Blufin users amongst you... I am looking to get one and would value an honest opinion about how much of an improvement it really is over the standard Skoda map, even the 26E6. I know some of the graphs look impressive, but how does it actually feel driving. Is it a 'psychological' improvement that you feel must be there as you have forked out £400+, or is there a genuine driving difference?

Thanks in advance.

Put it this way, I was miserable for a week between the Skoda 26E6 brainwash and SuperChips reinstalling the lost maps.

Blufin users amongst you... I am looking to get one and would value an honest opinion about how much of an improvement it really is over the standard Skoda map, even the 26E6. I know some of the graphs look impressive, but how does it actually feel driving. Is it a 'psychological' improvement that you feel must be there as you have forked out £400+, or is there a genuine driving difference?

Thanks in advance.

If you have a look at the bald statistics of pre and post bluefin power and torque outputs on the PD170 engine they are, perhaps, a bit disappointing on a 'bang for your buck' basis. Taking the graphs in my post above the following increases apply;

OE vs. bluefin - plus 11.6% bhp and plus 20% torque

OE with 26E6 map (and K&N 57i intake), mine - plus 12.5% bhp and plus 8.2% torque

these figures however do not show the hard to quantify overall smoother and more responsive power delivery with the bluefin.The difficulty with the PD170 engine is that it is fairly highly tuned in OE spec in the first place and any tuning is limited by the DPF.

However, when .....

Based on my experience of having 1.9TDI's remaped there is a huge difference, it's often a case that the graphs and figures seem a let down compaired to how the engine feels once mapped i.e. your convinced that the graphs and figures quoted are far too conservative

....... considering the tuning of, say, the 1.9TDi PD or even the 2.0TDi 140PD (non DPF) the improvements are quanitfiably higher with increases of 20-25% in power and 25-30% in torque. These higher outputs can be achieved as a lower 'base' output is being used to start with and there is no limiting DPF.

Hence these engines, when tuned, give a greater 'bang for your buck', and therefore grin factor.

Overall; I'm happy with the Bluefin on my car, the improvement is noticable and grin inducing, if not being a warp-factor improvement.

I just had my VRS TDI mapped with REVO, it's got alot more power over 3000 rpm i'm going to get it on a RR in a few weekends time to see what its putting out.

has any one had any experience of flat spots once the car has been remapped?

Yes, not really flatspots, more a short hesitation during acceleration.

Mailed this to SC and they sent me another file. If you are having problems with the bluefin software, just write a note to the guys at SC.

I always had an immediate reply if I wanted to have something changed in the software.

Sorry, no problems. My Bluefin remap is beautifully smooth.

Mine at the moment too. After the 26E6 update I got a newer file from SC, this works beautifully. No hickups, no flatspots, just very smooth.

I havent had my car mapped yet, im considering it just id heard of problems with flatspots

Got my second (after 26E6) map today. No flatspots or whatsoever, not even the hickups it had before 26E6 but after 28E1.

Power is back! More than the first map after 26E6. You can easily see it, when looking at the instant fuel consumption in 6th at full throttle. Was (with 1st bluefin map) around 17 litres per 100km, is now over 20 liters. This is what makes a good difference in acceleration in 6th, especially over 120km/h up to over 220km/h

Asked for a map with a little more topend power, lost that feel after they put the 26E6 update on the car with the first bluefin map. They wrote me another file and this is what is on now.

I am happy

Power is back! More than the first map after 26E6. You can easily see it, when looking at the instant fuel consumption in 6th at full throttle. Was (with 1st bluefin map) around 17 litres per 100km, is now over 20 liters. This is what makes a good difference in acceleration in 6th, especially over 120km/h up to over 220km/h

I am happy

I checked with Superchips yesterday that I have the most up to date file for my Bluefin, which they tell me I have, and I get around 18.5 litres per 100km instant consumption in 6th gear full throttle 1,500 to 3,000 rpm. So ask myself why I'm using less fuel than you? :confused:

Possible factors are; type of fuel, air intake (I have K&N 57i), air temperature, Hatchback vs Estate with roof bars, tyre pressures, no centre exhaust box, 17" vs 18" wheels (or are you still running your 16" winter wheels), weight, something else?

We will never know; apart from that I'm happy with mine.

around 18.5 litres per 100km instant consumption in 6th gear full throttle 1,500 to 3,000 rpm.

Hmm,

only? At full throttle, i.e. WOT?

I'll give my readings this evening and will report with my chippeduk fast road remap, I feel it's something more...

Ciao,

I did get around 21 litres per 100km on full throttle but that was in 5th gear.

PS> Not an easy test to do in UK with 70mph/120kph speed limit.

...agreed...

are you happy with the APR rear bar? Do you like it better than the Neuspeed?

Off topic I know; but ....

are you happy with the APR rear bar?

Yes.

Do you like it better than the Neuspeed?

Yes; very much so.

I had the Neuspeed bar on the stiff setting and have only put the APR bar on medium so far and it is noticeable stronger. For someone going from an OE bar to the APR bar they should notice a big difference.

Another small point that I like about the APR bar is the grease nipple on the U bracket with a corresponding hole in the bush; to allow you to grease the bush without having to take the bracket/bush off.

I would strongly recommend the APR bar for anyone with a TDI and/or Estate Octavia.

Off topic I know

My fault

...would strongly recommend the APR bar for anyone with a TDI and/or Estate Octavia.

Thanks for input

Ciao,

I checked with Superchips yesterday that I have the most up to date file for my Bluefin, which they tell me I have, and I get around 18.5 litres per 100km instant consumption in 6th gear full throttle 1,500 to 3,000 rpm. So ask myself why I'm using less fuel than you? :confused:

Because my file is an uprated file of the normal bluefin file. My first (normal) bluefin file also did around 18.5l/100km. Asked for a more powerfull file . And that is what I got now.

Possible factors are; type of fuel, air intake (I have K&N 57i), air temperature, Hatchback vs Estate with roof bars, tyre pressures, no centre exhaust box, 17" vs 18" wheels (or are you still running your 16" winter wheels), weight, something else?

Only a greenfilter in the std box, std exhaust and running 16" winterwheels at the moment (that doesnt make any difference to the 18"s, seen that with the other files).

We will never know; apart from that I'm happy with mine.

Me happy too

ok I give up, since I don't feel like stressing again the engine (no, myself ) by kicking down from 1500 to 3000 rpm in 6th gear (Jeez how can things be sloooooooowwwwww!).

It seems magic62 remap injects way more fuel than mine, since I never got more than 19.1l/100Km at WOT in 6th, so I was wrong when stating I remembered more consumption, as I tend to drive with higher revs and lower gears at lower speeds (I really seldom exchange under 3K )

This thing is disturbing... magic62 any problem with DPF regeneration since it seems you're sometimes burning more fuel?

Ciao,

Got my second (after 26E6) map today. No flatspots or whatsoever, not even the hickups it had before 26E6 but after 28E1.

Power is back! More than the first map after 26E6. You can easily see it, when looking at the instant fuel consumption in 6th at full throttle. Was (with 1st bluefin map) around 17 litres per 100km, is now over 20 liters. This is what makes a good difference in acceleration in 6th, especially over 120km/h up to over 220km/h

Asked for a map with a little more topend power, lost that feel after they put the 26E6 update on the car with the first bluefin map. They wrote me another file and this is what is on now.

I am happy

Hi Magic62,

Thinking again on your consumption being over 20 litres per 100km, perhaps it is due to the speed/revs range you are using. I have realised that this is up to 220 kph (137.5mph) - there is NO WAY I can test at that speed (on public roads) here in UK.

Would you be able to check your consumption in the range 1500 - 3000rpm i.e. about 100kph to 160kph so we are then comparing consumption over the same speed range. I get around 18.5 litres/100km.

An additional test perhaps could be the consumption in 4th gear (full throttle) up to 4,500rpm about 150/160kph - this will check the upper rev range of our engines; which I will do this evening on my way home from work.

Perhaps Genoa1893 can do the same?

Up to now, no probs with the filter. It does regenerate more often (especially after doing a good stint on the autobahn) but wasnt clogged up to now.

My car is currently using between 20 and 21 litres from 120 to 210 (2250-almost 4000rpms) after that consumption falls to 18.8 litres (from 4000- a tested 4500rpms).

I specially asked for a map with a bit more power in this range (had such a map before 26E6).

@Bahnstormer, sent you a PM.

Hi magic62,

hmm interesting, it seems I may ask something more to my remappers

Tschuss!!!

An additional test perhaps could be the consumption in 4th gear (full throttle) up to 4,500rpm about 150/160kph - this will check the upper rev range of our engines; which I will do this evening on my way home from work.

Perhaps Genoa1893 can do the same?

Back home,

I did the test several times in 4th gear.

I found the consumption varying with initial rpms when applying full throttle and other conditions: speed, temp, etc., depending on map I bet! Anyway they reached up to 29+ l/100Km at around 3/3,5Krpm and generally decreasing to 27+@4500 and 26+@4600 and so on up to max rpms (around 4800+)

BTW The Octy pulls like a beast in such conditions, I love low gears at low speeds :D:D

Back home,

I did the test several times in 4th gear.

I found the consumption varying with initial rpms when applying full throttle and other conditions: speed, temp, etc., depending on map I bet! Anyway they reached up to 29+ l/100Km at around 3/3,5Krpm and generally decreasing to 27+@4500 and 26+@4600 and so on up to max rpms (around 4800+)

BTW The Octy pulls like a beast in such conditions, I love low gears at low speeds :D:D

I did a couple of runs in mine this evening too, 4th gear for 2500rpm to 4500rpm and overall got a steady 27.7 litres/100km, no particular 'peak'. This corresponds to the rolling road power/torque curves I have, which show quite a linear increase and not the usual bulge around 2000 to 3000rpm. I put this down to my K&N 57i induction filter that flattens the torque curve but give a better top end than OE.

Seems like my 'map' is comparable to yours Genoa, but behind Magic62's.

after the stage 1 map what can be done tuning wise other than swapping for a DPF removal downpipe, and going for a more aggressive map?

there's the obvious one of induction kit but after that i don't really know

after the stage 1 map what can be done tuning wise other than swapping for a DPF removal downpipe, and going for a more aggressive map?

there's the obvious one of induction kit but after that i don't really know

Stage 1 map & induction kit and that's about your lot!

It is physically possible to fit an exhaust without a DPF (Supersprint do one listed for race/track use only) and then do a stronger map BUT no-one to my knowledge has yet been able (or has got around) to rewriting the ECU map to account for the DPF not being fitted. :(

I'm aware of an italian tuner who did it and have been informed that REVO is testing this latter option.