... if you have an unchipped Furby vRS, that is.

I trawled my Vag-Com logs to test three hypotheses:

1. The Cupra air intake allows the turbo to spool up quicker.

- yes it does, but not by much. I measured a peak difference of 1016 milliBars per second increase in intake air pressure with the Cupra intake, compared to 996 mB/sec with the standard intake.

2. The Cupra intake results in more air going into the engine for given revs.

- er, well no it doesn't actually. My MAF meter shows more air going into the engine using the standard intake than with the Cupra intake. It would be interesting to see what happens with a chipped engine.

3. The Cupra intake results in increased fuel consumption.

- yes, it does. Even at steady speeds on cruise it is costing about 2-3 mpg.

So I've put the original intake back on, and I'll keep the big pipe for when the car gets chipped - at which point I think it probably will make a useful difference.

I also found that biodiesel is more effective than the Cupra intake at controlling the soot.

Turbo spool-up graph:

Air volume graph:

Fuel consumption comparison:

Ahh, finally some good information!

I'd like to run the same tests on mine... Could you tell me what blocks to measure?

Unsurprising really as why bother making the fuel consumption worse on a standard car?

Excellent tests to do though and many thanks, it sure would be interesting to compare with a chipped one too, and see what impact it has there. It does however imply that if you went for a dual-switchable jobber you'd still be hitting higher fuel consumption when running in 'stock' mode with the Cupra inlet fitted. That said if you have your car chipped you'll probably care a bit less about that

3. The Cupra intake results in increased fuel consumption.

- yes' date=' it does. Even at steady speeds on cruise it is costing about 2-3 mpg.

Fuel consumption comparison:

Looks like a good plan to gather all this info and analyse it.

I'm interested to know how you arrived at the 2-3mpg figure?

I don't claim to know much about statistics, but I had a look at the graph and it looks very "scattered" to me - how did you get to your answer from the data?

I'm also a tad suspicious of the "Poly" lines - my gut feeling is that they should both be (more or less) the same shape as each other, maybe with one a bit higher or lower than the other. Also they look the wrong shapes for a mpg vs mph curve (especially the "standard" one).

Did you have other info on mpg as well (eg. average consumption from the trip computer)?

I'm not dissing your valuable research but I'd just like to add my thoughts.

The quest for more cold air is one that most modders find themselves on and the increase in pipe bore is only ever going to be as good as the filter behind it.

It is entirely possible to offer a car too much air, which is why a custom remap will help as this will taken into account on the RR.

I agree with your findings concerning fuel consumption as it's a simple matter of economics - put more in to get more out. Therefore if you put more air in you need more fuel to burn with it.

I don't agree with the statement that with the Cupra intake fitted the engine took less air. If more air were available it would have taken it and that is further backed up by the fact that your fuel consumption went up. Whether this does result in an increase in performance is another matter and one that would have to be settled on a dyno.

Many drivers do report improvements with the intake fitted, whether this is in the mind or not I don't know.

Unless the car is in tightly controlled conditions (i.e. a lab with rolling road) the conclusions are meaningless. Engine/oil/air temperature, atmospheric pressure, wind speed/direction, humidity, driving technique and instantaneous road conditions can easily account for much more than the minor variation between sets of results which in any case have just been "averaged". The results evidently have been obtained in wildly differing scenarios leading to massive spread.

The MAF is not a particularly accurate or repeatable instrument to measure small percentage differences in airflow - the MAF is there mainly to prevent overfueling and ensure compliance with Euro (III) emissions.

Meaningless to draw a conclusion other than "there is no difference".

Please realise that the VAG PD engine is designed to boost at constant pressure (as measured by the boost pressure sensor), so provided there is no severe restriction (due to a really dirty air filter), you could throw away the air intake/ air filter or even connect a low pressure supercharger (less than the boost pressure) and still see no difference in total air flow although a minimal decrease in spool up time may be possible.

The observation about increase fuel consumption is unlikely to be fact.

It is entirely possible to offer a car too much air

Not really!

Some interesting results. Anyone with a remapepd car care loggin the above.

I am testing the car next week when it's at Jabba, going to take the Cupra Intake & standard Intake and see if Mike or anyone else if willing to see if there is a difference to settle this on a RR once and for all.

cold air is the quest on petrol turbos... much less so on diesels...

cold air is the quest on petrol turbos... much less so on diesels...

I'm not convinced.

If you read the Autocar report on the VRs they achieved a 0-60 time of 7.2 seconds with an air temp of 0'C. Thats over 2 seconds faster than the Skoda quoted time.

cold air is the quest on petrol turbos... much less so on diesels...

Cold air is just as good for diesels... its just petrols produce more heat than diesels do, plus TDis run higher boost than a stock 20vt so cooling is essential, altho no actual damage can occour from it unlike petrols where it can lead to premature detonation.

I am testing the car next week when it's at Jabba, going to take the Cupra Intake & standard Intake and see if Mike or anyone else if willing to see if there is a difference to settle this on a RR once and for all.

I can't comment directly on the cupra parts, but I can say for sure that there was a 5bhp difference between having the restricting neck on the OEM trumpet behind the grille. Michael told this to me, although I don't have independant graphs with and without the restricting trumpet.

I also had the OEM air filer.

I can't comment directly on the cupra parts' date=' but I can say for sure that there was a 5bhp difference between having the restricting neck on the OEM trumpet behind the grille. Michael told this to me, although I don't have independant graphs with and without the restricting trumpet.

I also had the OEM air filer.[/quote']

Have you got the OEM trumpet on now?

If you read the Autocar report on the VRs they achieved a 0-60 time of 7.2 seconds with an air temp of 0'C. Thats over 2 seconds faster than the Skoda quoted time.

Unfortunately, Skoda had remapped the car pre-hand a reliable source tells me

I've ran with the Cupra intake for about 1000miles now, no difference whatsoever in fuel consumption.

Therefore if you put more air in you need more fuel to burn with it.

Not on a diesel - the only thing which controls the amount of fuel going into the engine is the throttle. It will always draw in a "constant" amount of air, regardless of how much fuel is being pushed into the engine...

Rob.

Basically to end this point once and for all, the Cupra Intake on a standard vRS will have minimal gains because the car is set to work with the smaller OEM Intake & trumpet type thing. However, once the car is remapped the benefits will be more noticable - probably an extra 5 bhp because you'll be able to get it to a higher bar (1.5-1.7 as opposed to 1.3, correct me if im wrong), and reduced smoke.

EDIT ---

Oops, logged in as the mrs, posted by HellFire

It does sound to me then, the basic outcome is that with a standard car, the engine sucks in the amount of air it needs to combust with the amount of fuel that is only controlled by the throttle? So, if the OEM system drags in sufficient air in the first place, then the cupra intake doesn't do a lot at all. :(

However on a remapped car, it sounds like the cupra intake allows more air to be dragged in, to burn with the extra fuel being injected, due to the remap telling the injectors to go double-time. Therefore maximum airflow required exceeds the level that the OEM funnel can drag in, and so the cupra intake plays its role in getting a few more BHP, when remapped!

I think anyway, judging by the above.

^^

I completely agree with the above post !!

^^

I completely agree with the above post !!

Me too.

Rob.

bloomin' hell....! :eek: :shocked: Does this mean I've actually come out with something that's actually sort of true? :confused: Surely not!

edited to change first expletive.

Me too.

Rob.

If a cupra 160 air intake is fitted to a superchipped furbie will it have to have any setting altered?

If a cupra 160 air intake is fitted to a superchipped furbie will it have to have any setting altered?

Personally I would. I hope to go back to Jabba to be tweaked, but putting it off incase *other* useful little things happen in the meantime.

You guys don't seem to know how diesels work!

THERE IS NO THROTTLE ON A DIESEL!

Max power is governed by the volume of fuel injected and on modern EURO compliant engines there is always more air than necessary for complete combustion - otherwise you get soot! Remapping basically involves increasing the boost pressure using the boost pressure sensor and wastgate control solenoid (more air regardless of intake design) and increasing fuelling possibly closer to the soot limit which are both controlled by the "maps" in the ECU. Absolute max power is limited by injector size and the ability to squirt fuel in the time allowed to do so.

Air temperature going into the cylinder is very important as it is MASS that is important not VOLUME. Cold air is denser than hot air, thats why an intercooler is used. If you want even more power on your remapped VRS's you are going to need larger injectors which in turn will mean the bottom end will be rougher and lumpier as the squirt time at idle will be ridiculously short.

To get more air - I wonder if any one tried re-piping their aircon into their intercooler?

I appreciate the above but as previously mentioned 100 times atleast, more air can only be a good thing. Time will tell when I get it Jabba'd, it will be in a test environment and you will get accurate results because both will be within 30 mins of each other and I will have an RR result.

It does sound to me then, the basic outcome is that with a standard car, the engine sucks in the amount of air it needs to combust with the amount of fuel that is only controlled by the throttle

Thats right, so if there is a restriction in the air passage it will limit power.