Has anybody ever chipped a 2.6 v6 (95)

Newbie Joined: Dec 31, 2011 Posts: 2

I've seen a "AUDI 80 2.6 V6 PHASE-3 CHIP CABRIOLET COUPE ABC 174 BHP REMAP TUNE POWER BHP" available on auction.
I would like to know if anyone had fitted one and did it cause any aggro?

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:46 pm

25 bhp increase from one of those crappy chips on ebay - doubt it Laughing

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:49 pm

They don't work.

Posted: Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:49 pm

some opinions but no triers that I can find?:

http://www.audifans.net/ftopict-34702-chip.html

Personally I think there is not a cat in Hell's chance it will give 174hp, but it could give a 'useful' increase if it has been done well. If you are prepared to risk £50 or whatever offer they accept, it could well be worth a try.
As a socket is required to be fitted to your ecu, this is at extra cost, but it should be possible to refit the standard chip if you're not happy, best to confirm this before proceeding?

Newbie Joined: Dec 31, 2011 Posts: 2

Thanks for the advise albeit pretty negative, so I'll leave that one. What performance upgrades could you suggest? I'm sure mine's not running to it's full potential.

Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:16 pm

You could buy a cold air feed or exhaust but in reality probably not going to make a significant difference and maybe not worth the expense.
A potential mod is to fit the dual path intake from a 2.8 model. I think it will fit the engine, the problem is that the 2.6 has nothing to drive the changeover valve. It is vacuum operated but would need a signal from a controller device and solenoid valve to operate the valve at the desired engine speed.
I you don't already, try running on Shell Vpower, I was genuinely surprised that it made a difference at all, but my coupe drove better and had more mpg running on it.

Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:26 pm

New plugs, ignition leads, distributor cap, rotor arm, air filter (standard paper one), fuel filter, decent oil and oil filter, replace coolant and brake fluid too. Getting your car to run at its optimum in standard tune is the best thing you can do. I wouldn't even bother with high octane fuel, your car isn't mapped for it, so you'll see no benefit unless you start playing with the ignition timing. This is dangerous unless its expertly done and you'll have to stick with high octane fuel at all times.

Don't waste any money on anything else because nothing will give any meaningful gain on a normally aspirated petrol engine. Re-profiled camshafts might give you a bit more low down grunt or top end power but not both without variable valve timing, there's always a compromise and you'll lose overall driveability. Turbo cars respond well to being remapped, normally aspirated cars don't, although there are always people willing to tell you they do in exchange for your hard earned cash.

Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:00 pm

Is the V6 not supposed to run on higher octane?? According to the book of my 1988 90 I5 is should so would be surprised if the later engines would not be the same?

As another thought, can the ECU on these alter the set up on these to the grade of fuel you are using??

Posted: Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:03 pm

As a sideline I had a 2.6 Coupe on loan for a week short ago. Lovely car. Nice unit and first time I have been in any of the petrol V's.

I could not get my head around the gearing and the MPG. 2 Wheel drive coupe with worse MPG than my S6 boat. :<

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:34 am

No Mark,

Its the 2.8 and the S2 that are mapped for 98 Octane fuel. Ref: http://www.s2-audi.co.uk/audi_docs/owners_manual/technical/engine_data.htm

The 2.6 is only 9 bhp up on the 2.0 16v so its quite lazily tuned, torquey in comparison though.

Ross

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:51 am

Remapping or chipping turbo cars seems better value because the gains are very high. I still think the gains are potentially worthwhile for normally aspirated cars. No other mod is going to give you say 10 hp for less than £300. In my book that makes it the first thing you should do to a n/a car, but the tune needs to be proven

many cars post 1989 have catalysts, most cat cars use 95 RON mapping, interesting to see the 2.8 runs 98! probably Audi had to do this to eclipse the 20v!
Even if the mapping is for 95 ron, this only applies at wide open throttle, when cruising the knock sensors will keep advancing timing until knock is detected then back off, then advance again etc etc, this is why V power or similar can give better economy

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:04 am

I should really not comment on the V6's, shows how little I know about them!!!! Strange my old 90 is 98 RON, not that it gets it often.

Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:03 am

In those days, 98 ron leaded 4 star was widely available. I remember it was the done thing, to retard timing a few degrees to enable use of 95 ron unleaded. Said to only lose a couple of hp - may be true for a carb'ed cavalier of the time but would be a few more on a 20v or V6!

Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2012 10:03 pm

my 1989 2.0e runs fine on 98 and the is a noticable difference in smoothness, well i think anyway

as already been said unless your going for cam and flywheel upgrades its not really worth it

when my engine was rebuilt i had a dave deary racing head put on with kent cam kit and it does make a hell of a difference as its so torquey and as a result keeps up with my mrs punto hgt

but as said you do comprimise drivability, at following in traffic speeds its a bitch Laughing

sometimes wish id never done it

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 12:18 am

The A4 version of the ABC 2.6 had the dual path intake manifold from the factory - along with a fuel shut-down mode on overrun (ie slowing down through the gears). So you could always use an A4 program or ECU - gains are only at the extreme top end though above 4500rpm when the short path ports open.

The best mods for these engines are fresh injectors, ported inlet manifold (reasonable inexpensive for noticeable gains (probably only a few horses, but you'll feel good about it for a few hundred £) and a 2.5" cat back exhaust - basically a sinus clearout!!

Chips may or may not work on n/a cars as the factory tune is often a compromise of power vs torque vs driveability vs fuel economy vs emissions.
The owner can opt for more power, whilst compromising on the emissions/economy/driveability to a certain extent, and that's what aftermarket chip programmers cater for.
However, the ABC tune is notorious for being difficult to modify and was eclipsed by the already established market of 20V mods when it came out, then the more easily tuned 1.8T which followed it. So it became the lonely orphan with good torque, smooth driving, and good towing!

Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 10:25 am

Interesting that the A4 got the manifold but no extra horses? Or maybe just an australia market thing? Do you know how many kW the aussie market 2.6 has?
Upsolute offer a (probably) more credible fig of 166hp for their A4 2.6 chip. I wonder if they could do the 80 2.6?

http://www.upsolute.com/index.php?option=com_upsolute&task=models&id=2

If I were to go to the trouble of fitting another ECU and wiring loom to the 2.6 just for using the dual path intake, I would choose the kit from the 2.8 because it has mapping for 98 ron.
I am guessing that an aftermarket 'powervalve controller' from somewhere like ignitech or zeeltronic could be used to drive the valve.

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:10 am

OK, you've got me doubting it now!
I'll have to take a look to see if the vac actuater is there on the manifold back-end - I'm pretty certain it is! Better make sure I don't confuse it with the Cruise Control actuator!

As far as I know, I've still got the 115-120Kw (150bhp) that's always stated for the 2.6!

Goes alright though - I often surprise the "big Aussie sixes" (Holden Commodre 3.6 and Ford Falcon 4.0) by keeping up with them off the lights!

Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 4:42 pm

That's the confusing bit, but I will say, the euro cars are 110 kW which is 150 metric hp or ps = 735watts (pferdestark sp?) The US used to insist on figures in good old fashioned hp 744 watts so there was always a difference in hp figures, not sure what oz used, but kW is constant...