man, they made such a mistake!! They should have talked to you first.

My bad.

Did you even read the negative boost article?

[prj]

So the Porsche engineers that spec'd that MAF for the RS2 are complete idiots? Man o' man, they made such a mistake!! They should have talked to you first.

My bad.

Did you even read the negative boost article?

I did now, and even with screens removed there is not much difference at all.
The pressure drop does not have the effect you think on performance. You don't get a magic 20% power increase from that, In fact, the numbers should not be looked at as a percentage at all.

The majority of the flow restriction caused by the RS2 and AAN maf design is not the screens, it's the stuff protruding into the opening. Modification of the screens is just a band-aid, albeit at a cost - less protection.
My RS4's MAF (the one that is fitted to my RS4, and the one that I fit on big turbo 2.2T) also has the exact same mesh as the AAN MAF, but it is bigger in diamater and has much less in the way of the air

I still think and have experienced that the honeycomb screen makes close to no difference in the end result at 400hp.

P.S.
The acceleration difference in the "Negative Boost" article is just total ********.

[vidar skotheim]

Well . my chips are made to a ecu with 19.09kohm between 7 and 25 and rs2 maf. and the chips are made with a lot off work . got 10 pair of chips and the last chip that was maid was working very good on the car that the previous owner of the chips had . He was talking at about 600+ with 2.2 bar boost ..

[prj]

It is your choice to believe in fairytales

[UrS4boy]

I did now, and even with screens removed there is not much difference at all....PS: The acceleration difference in the "Negative Boost" article is just total ********.

From the article http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=0652

RPM..Total Pressure Drop Total Pressure Drop Screens Off.... Improvement
.......(inches of water)......(inches of water).......................

3000....... 10........................10...................... ............... 0%
4000....... 16........................14...................... ............... 13%
5000....... 26........................20...................... ............... 23%
6000....... 32........................26...................... ............... 19%
7000....... 29.6.....................24.8..................... .............. 16%

"...Up until 4000 rpm there was no change - which is to be expected because the flow restrictions at low rpm aren't much anyway. But from there upwards, an improvement could be seen. The peak pressure drop was reduced (and that means the flow improved!) from 32 to 26 inches of water, a 19 per cent reduction. But unfortunately 26 inches of water is still a helluva restriction - I hadn't found and killed the chief honcho negative boost.

But - hell - I'd still made a measurable improvement. Slowly, slowly catchee monk-, er negative pressure. And what I didn't tell you is that last week I measured the actual on-road acceleration of the Audi through second gear. Using an accelerometer, you can measure how hard the car is accelerating every 1000 rpm, giving you a really good picture of what's going on with the actual on-road performance. And did it go better with the airflow meter screens removed, as you'd expect given the reduced pressure drop? Yes it did. At 7000 rpm the car could previously pull 0.25g - with the screens removed that increased 28 per cent to 0.32g. And that new-found top-end grunt was obvious on the road."

Prj, are you saying that Force = mass times acceleration and Work = Force times distance and Power is the rate of doing work, i.e. Work/unit time, does not apply here and that the increase in acceleration was NOT due to an increase in horsepower?

[vidar skotheim]

I have seen the previous owners car in action , and it was extreme fast .. and i have run with this a half year now without problems , mostly street driving ..