Buying a CRD-T tuning box from DTUK

[xpower]

Just tried out the launch control feature with the box connected. using stopwatch method it used to be std 7 seconds dead. Now it's 6.7 seconds. Main issue is wheel spin, just can't stop the wheels spinning in first - I actually shifted up manually (paddles) to get in into second and stop the wheels from spinning.

With a little practice (not something I'm going to do as I like my clutches, gearbox, driveshafts, tyres lol) I reckon 6.5 secs is achievable :-)

If only there was a vRS Quattro :-D

[biggy7]

Just tried out the launch control feature with the box connected. using stopwatch method it used to be std 7 seconds dead. Now it's 6.7 seconds. Main issue is wheel spin, just can't stop the wheels spinning in first - I actually shifted up manually (paddles) to get in into second and stop the wheels from spinning.

With a little practice (not something I'm going to do as I like my clutches, gearbox, driveshafts, tyres lol) I reckon 6.5 secs is achievable :-)

If only there was a vRS Quattro :-D

Stunning mate. Will need to test the launch control out myself one day

I've seen on some videos that when you do the launch sequence and press the accelerator all way down the highest the revs go to is 2.5k, is this the same as the vRS or do you have to control the revs manually?

[xpower]

Revs are controlled automatically, mine sits at 2000 rpm ready to go :-)

[Andrew@DTUK]

How are you guys getting on then ?

On a side note, the CRDTs for the 2.0 TDI 150PS's are in stock now

[pipsyp]

X-power be so good to see a before and after rolling road on a DSG CR car like yours; I'm still convinced the torque output will be artificially limited to 258lb/ft by the gearbox unless someone can convince me otherwise.

remapped cars need a DSG reflash too which is why im sceptical.

[Andrew@DTUK]

X-power be so good to see a before and after rolling road on a DSG CR car like yours; I'm still convinced the torque output will be artificially limited to 258lb/ft by the gearbox unless someone can convince me otherwise.

remapped cars need a DSG reflash too which is why im sceptical.

we dyno'd a DSG equipped Seat Leon the same day as our TT, and that car produced 314.9lbft on the dyne using the CRD-T on a lower setting than we were running on our TT.

Really smooth curve too

[pipsyp]

we dyno'd a DSG equipped Seat Leon the same day as our TT, and that car produced 314.9lbft on the dyne using the CRD-T on a lower setting than we were running on our TT.

Really smooth curve too

Cheers Andrew. Whats the deal with this torque limiter on DSG then? Is it just a myth or is the cut in threshold greater than the 260lb/ft suggested?

[Andrew@DTUK]

Cheers Andrew. Whats the deal with this torque limiter on DSG then? Is it just a myth or is the cut in threshold greater than the 260lb/ft suggested?

ill be my usual honest self, and admit that i dont have a clue

Edited 31 May, 2013 by Andrew@DTUK

[xpower]

"IF" there is a torque limiter on the DSG box it will most likely liase with the engine ECU and prevent it from suppling a sufficient amount of fuel and boost pressure to prevent the torque limit being reached.

Since all tuning boxes work by fooling the ECU into thinking there are lower amounts of both (most just fuel but not the CRD-t) the engine isn't aware of the extra HP and torque it is developing and the limit as far as the ECU can see, never gets reached.

I don't believe (not 100%) the DSG box measures input torque, as far as I am aware it only measures (amongst loads of other things) input shaft and output shafts speeds which it can then calculate slip amount of the clutches during operation.

[pipsyp]

"IF" there is a torque limiter on the DSG box it will most likely liase with the engine ECU and prevent it from suppling a sufficient amount of fuel and boost pressure to prevent the torque limit being reached.

Since all tuning boxes work by fooling the ECU into thinking there are lower amounts of both (most just fuel but not the CRD-t) the engine isn't aware of the extra HP and torque it is developing and the limit as far as the ECU can see, never gets reached.

I don't believe (not 100%) the DSG box measures input torque, as far as I am aware it only measures (amongst loads of other things) input shaft and output shafts speeds which it can then calculate slip amount of the clutches during operation.

A very fair point and 100% makes sense, hadnt thought about it like that thanks X-power.

If I ever decide to try and extract more power from my car this will be what I use I reckon.

@Andrew DTUK - does the unit with just the fuel rail connection bring about the same sort of power gains or is that the difference between the stage 1 and 2 tunes - 2 being the CRD-T and the other being the more straight forward one?

[Andrew@DTUK]

A very fair point and 100% makes sense, hadnt thought about it like that thanks X-power.

If I ever decide to try and extract more power from my car this will be what I use I reckon.

@Andrew DTUK - does the unit with just the fuel rail connection bring about the same sort of power gains or is that the difference between the stage 1 and 2 tunes - 2 being the CRD-T and the other being the more straight forward one?

The only car we've dynod back to back was a 1.9 cdti 150ps, Crd2+ 205bhp, CRDT 215bhp

The crd2 makes a good difference to the 170, but the T adds an extra cherry on top of the cake

[duro]

I've mumbled a little more about all this and come up with a few considerations and questions:

1) ANY alternative tech solution has pro's and con's (at least a higher cost). If it has NO con's vs. "solution B", then it totally supplants said "solution B".

2) It seems that remapping/add boxes would provide better performances AND better economy with no reliability issues attached (all of which usually is an oxymoron), all thanks to what it is just a different mapping (or ECU setting or similar).

3) Nobody could ever make me believe that VAG/Ford/GM/ect. have neither the skills nor the money to achieve the same "programming" results of any small remapping/box building small firm. And we're NOT taliking about adding something: the different mapping is just... a different mapping they could just set in in production.

4) VAG/Ford/GM/etc. spend BILLION of quids to make their cars better performing AND more frugal and they would KILL for the possibility of selling cars for which they could boast better performances together with extra MPG (after all, why do they make different engine sizes?).

The final, logical, consequent question is: WHY don't they do it? WHY VAG sell a 1.6TDi with 105HP when they could do it with 125/130HP AND better MPG at the same cost?

The logical conclusion is that there must be a drawback, whatever it is.

I don't know if it's long term reliability (which is very difficult to record on a valid statistical basis) or if MPG improvement is so slight and subjective that on a daily driving basis is not that good as advertised, or whatever.

In any case, I'd like to know what the real drawback is so that I can decide if it's worth the while.

If somebody would honestly tell me "Look, we give you 25+HP at the real cost of x MPG", then I'll understand that VAG is not doing it probably 'cause they have to sell a car which - for marketing and EC regulations reasons - has to be the most frugal possible.

Then it'll be up to me to decide if those extra HP's would be desirable up to the point of sacrificing those x MPG's.

A completely different story is the reliability issue.

I understand that only a big car producer could (maybe) produce significantly reliable statistical data about differences of long term reliability of the same engine outputting 125 vs 105 HP.

Maybe even VAG, despite the time they dedicate to pre-production testing, cannot definitely say "We make it a 105HP instead of a 125HP for it'll make it a 250,000km instead of a 100,000km engine". To do so they would've to not only test cars for several 100k km but they ought to conduct the test with maybe hundred of cars, to have a really significant statistic. In another thread (about Peugeot) one is talking about one of his company cars having all sorts of problems and another identical one running faultless to 250,000+ km.

I think that no remapping or box-producing small (or relatively small) company could honestly say: Our product will NOT affect reliability.

Simply because they can not have a sufficent statistical record.

This is the part the worries me the most. I can live with a bit less frugality. After all, I could have achieved extra power simply by buying a 2.0 instead of a 1.6 and paying the extra oil bill.

I could not live with the doubt that that little extra strain put on the engine is/could be the cause of a big bang failure, even in a relatively long time.

[ed209]

Give it 2-3 Years and they will up the power a bit, probably in a facelift in Audi then it will filter down the vag range.

[duro]

Give it 2-3 Years and they will up the power a bit, probably in a facelift in Audi then it will filter down the vag range.

Sure. Maybe even before than 2-3 years. But... why not much before? When was the re-mapping band able to achieve those level? VAG should have been able to achieve it BEFORE third party re-mappers.

Edited 2 June, 2013 by duro

[ed209]

Sure. Maybe even before than 2-3 years. But... why not much before? When was the re-mapping band able to achieve those level? VAG should have been able to achieve it BEFORE third party re-mappers.

VW will have been able to do this but it doesnt suit them to do this, think about it, when a car/engine range is 5 years old or so, give it a slightly better map which they could have done in the first place, then hey ho they have an easy upgrade for a facelift/new model, Minimal development costs maximum profit.

planned obsolescence i believe its called, mobile phone manufacturers do it all the time becaus ethey make more money out of improvements in tiny steps rather than massive leaps.

[Andrew@DTUK]

We are now able to offer finance on our Diesel Tuning Systems, and for a limited time we're offering 0% Finance over 6 months (other terms are available)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

to take advantage of this offer, please give us a call on 01207 299538

[alberg]

The final, logical, consequent question is: WHY don't they do it? WHY VAG sell a 1.6TDi with 105HP when they could do it with 125/130HP AND better MPG at the same cost?

VAG doesn´t need high HP values on paper to sell cars, even though you can squeeze the hell out of them.

[duro]

VAG doesn´t need high HP values on paper to sell cars, even though you can squeeze the hell out of them.

Everybody need high HP values to sell cars. For one, I was long time uncertain if the 105HP 1.6 was enough (as there were several reviews saying it's a bit gutless) or if it was better to go for the 2.0.

In the end I went for the 1.6 but if Skoda had advertised it as a 125HP 1.6, I'd have had no doubts at all.

Anyway, as far as reliability is concerned, it came to my mind one – maybe – significant paragon: the Renault 1.5TD, an engine whose HP record I know for it's used in several cars I considered as alternative to the Octavia.

This engine is used virtually throughout the Renault range, beside also Dacia and the new Mercedes A.

Its power delivery goes from 70HP of the lowliest versions of the Kangoo van to 130HP of the Mégane.

That's a 1.85/1 variation!

Obviously, I don't think the 130HP to be as sober as the 70HP but at least reliability should be virtually the same, as we're not talking about race-tuned engines.

Andrew, it's just me being unable to find it or a "real" box for my 1.6TD CR 105HP is not available from you?

[ed209]

Are you sure the 130hp megane engine is the 1.5?? I am sure it will either be the newer 1.6 which they also put in Nissans or the older 1.9 hat had 130hp. As far as i am aware the 1.5 was only sold upto 110ps.

Edited 8 June, 2013 by ed209

[duro]

Are you sure the 130hp megane engine is the 1.5?? I am sure it will either be the newer 1.6 which they also put in Nissans or the older 1.9 hat had 130hp. As far as i am aware the 1.5 was only sold upto 110ps.

Yes, today it's the 1.6 having 130HP while the 1.5 goes from 75 to 110HP (which still is a 1.47/1 ratio). I remembered the 1.5 going up to 130 but I could be wrong.

By the way, the old 1.9 started its life as an aspirated diesel and I had it in my first Kangoo with only 65HP (sluggish but reliable, pity that I had to write off it after my wife tried to take a roundabout in a straight line...) In turboed version it went from 80 to 130HP, so quite a difference.

[k.young]

That 1.9 engine(turbo) in the Renaults must be the worlds most unreliable engine............ask any mechanic. The 2.2 engine in the Nissan Primeras was also an absolute mare.

[duro]

That 1.9 engine(turbo) in the Renaults must be the worlds most unreliable engine............ask any mechanic. The 2.2 engine in the Nissan Primeras was also an absolute mare.

Well, I gave my 170.000km 1.9dTi away to a friend just because it's an Euro3 diesel and it'd be pretty unusable next winter (traffic laws here) and so not worth of spending money on tax, insurance, brakes and tyres.

And it still went as new.

[Andrew@DTUK]

Everybody need high HP values to sell cars. For one, I was long time uncertain if the 105HP 1.6 was enough (as there were several reviews saying it's a bit gutless) or if it was better to go for the 2.0.

In the end I went for the 1.6 but if Skoda had advertised it as a 125HP 1.6, I'd have had no doubts at all.

Anyway, as far as reliability is concerned, it came to my mind one – maybe – significant paragon: the Renault 1.5TD, an engine whose HP record I know for it's used in several cars I considered as alternative to the Octavia.

This engine is used virtually throughout the Renault range, beside also Dacia and the new Mercedes A.

Its power delivery goes from 70HP of the lowliest versions of the Kangoo van to 130HP of the Mégane.

That's a 1.85/1 variation!

Obviously, I don't think the 130HP to be as sober as the 70HP but at least reliability should be virtually the same, as we're not talking about race-tuned engines.

Andrew, it's just me being unable to find it or a "real" box for my 1.6TD CR 105HP is not available from you?

weve struggled with the original 1.6tdi, including using a multi channel system :(

[duro]

Hmmm... I was looking not for dragster performances but just for a bit of extra torque low down and another 10-15HP.

The Octavia, with all her gimmicks etc. is quite heavy. Actually, I find it more ponderous than my old 80HP Kangoo (prob. just a sensation for the kg/HP ratio is – slightly – better).

[ed209]

I am going to run a tank on each to see what they are like. So first tank on setting 1 was about the same as standard. 3rd and 4th gear pull was much better than standard and it wasnt as lively as 4.1 in 1st and 2nd gear.

Any news on trying different settings then?

Is 4.1 the favourite or have you found any other better settings?