As per the title really, they now offer a remap solution for the 1.0tsi, both iterations. They claim to make 135bhp on 95RON and 140bhp on 98RON. Either way, it looks as though the torque values quoted would be a little too stressful on the MQ200, but probably okay for the MQ250.

 

http://www.goapr.co.uk/products/ecu_upgrade_10tsi.html

23 hours ago, Benz3ne said:

As per the title really, they now offer a remap solution for the 1.0tsi, both iterations. They claim to make 135bhp on 95RON and 140bhp on 98RON. Either way, it looks as though the torque values quoted would be a little too stressful on the MQ200, but probably okay for the MQ250.

 

http://www.goapr.co.uk/products/ecu_upgrade_10tsi.html

 

The torque scenarios were similar for the 1.2, a remap would push them to 215-230NM (looking at other mappers anyway)

 

250NM from a 1.0 is certainly impressive, ill have to have a look at what APR get from the 1.2 now... 

7 hours ago, FabiaGonzales said:

 

The torque scenarios were similar for the 1.2, a remap would push them to 215-230NM (looking at other mappers anyway)

 

250NM from a 1.0 is certainly impressive, ill have to have a look at what APR get from the 1.2 now... 

Having that much much oomph would be good/useful but I really don’t want my clutch to shart itself. 

 

Decisions, decisions... 

34 minutes ago, Benz3ne said:

Having that much much oomph would be good/useful but I really don’t want my clutch to shart itself. 

 

Decisions, decisions... 

 

I read into their readings a little, they don't seem quite right on a couple of things

 

Firstly they report "crank horsepower" which is the estimated horsepower at -you guessed it- the crankshaft..

Secondly, they achieved maximum BHP at around 4200 RPM, while i know that they rise steadily till around 5600 rpm when they tail off.

 

If you look at their graphs for "WHP" (wheel horsepower - what other tuners refer to), it achieves a little less, more in-line to what other maps produce.

 

Same story for the 1.2 also.

 

It looks like the 1.2 and the 1.0 map very similarly, 125-135bhp and 210-230nm torque.

 

I've seen someone mentioning they got 145bhp out of their 1.0, i'd like to see a dyno printout of that personally, as that's really pushing the limits (i.e heavily impacting wear and tear of turbo etc) of the engine (mostly the turbo)

Edited 11 September, 20196 yr by FabiaGonzales

@FabiaGonzales thanks for the comprehensive detail! Looks like Bluefin/Superchips might still be a forerunner in that case. They quote more like 127bhp and 210ftlb, which is far more reasonable in my opinion; less stress all round. 

Just now, Benz3ne said:

@FabiaGonzales thanks for the comprehensive detail! Looks like Bluefin/Superchips might still be a forerunner in that case. They quote more like 127bhp and 210ftlb, which is far more reasonable in my opinion; less stress all round. 

 

Yep, personally i've been looking at Celtic Tuning, they beat other mappers on price by a long shot, but i'd also like the bluefin to be able to swap between maps at will if it's going for any warranty work (i still have another year of extended warranty)

Interestingly, with Celtic Tuning and the 1.2 TSI engine;

 

They have two maps for the 90PS;

 - Stage 1 map which is basically the stock map from a 110PS car.

- Stage 2 map which is the uprated one to 130PS.

 

For the 110PS engines there's just one;

- Stage 1 which is straight up to 130PS.

 

Which leads me to wonder, would it be so simple to swap an ECU from a 1.2 110PS into a car which was originally a 90PS car, and straight up get 110PS? Or are there other safeguards preventing that?

That makes a bit of sense. If I remember rightly there's a few for the BMW 116i (1.6t) and a couple for the BMW 320i (2.0t) because of the 118i and 120i sharing the same engine as the former and the 328i sharing the same engine as the latter.

 

I don't think it'd really be worth it. You might have various components that the ECU checks 'validity' against and if any of those aren't the factory governed numbers then it could throw a wobbly (in theory, I'm approaching from an upgrading OEM computers standpoint - some will allow change of RAM but not change of CPU and not boot as result etc). Is the 90ps a 5sp and 110ps a 6sp like the recent crop of Fabia?

 

Wouldn't an ECU swap be more costly anyway? 

I think it'd probably get confused (could wind up in undefined-behaviour territory) if it sees a 5-speed gearbox when it expect a 6-speed. You never know, it might have both maps built in and select one based upon the detected box.

Edited 12 September, 20196 yr by ettlz

4 minutes ago, ettlz said:

I think it'd probably get confused (could wind up in undefined-behaviour territory) if it sees a 5-speed gearbox when it expect a 6-speed. You never know, it might have both maps built in and select one based upon the detected box.

Or, if it works, it might tell you to change up to 6th when you run out at 5th!

3 hours ago, Benz3ne said:

Or, if it works, it might tell you to change up to 6th when you run out at 5th!

 

...KABOOOM!

This is set with adoptions through VCDS to ECU.

Based on speed and tacho value the ECU knows which gear is currently selected.

On ‎10‎/‎09‎/‎2019 at 12:09, Benz3ne said:

As per the title really, they now offer a remap solution for the 1.0tsi, both iterations. They claim to make 135bhp on 95RON and 140bhp on 98RON. Either way, it looks as though the torque values quoted would be a little too stressful on the MQ200, but probably okay for the MQ250.

 

http://www.goapr.co.uk/products/ecu_upgrade_10tsi.html

 

which gearbox does the current 1.0 95ps Fabia have MQ200 or MQ250?

3 minutes ago, WaveyDavey said:

 

which gearbox does the current 1.0 95ps Fabia have MQ200 or MQ250?

 

MQ200, i read around a bit and it seems that the 5spd and 6spd manual gearboxes used with the 1.0 TSI and 1.2 TSI engines are the same O2T box, one configured for 5spd one for 6spd,

 

Both 5spd and 6spd are only MQ200. Rated at 200NM

 

I would think the 6spd should be a little more resilient to high torque in 5th/6th as those gears are supported at both sides by bearings, in the 5spd however the 5th gear kinda hangs off on its own. It's by no means weak, but be aware of that if you remap. (but why would you be doing low rpm high load 5th/6th gear pulls anyway?)

 

Found a link to a wierd WV thing i happened to find for this gearbox - i couldnt find it for any others oddly.

 

http://www.volkspage.net/technik/ssp/ssp/SSP_237_d1.pdf

On 11/09/2019 at 19:46, FabiaGonzales said:

 

If you look at their graphs for "WHP" (wheel horsepower - what other tuners refer to), it achieves a little less, more in-line to what other maps produce.

 

Do other tuners quote WHP? It dawned on me that as long as they’re quoting 94bhp to start, it’ll always be crank. Even the manufacturers only quote crank, (a) because it’s higher and therefore a better selling point and (b) because people typically don’t understand there’s two different horsepowers. 

15 minutes ago, Benz3ne said:

Do other tuners quote WHP? It dawned on me that as long as they’re quoting 94bhp to start, it’ll always be crank. Even the manufacturers only quote crank, (a) because it’s higher and therefore a better selling point and (b) because people typically don’t understand there’s two different horsepowers. 

 

Dyno's give wheel horsepower, it's the power the wheels are putting onto the roller(s) and requires no other calculations.

 

To calculate crank horsepower, you need to know gear ratios, final drive ratio, wheel size etc and there's also losses in the drivetrain.

 

If they're quoting 94 (for 95ps) they're simply quoting manufacturers spec, which doesn't specifically quote whether its WHP or CHP (that i've found), unless they test it themselves then they'll give some other number.

18 minutes ago, FabiaGonzales said:

 

Dyno's give wheel horsepower, it's the power the wheels are putting onto the roller(s) and requires no other calculations.

 

To calculate crank horsepower, you need to know gear ratios, final drive ratio, wheel size etc and there's also losses in the drivetrain.

 

If they're quoting 94 (for 95ps) they're simply quoting manufacturers spec, which doesn't specifically quote whether its WHP or CHP (that i've found), unless they test it themselves then they'll give some other number.

But tuners still quote crank horsepower. If they quoted wheel horsepower and someone else quotes crank (incl manufacturers) then the potential buyer would go somewhere which gives them more for their money. Or doesn’t tell them that they’re getting less power than the manuf. claims. 

 

Manufacturers always quote crank. It’s higher and therefore a better sales pitch. That’s all it is. Yes, wheel horsepower matters more day to day but the average end user doesn’t know that. 

 

I was under the impression that dynos will apply an arbitrary conversion from wheel to crank which is why comparing results from different dynos can be unreliable. Irrespective, I’ve never seen a tuner specifically quote WHP on their website (happy to see examples otherwise). 

Edit: when I had a previous car mapped they explained at the time about wheel vs crank and the different (read, drop) in values for wheel horsepower but until then everything was based on crank. 

Edited 14 September, 20196 yr by Benz3ne

APR quote ~140bhp (crank), everyone else quotes 130bhp (unknown).

 

Same with the 1.2TSI. If one tuner feels it's fine to go to 140bhp (which is getting borderline for the turbo's longevity) i'm sure the others would be providing that too.

 

The only way to accurately measure crank horsepower is to hook the engine directly up to a dyno.

 

Unless we find whether other tuners quote WHP or CHP we won't really know i guess

32 minutes ago, FabiaGonzales said:

APR quote ~140bhp (crank), everyone else quotes 130bhp (unknown).

 

Same with the 1.2TSI. If one tuner feels it's fine to go to 140bhp (which is getting borderline for the turbo's longevity) i'm sure the others would be providing that too.

 

The only way to accurately measure crank horsepower is to hook the engine directly up to a dyno.

 

Unless we find whether other tuners quote WHP or CHP we won't really know i guess

We’re not talking accurate numbers here though, we’re looking at % increases really. Everyone knows that cars vary and the quoted values shouldn’t be taken as gospel. 

The difference between 130 and 140hp is probably less than the difference between wheel and crank, which is why I’m hedging my bets on it being crank quoted only. 

As you say, the difference is probably with how close to the limit the tuner is likely to go. 

Either way I can see us going round in circles here.  I’ve emailed bluefin to see whether they quote crank or wheel and how their tester cars are coping with increased torque over the quoted limit for MQ200 and will see what they come back with.  

 

I love a good discussion like this!  

My cbza1.2 tsi tune is a balanced one in that with standard cat and cat back, 2 resonator boxes, is 121 whp/ 158 lbft with a sports cat it's 142 whp / 168lbft.

 

So the 90 tuned to 120 could get 140 with sports cat. What would 110 tuned to 130 get with sports cat , 150+?

Edited 14 September, 20196 yr by Kenrw8

1 hour ago, Kenrw8 said:

My cbza1.2 tsi tune is a balanced one in that with standard cat and cat back, 2 resonator boxes, is 121 whp/ 158 lbft with a sports cat it's 142 whp / 168lbft.

 

So the 90 tuned to 120 could get 140 with sports cat. What would 110 tuned to 130 get with sports cat , 150+?

 

The 90 and 110 will tune to the same levels, should achieve ~130 completely standard.

 

The CBZA is the older chain driven one right?

I believe CJZ(B/C) are the newer belt driven ones. But both generations should achieve the same power when tuned.

 

By sports cat with such a difference i guess it's a decat? Or one which maybe doesn't meet MOT requirements?

 

On a 620bhp engine there was only a 20bhp difference between open header and having a full exhaust system. I doubt there's that much of a difference on a 1.2 to be honest

Yes mines the chain driven.

With mine there is such a difference, see my sleeper posts in upgrades.

 

A standard cat has 400 cells per inch whereas a sports cat has 200 cpi. Mine did fail mot but was down poor quality sports cat from Tony Banks. Now found a local exhaust place that uses better quality Redback cats , so thinking of trying again.

Bear in mind 121whp is definitely more than 130 at crank. 

48 minutes ago, Benz3ne said:

Bear in mind 121whp is definitely more than 130 at crank. 

 

With sports cat zoom in and says whp an wtq there again the graph is probably wrong as I have a later one from another RR with standard cat 121 at the Flywheel.

Just to clarify, found my old Dyno's and that whp is hp/0.85, so hp is whp= hp x  .85

Prior to remap and with cat back exhaust whp was 75.2 hp was 88.5.

After remap whp 102.6 hp was 120.7.

With Sports cat whp 120.5 hp at 141.7.

 

Am now back to standard cat with hp at 121 that's 102.8 at the wheel

Edited 14 September, 20196 yr by Kenrw8