As it stands I have a totally standard 2004 (ASZ) vRS.

Step 1

In a month it will be going on a rolling road as I want to see what the stock figure is.

Step 2

Then it will be fitted with a Milltek De-Cat/Cat-back system, a BMC-CDA filter, an EGR delete pipe, CCV mod (vent to atmosphere) and stainless steel boost pipe. At the same time I'll clean out the manifold and run some Forte Advanced Diesel Treatment through it. After all that's done it will go on the rollers again to see what difference it makes to the output.

Step 3

Finally it will be remapped by Custom-Code (Stage 1) and rollered again.

The car has done 56,000 miles at the moment so I'm really not sure what to expect or how gummed up manifold etc will be.

I know most of these cars produce more than 130 standard but it should be interesting to see the differences at each stage.

Also the same rollers will be used for each run.

I personally don't expect to see a massive improvement between Step 1 and Step 2 but time will tell.

I'll put up graphs of each run as well

step 2 is when you should start religiously using Millers Diesel Sport 4. Also, in step 2 I would seriously consider getting the PD160 intake, especially with the plans in step 3.

I have a BMC CDA filter left over from my Golf so was just going to use that as it will flow heaps of air

I'll look in to the Sport 4 treatment as well. Would it be worth cleaning the turbo vanes out as well?

Well the Fabia had it's first rolling road yesterday, and I'm quite pleased.

It's a 2004 ASZ model, 58K on the clock, and is totally standard so here are the results.

It will be getting it's 60K service shortly along with a milltek cat-back, air filter upgrade, and will be fed Millers Sport 4 so hopefully it should respond well to the custom code map I have planned for it later in the year.

Looks nice and healthly mate - also gives you a good feel for the rollers figures as some places do seem to give optomistic ones!!

I like the idea of this, gives you a clear indication as to jus how much of a difference each stage makes. keep us updated!

Matt

Yeah the rollers seemed pretty accurate yesterday and the operator was happy that the car made just about bang on stock figures.

The next run will be once step 2 has been completed so probably a month or so

Im not sure how much a RR would show the smoothness of a engine if at all, but thats the biggest differece i found after a service and clearing all the crap out. As said though, nice to know esp on the same rollers

Matt

This is great!! I've got a 2004 ASZ so watching this thread like a hawk!

Just let my Dad go out for a spin in it and he kept taking it upto 5k! I kept trying to explain that the power was lower down and I kept getting "but changing up there doesn't take advantage of the power.. If your still accelerating then don't change" lol.. I tried to explain that, "yeah.. ok, but if you change down you'll get the torque pushing you forward again.."

I came back and used your map to explain.. so big thanks for that too!

Just let my Dad go out for a spin in it and he kept taking it upto 5k! I kept trying to explain that the power was lower down and I kept getting "but changing up there doesn't take advantage of the power.. If your still accelerating then don't change" lol.. I tried to explain that, "yeah.. ok, but if you change down you'll get the torque pushing you forward again.."

I came back and used your map to explain.. so big thanks for that too!

Sorry, but your Dad's right. The 'forward thrust' feeling you get from the torque isn't the same as developing the actual power to do the work and the fastest acceleration will always come from red-lining the car in every gear, petrol or diesel.

Look at the graphs again. The peak engine power isn't developed until 4,000rpm so by changing up anytime before that you're driving a car with less than 130bhp. If you change up at 4,000rpm, which is what I see a lot of people recommending, you only drive a 130bhp car momentarily, then you drop back into TDI 100 power again.

And his point about "if you are still accelerating you don't change up" is also absolutely valid. You need revs to move the gearbox harder and it's easier to do in the lower gears, and harder to do in the higher gears.

VAG have been incredibly clever in designing the engine characteristics because it just feels like you've got a rocket strapped on your back, but despite what your bum-dyno is telling you, your Dad's correct to red-line it every time for most rapid forward progress.

Eh?

If you change up at 4k, you'll be at between 3.2 and 3.5k on the next cog up. I make that about 120bhp off the above graphs. I certainly wouldn't want to take it past 4k, as it's clear to see the torque dropping off even if the power's still on the rise - and as Carol Shelby once said: 'Horsepower sells cars, but torque wins races.'

I generally change up between 3.5 and 4k, and it's quite noticeable from comparing progress against other cars that anything more than that is wasted effort. Yes, you'll still be accelerating, but without the torque there, it won't be at the optimum rate!

Good to see a RR graph for a standard car that doesn't show 269bhp and 50000000000000000000000000lb-ft, BTW - at the risk of sounding like Puff Diddly, keep on keepin' it real!

Yes, you'll still be accelerating, but without the torque there, it won't be at the optimum rate!

Lets not take this thread of topic.. however.. That's what I was trying to tell my Dad, lol!

I see Torque and BHP like this... Torque is the size of the hammer, BHP is how fast you swing it.. A little hammer, even swung fast, won't always cut it.. a big hammer at any speed normally puts the nail in. Just how I see it anyways,

i change at around 4.5k

my bud with his hybrid takes it up to around 5k i believe

VAG have been incredibly clever in designing the engine characteristics because it just feels like you've got a rocket strapped on your back, but despite what your bum-dyno is telling you, your Dad's correct to red-line it every time for most rapid forward progress.

Do you have a more accurate one I should be aware of?

Do you have a more accurate one I should be aware of?

Yes. I have a Racelogic PerformanceBox and Old Buckenham Airfield to play on.

On the stock car, all the revs is quicker to 100mph than any form of short-shifting I've tried. If short-shifting diesels was actually faster don't you think they'd put it in the manual?

Carol Shelby once said: '427bhp V8? Nope, we'll take that Mustang V8 out and put a diesel in it because torque wins races!'

What Mr Shelby meant was that for two equally powered cars, the one with more torque was most likely to win.

As an example - lets assume that the almost torque-free Honda Civic Type R comes up against a stock 130bhp super-torquey Fabia vRS. Which one is quicker? The one with the higher power output. It's a no-brainer.

Take a 180bhp torquey Fabia against the same stock CTR and it's a much closer thing, because the torque does matter, but not as much as a big power advantage.

LOL at this thread..................

Change around 4k. Anymore and its pointless. The manual tells you about the car, not how to drive it.

Look forward to seeing the other graphs and changes. Good luck

I did a similar thing when I had a rolling road season at Motorscope in Northallerton in March. My bog standard 04 ASZ Furby on the first set of runs was 142.1 BHP @ 3,910 rpm and 248.3 lbft @ 2,109 rpm.

I then fitted a K&N panel filter and they did a few more runs. The best was 143.3 BHP @ 4,055 rpm and 250 lbft @ 2,116 rpm. I have been told that this will increase slightly as the ECU adjusts to this new filter.

You'll definately see more power with a de-cat as the boost runs away a little around 4000rpm and will give a higher power figure...

Kev

LOL at this thread..................

Change around 4k.

I concur.

Ah good to read Wobbly. Have you had your car mapped since or still running totally standard?

Ah good to read Wobbly. Have you had your car mapped since or still running totally standard?

My Furbatron remains the way Mr Horatio Skoda intended.

I have toyed with the idea of even more prodigious torque and power, but I'll pass for now as I want to see just how durable the original clutch is.

My test is simply to continue (very) regularly giving it le beans when the needle is sitting below 2000rpm :eek: and see what happens.

I see Torque and BHP like this... Torque is the size of the hammer, BHP is how fast you swing it.. A little hammer, even swung fast, won't always cut it.. a big hammer at any speed normally puts the nail in. Just how I see it anyways,

230lbft at 2000rpm produces the same acceleration as 115lbft at 4000rpm. Torque is only useful if it's happening often enough. Bhp is a useful figure because it links torque to how frequently it is being produced.

From a remap point of view, a power gain above say 4000rpm is pretty pointless if you don't rev it that hard - which is understandable because it doesn't sound healthy up there.

A remap that could bring 130bhp in at lower revs then hold it up to the current peak would be ideal.

Yes. I have a Racelogic PerformanceBox and Old Buckenham Airfield to play on.

On the stock car, all the revs is quicker to 100mph than any form of short-shifting I've tried. If short-shifting diesels was actually faster don't you think they'd put it in the manual?

Agree'd. What the problem here is, people arent thinking all out performance, but 'mpg, safety, wear and tear etc'

End of the day, if the same car is used down the likes of Santa Pod and everything is done exactly the same minus on one run, you short shift at 3.5k and on the other you take it to 4k-5k guess which one will run the quicker time?

Higher the revs even on a TDi, the faster it will be. If you take it to 5k which lets say on a standard PD130 gives you 100bhp, and then change, you then drop back into the 130bhp range, rather than granny shifting at 3.5k which would drop you closer to 100bhp again... not hard to work out? How healthy it is to rev a TDi to 5k is another matter. That being said, they are limited for a reason....

Agree'd. What the problem here is, people arent thinking all out performance, but 'mpg, safety, wear and tear etc'

End of the day, if the same car is used down the likes of Santa Pod and everything is done exactly the same minus on one run, you short shift at 3.5k and on the other you take it to 4k-5k guess which one will run the quicker time?

Higher the revs even on a TDi, the faster it will be. If you take it to 5k which lets say on a standard PD130 gives you 100bhp, and then change, you then drop back into the 130bhp range, rather than granny shifting at 3.5k which would drop you closer to 100bhp again... not hard to work out? How healthy it is to rev a TDi to 5k is another matter. That being said, they are limited for a reason....

Unfortunately, most of the contributors to this thread are saying exactly the opposite of what you've posted. They are not talking about protecting their cars, they are saying that for all-out performance, short-shifting is faster, and it just can't be.

If the car is geared to do 4mph/1000 revs in 1st , then the short-shifter will be doing 16mph when he changes up and I'll be doing 20, if the next gear is good for 10mph/1000 revs then he'll be doing 40mph when he changes up and I'll be doing 50, as third is geared at about 16mph he'll be changing up at 64mph and I'll change up at 80. By the time We're both doing 100 he'll have changed gear a whole extra time. It just can't be quicker.