Got my tweaked map back from the tuner today (yesterday now...). Uploaded it onto the handheld device and then went out to the car and hooked it up. ~4 mins later and the ECU had it's new firmware installed. The files are around 1/4 Mb. Really simple.
If something goes horribly wrong (e.g. you didn't check battery output) and it died during the flashing process, you can post your ECU off to have it manually restored, although all the success stories and lack of problem reports that weren't traced to mild user errors suggests headaches are rare.
I can go back to my original map at any time, there's also a map which prevents starting the engine even with the keys, if i want. The wee unit doubles up as a fault code reader too.
The effect... wow!
TSi engines are super smooth, but this takes it further, instead of getting a slight thump of torque at around 2000rpm, it's just progressive now, but elevated throughout. The difference at 3250rpm is insane! Pulls hard from 1500rpm (previously ~1700rpm) which is only a couple of hundred rpm above tickover.
Officially the redline is 7000rpm, and i see the new map values are only active up to that point - however, in 2nd gear the ECU allows it to rev to 7500rpm, but that last 500rpm are on factory mapping. You notice a pretty sizeable drop in pull, when before there was no discernable difference between 7000rpm and 7500pm. Might have them tweak 7000rpm to 7500rpm as well, just for completeness.
With the DSG, this was already the traffic light grand prix champion, but where torquey diesels could keep up until the (premature) end of their first gear, now they're not even in the running.
Economy is up ~4mpg in normal driving but no official brim to brim figures yet, just going on the onboard readout. Down by ~10mpg+ when pushing it flat out according to the instantaneous read out.
Costs:
Map: £450 - 10% discount for Briskoda membership
Handheld map uploader unit: £150 - 100% discount for being part of a group buy
Insurance: £87
Total: £492
I've a rolling road session booked for next week, i'll do original map followed by performance map runs since that seems to be the only way to get halfway relevant figures from a rolling road.
It's now putting out comparable power to an Audi TT-S (that has the next step up in turbo sizes), but significantly more torque and holding it higher over a wider rev range. That car costs at least £17k more than mine, and if you add in all the toys i've got, probably double the cost of my car. Mine doesn't have the 4wd mind, but as long as you don't treat the throttle as an on / off switch that's not proving a great hardship, these cars have surprising traction for FWD.
Whole-heartedly recommended :-) Although not one for the panic monkeys, it will almost certainly shorten the life span of your engine if you make use of the extra ability regularly.
|
Sounds great, Skoda. I keep thinking of getting my diesel done but SWMBO is completely anti car modding on any level. I try to explain to her the emissions / fuel and maintenance variability stuff, but she won't have it.
I would be interested to know how fuel economy is affected in brim to brim terms. Obviously if you're giving it the beans, it's going to use more than before, but in "normal" driving remapped cars are claimed to be more economical than standard ones. I have yet to find any hard figures though.
Sounds like a beast. Enjoy it :-)
Last edited by: DP on Sun 10 Apr 11 at 09:06
|
|
Mine, too, unfortunately!
|
>> I've a rolling road session booked for next week, i'll do original map followed by
>> performance map runs since that seems to be the only way to get halfway relevant
>> figures from a rolling road.
>>
This is the interesting part for me. The manufacturers quote all sorts of figures but I have yet to see back to back on the same engine, the same rolling road on the same day.
Look forward to this update.
Sounds like a good buy for you and something you'll use especially if you plan many Sunday outings to Fife.
|
Sounds like a job well done Skoda.
From what I can gather, remapping is better than chipping.
I'm tempted to do it to the CC3, but then I think of that DMF held together with glue. :)
|
Same power as a TTS but much more torque over a wider rev range.
That makes no sense.
Like when Nissan brought out new versions of it's Skyline, each with more torque and running to higher revs than the previous incarnation - always magically having 276bhp, the limit of the japanese "Gentlemen's agreement" to avoid a BHP arms race between manufacturers.
One journo asked a Nissan engineer at a car show:
"So the new Skyline has more torque, runs to higher revs, and has the same power output as the old car?"
"That's right." replied the smiling engineer.
|
Haha, if it were my choice I'd have the extra torque further up the rev range, I.e. Power, but to achieve that I need to fit a bigger turbo, and associated larger injectors, wouldn't make sense not to upgrade the intercooler etc etc you're looking at £2k in parts assuming I do the work myself.
Then there's the associated lag that inevitably comes when you depart from a smallish turbo.
For £500 its a fair return. Unbridling the torque lost due to VAG's (probably correct for consumer use) choice to sit with the wastegate open throughout most of the rev range to deliver that characteristic "doesn't matter where you are in the rev range, same amount of pull on offer". I.e. Just your choice of gearing decides how rapidly you're going to accelerate.
|
Which particular TSi engine is involved, the 122bhp?
Mine is as smooth as a baby's bottom from little more than tickover to 6,000-7,000 rpm and the torque output is exhilarating when used in earnest (170PS).
|
Used to have a Prodrive mapped Forester turbo.
With slightly less lumpy cams than an equivalent Impreza the effect was a bigger shove from lower down the rev range, and little point going past 6,000rpm although it would happily run to ~6700.
Best to have the smallest turbo(s) capable of your desired output rather than an oversized snail that's not being used to its potential and just adding lag and inefficiency.
Similar effect to your remap - 15% more peak power, but up to 30% more torque throughout the range. Not the slightest whiff of turbo-lag either.
|
It's the 208bhp 2.0 TSI hence the comparison to the Audi TT-S. If he started with a 1.4 TSI he'd not get that much out of it.
I assume your 170PS 1.4TSI is the one with both supercharger (for low revs) and turbo (for higher revs).
|
I'm just waiting for Honda to get their finger out and bring a petrol-turbo to market.
Instead of wasting their R&D yen on petrol-electric guff.
|
I'll revive this next week to post up the graphs and fuel economy.
The tuner has just developed their own anti-lag software, the bang bang variety rather than the EGR magic trick the car currently uses to keep the turbo spinning. Only problem with that code is the hardware isn't designed for it, exhaust manifolds and turbos would become consumables! Bit expensive but the noise... :-) that really needs to be on a manual car so you can savour it!
|
>>I assume your 170PS 1.4TSI is the one with both supercharger (for low revs) and turbo (for higher revs).>>
Yes, hence the T for turbo and S for supercharger..:-) Same for the 122bhp and 138bhp (140PS) units.
Not seen many of the 2.0 TSi versions - last one was in a VW Eos. Performance seems very similar to mine.
|
The T stands for Turbo but the S does not mean supercharger. The 122PS TSI has no supercharger. And the 1.8 and 2.0 TSI are turbo only. With the normally aspirated FSI engines the S stood for stratified (fuel stratified injection) so I suspect the same applies for the turbo engines. Although I think originally the S did mean supercharger but doesn't anymore.
It's a shame they changed the spec of the 1.4TSI and limited what cars it's in. I think it's now only 160PS. I think officially the engine with both turbo and super chargers is called the Twincharger. Maybe they decided getting 170PS out of the 1.4 unit was too much for it longer term?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 11 Apr 11 at 10:22
|
FSi stands for Fuel Stratified - not just Stratified...:-)
The 122bhp unit is both turbocharged and supercharged according to some specifications and yet, in others, uses a "sophisiticated" turbocharger.
In this link:
www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055342835
you'll see a query on this point.
Wonder if the confusion arises, including mine, because the 122bhp was stated to be based on the 140PS and 170PS turbocharged and supercharged engines?
Yet I can recall posting a "cut and paste" specification of the 122bhp in another thread which listed it as both turbo and supercharged....
|
Yeah that's what i was led to believe it was, Turbo Stratified Injection. And the ECU name (MED17.5) comes from Motronic, Electronic throttle, Direct injection.
There's the 180ps 1.4 in the Polo GTI / Fabia Vrs / Ibiza Cupra, it's twin charged too. Various tuners are on the cusp of releasing their works for that engine. I understand it's much harder to tweak further than VAG have already done. Some of the testing to destruction stuff seems brutal, i suppose it has to be.
|
>> Maybe they decided getting 170PS out of the 1.4 unit was too much for it longer term?
>>
The 160 has much lower emmisions.
|
That'll explain it then. I wonder why the 180PS 2.0T engine in the Audi A5 Sportback is not available in more VAG cars. Although the emissions are the same as the 210PS variant.
I'm about to sign the order for my 170PS diesel Passat CC... :-) Shame I can't really remap that to 200PS when I get it.
|
>> Shame I can't really remap that to 200PS when I get it.
There's always options Rob :-) You could do the anti social DPF delete for ~220bhp and switch the ECU back to the stock map before MOTs. The DPF can remains in the exhaust system so it'll pass visual inspections too, just the internals are removed.
|
>> It won't be my car.
One of the down sides to the company car route :-) Our place offer them through Lloyds TSB leasing i think it is? The deals never look that attractive to me and our selections aren't great, well last time i looked which was ~1.5 year ago.
We don't need to travel every week so there's no mileage allowance or fuel card, and when we do travel it's always plane / hire car which seems less hassle anyway.
|
Lloyds TSB Autolease is now Lex Autolease. That's who will be providing mine.
When it comes down to whether it's better take the car or money, it depends on what car you want I guess. My Passat CC 2.0TDI 170PS will be about £28600. Lease cost for the car with xenons and other extras is about £450 per month.
If I wanted the same car brand new, I'd have to find £28650 cash (maybe you could get a small discount but there are 5 month waiting lists) and then insurance would be over £1000pa at a guess. Then servicing, tyres (the 18" wheels come with Continental's Contiseals and are about £200 each), road tax to add to that.... and depreciation to factor in.
So I decided to go for the company car again ;-) If I took the cash and wasn't paying tax on a company car I'd have about £400pm to finance a car.
BTW If I'd gone for an Octavia vRS I'd have got some money back each month.
Hope you enjoy the remap! :-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 12 Apr 11 at 17:04
|
>>Maybe they decided getting 170PS out of the 1.4 unit was too much for it longer term?>>
Probably too close to the 2.0 FSi's performance in the GTi - the power output drop is only 10bhp in the 160PS unit.
Originally the 170PS TSi engine was available in the Golf in GT form. See:
www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/67063/volkswagen_golf_gt.html
|
|
it was done to drop the co2 and make it better in the company car tax stakes.
|
|
I've not compared emissions, but the power output of the VW 1.4T and the 1.8T is 160PS now. Why stick with the 1.8T I wonder. Or vice-versa the higher output 1.4T?
|
My A4 has a 2.0T FSI engine in it, and AFAIK this engine has always been referred to as such. Doesn't have a supercharger though - I'm not sure a FWD A4 could cope with any more torque ;-) I don't think that any of the 2.0T variants have a supercharger do they?
Peter
|
>> I don't think that any of the 2.0T variants have a supercharger do they?
Not that i'm aware of, no i don't think so.
Here's the VW Self Study for the 1.4 -->
www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_359.pdf
Footer on Page 5: "The different output and torque levels are achieved using software. The engine mechanics are the same in both engines".
|
Thanks! I guess a 2.0T FSI with a supercharger (and quattro...) would tread on the toes of the larger engines in the range, though you'd think might have emissions benefits?
Peter
|
Sorry Peter, I've missed the edit, the quote about the 1.4 was to slot into Stuartli/rtj70 convo so if you were scratching your head thinking "that makes no sense", sorry :-)
>> I guess a 2.0T FSI with a supercharger (and quattro...) would tread on the toes of the larger engines in the range
AFAIK the supercharger is only used to counter turbo lag, which is excaserbated by smaller displacement (1.4) and using a large-ish turbo. In the larger displacement engines they seem to have cracked the turbo lag issue.
For the 2.0 engines, there's more than just this but these are the main ones in the UK:
Engine code CCZ = k03 turbo, same basic engine design as the old non turbo 2.0FSi
CCZA = 197bhp
CCZB = 208bhp - both versions are physically the same, but different software on them
Engine code CDL = k04 turbo, strengthened internals vs. CCZ
CDLA = 261bhp
CDLB = 268bhp - both versions are physically the same, but different software on them
|
>> For the 2.0 engines, there's more than just this but these are the main ones
>> in the UK:
>>
Don't (or did) Audi do a 170Ps variant in the last model A6 and earlier A5s (before the 1.8TSi was launched) ? I assumed they turned the wick down on the 4 cylinder to stop it encroaching on the 2.4V6's performance.
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Tue 12 Apr 11 at 04:10
|
>>Although not one for the panic monkeys, it will almost certainly shorten the life span of your engine if you make use of the extra ability regularly.
>>
Oh I dont know, it should be able to handle it with no harm unless it is daft boost levels and running to advanced, what do you reckon it is making?
|
>> Oh I dont know, it should be able to handle it with no harm
Yeah, other folks have blazed the trail ahead of me with silly outputs.
>> what do you reckon it is making?
~260bhp and ~280lb/ft.
|
>> >> Oh I dont know, it should be able to handle it with no harm
>>
>> Yeah, other folks have blazed the trail ahead of me with silly outputs.
>>
>> >> what do you reckon it is making?
>>
>> ~260bhp and ~280lb/ft.
Remember WorkshopTech? He mentioned a mate having the earlier VRS that was putting out 300bhp, and drove it like a nutter, it was apparently still reliable.
I don't know how strong the internals are on these engines - if they have forged bottom ends, conrods, pistons, oil cooling to the under sides of the pistons, they should be able to handle 260bhp.
|
Can I ask a (possibly) dumb question.....
If the remaps improve both performance and economy, why don't manufacturers use these in the first place? With all of their corporate resources and expertise they ought surely to be able to provide these 'improved' maps......
My assumption is that manufacturers provide a map which is optimised to address a range of requirements whereas a re-map concentrates on only a subset e.g. performance. It seems to me that economy and engine or transmission longevity are likely to be impacted by increasing the power output.
Doesn't mean I wouldn't get a remap as I don't keep my cars long so the long-term effects wouldn't overly concern me....
|
>> Can I ask a (possibly) dumb question.....
>>
>> If the remaps improve both performance and economy, why don't manufacturers use these in the first place? With all of their corporate resources and expertise they ought surely to be able to provide these 'improved' maps......
>>
Its often down to marketing.
Many cars today have exactly the same engine specs between differing sub-models, the only difference on the mechanical side, being power outputs.... which are controlled by software.
It can also be for the way the manufacturer wants the car to 'feel' so it suits the type of customer the vehicle is aimed at.
|
|
Also on the economy front perhaps the manufacturer wants/needs to achieve a certain result when driven/tested under certain conditions, for example to record the 'official' fuel consuption or emissions. A remap might actually be worse under these conditions, but better in the real world IYSWIM?
|
Another reason why the manufacturers don't use the more powerful maps is the engines have to work on differing quality fuels. So they opt for a more conservative setup. It was said the 130PS TDI engine in the mk3 Mondeo put out closer to 150PS anyway. The Bugatti Veyron also puts out a lot more than 1000PS because it has to put out at least 1000PS.
When it comes to the car I've ordered, a 170PS diesel VW, you might think the 170PS is the 140PS with a different software setup. But it isn't. The car has a different turbocharger for starters and the car is a few kilos heavier. The 170PS can be remapped to around 200PS apparently and I'm sure we'll see a VAG 2.0 TDI with 200PS soon.
|
Standard reasons manufacturers don't map their cars like this are as you guys say:
* fuel quality, you want to be able to run a euro market car on more than just 98ron, but as an end user you might decide you'd prefer to advance the timing a bit as you'll always use only super unleaded*
* air quality, the factory car has to be able to run at 5,000 feet or whatever, whereas with this performance map asking so much of the turbo, there's no headroom in the turbo's ability to get more air in to accomodate less oxygen.
* Maintainance, the factory car has to be able to withstand some neglect, don't assume the spark plugs are in optimal condition etc. etc.
* Longevity, push a turbo harder, it's not going to last as long, pretty much the same for most engine components, fuel pump too and through the drive train.
There's an extra thing with these TSi engines, the manufacturers choose to run the engines in such a way that they're extremely user friendly with their torque delivery. Stepping away from that easy to drive, flat line of torque everywhere gives you much more torque overall but delivered in a traditional turbo charged torque profile. The anti lag tricks have all be kept so there's still no real turbo lag. Spool up has even been improved.
* Some ecu's are programmed from the factory to do relatively simple changes like advance the timing as far as feedback from the knock sensors allows, but if you're able to depend on higher ron fuel, it's possible to tweak a lot more of the various map's and general running profile, which wouldn't be feasible to change on the fly in the ECU
Last edited by: Skoda on Wed 13 Apr 11 at 12:40
|
>> don't assume the spark plugs are in optimal condition etc. etc.
So your car still has spark plugs ;-)
You're right about fuel type. If you want the full performance out of the 2.0T engine you need to use super unleaded. Use 95RON and it will be less powerful.
|
>> So your car still has spark plugs ;-)
Only trucks and busses don't :-P
|
|
Diesels don't have spark plugs. Hence my joke. You said higher up (or was it in another thread) you could get 200PS out of the 170PS diesel which begs the question why go for a petrol.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 13 Apr 11 at 13:18
|
>> Diesels don't have spark plugs. Hence my joke. You said higher up (or was it
>> in another thread) you could get 200PS out of the 170PS diesel which begs the
>> question why go for a petrol.
Not this again. Diesel pro's and con's - torquemaster central, economy, narrow power band petrol pro's and con's - soaring revs, wide power band, thirsty when pushed - blah blah.
Open another diesel vs petrol thread and we can play the magic roundabout.
:)
|
Haha I was implying all diesels are trucks or buses :-)
I won't take any more cheap shots at diesel corax, need a break before another thread on that.
|
Fuel Economy Update
Fuel economy has gone up overall by ~2 mpg overall (measured brim to brim over 4 tanks of fuel so far). Lower than i was expecting.
Instantaneous readouts on the motorway show the improved mpg i was expecting - it's possible to get a trip readout commuting to work (80+% motorway) showing 47mpg driving like miss daisy, pre-remap best i could get was just under 43mpg.
The drop is coming from about town driving, i'd guess about average ~8-9mpg less about town and the instantaneous read out can drop significantly more than that doing a traffic light GP.
I didn't do it for the fuel economy but i'd liked to have seen better figures than 2mpg. Suspect about town figures could be improved by not revving above ~1800rpm, where i'm going to ~2500rpm.
Rolling Road Update
Went to have my RR session at a respected local motorsport place who have been really helpful for some other stuff (parts mostly + a geometry setup). First problem was the car shutting off the throttle -- over zealous traction control annoyed at the back wheels being stationary. Easily resolved with a press of the TC button.
Second problem was the gearbox, in manual mode it'll still kick down from 4th when you floor it (why?!). Charged me £35 (should be £65 for the session) and said come back when i've got the gearbox remapped for another £35 session. Seems fair to me!
|
Interesting story developing.
>> over zealous traction control annoyed at the back wheels being stationary. Easily resolved with a press of the TC button. >>
Not over zealous, just doing its job.
|
Skoda Octavia II - Remap Applied - DP
