As suggested by Adrian (SkodiRS) in the Freedom area I've started this thread to continue the off topic portion of this thread. Here's the last couple of posts as a reminder:

Sorry need to clarify my point' date=' I'm not saying the RR is inaccurate as is always the advice with RR's they're not comparable between each other on final figures you need to compare to other cars run on the same RR and differences between stock and tuned cars. I'm making a comparison between cars run on the same RR on the same day and therefore getting an idea of power increase that your map has given. As a comparison standard 180's make between 179-181bhp on the JBS RR which is the one that mine and GaryM's among others has run on. Here's a link to a Briskoda RR day which was held there: [url']http://www.briskoda.net/forums/showthread.php?t=25772[/url]

If you want to talk about cars of DaveU's spec then the JBS Octavia equipped with a GT28RS made 440bhp. At the RR day above it was only getting 420bhp as it wasn't hitting top boost.

Also another thing to bear in mind is which figures you are basing your cars performance on.

Torque and RPM is read which converts to wheelpower.

Flywheelpower which most people quote is just a calculation based on wheelpower + coastdown (losses) which is why most rolling roads seem inaccurate.

Gerry / Des ' date=' whats your wheelpower from you last plots?

I get around 205-207 WHP with the very expensive but excellent Custom Code map.[/quote']

Good idea Eddy.

I personally think that that thread should have been split and locked, instead of just locked.

Hope we can continue the debate here without such intervention.

Thread locked!!!

Oh hang on I'm not a mod. As you were

Excellent.

I await some ATW figures for Impossible Performance maps - Des, where are you? Not looking for your padlock I hope

I've been on a few RR now, the older ones where the OPO has to input atmospheric pressure vary a lot, the newer more sophisticated ones do Atmos automatically and seem a lot more accurate.

Hence the reason in my opinion some tuners RR give OTT claims on some maps.

Here is some more reading on rolling road dynamometers for those who are interested:

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/power3.htm

Interesting read, but there is no tyre slippage on the dyno I use! No problem with wheel spin ever, even with 1000 bhp. Maybe you get it on some dynos, but not all dynos are the same.

Adam.

In the last thread (which i found very informative) Impossible performance were mentioned a lot. I tried their web site, but can't find prices for remaps!!

Can anyone enlighten me? :confused:

JD

I believe you need to call, looks like the guys maybe be very busy very soon

So do rolling roads measure whp accurately then? :confused:

So do rolling roads measure whp accurately then? :confused:

Not necessarily and it's important to establish if the RR is an inertia type RR or load based. Load based being the preference for VAG cars. Jabba's old RR was an inertia type but there new one which they use along side this is load based.

The reason whp is a better indicator is because that is what the RR measures so there are less calculations and conversion factors involved and hence less chance of errors.

The reason whp is a better indicator is because that is what the RR measures so there are less calculations and conversion factors involved and hence less chance of errors.

Thats what I thought, cheers Eddy.

So I take it that IP's wheelpower results from their K03s remaps arent worth posting

So I take it that IP's wheelpower results from their K03s remaps arent worth posting

Or perhaps their not rising to the bait.

Personally I feel that although these type of threads start off with good intentions and are generally interesting...they do degenerate to "this tuner is better than that one" etc.

It is a fact..before anyone says otherwise.

Everyone has their favourite tuner, some defend them more than others but at the end of the day...as long as your happy with what you got, what does it what what whp you got from whatever tuner?

I suppose though it's human nature to say "mines bigger than yours".

What I'm more interested in is how you get to xxx bhp or why minimal boost is better etc...oh....timing advance and all that...now that's interesting.

IMHO of course.

All tuners are equal, but some tuners are more equal than others!!! LOL

Adam.

I do agree with you Adrian but we are seeing high flywheel figures from a very low boost map which gives 47mpg at 70mph+.

Something just doesnt add up to me - I'm not even sure if a remapped Fabia vRS returning that economy!!

Josh, what do you see in yours?

I, and many others im sure would find it interesting to see WHP figures from this map.

What I'm more interested in is how you get to xxx bhp or why minimal boost is better etc...oh....timing advance and all that...now that's interesting.

Well that's the art of remaping! A tuner should be able to give a better answer but how much boost and timing you can run is dictated by temperature and octane rating so when modding stuff that keeps the engine and turbo cool give the best gains such as an FMIC to reduce intake temps and exhaust to get the gases out quicker which keeps the turbo cooler. With the octane rating the higher the better assuming you have the remap setup accordingly.

So for timing you run as much as you can get away with (for the fuel you use) before the ECU retards the ignition.

For boost you run as much as you can before the intake temperatures get so high that knock is detected and then the ECU has to retard the ignition.

This is of course a very basic explanation but basically the more timing and boost you can without the ECU backing anything off the more power you will get.

This has to be balanced across the complete rev range, for instance if you run too much boost at low revs the turbo will be too hot by the time it gets to the upper revs and you'll have to reduce boost at higher revs to avoid timing retard or you can set the timing lower but then what you gain from the boost you lose on the timing. This is where the big differences are between generic and custom and good maps and great maps. Getting the balance between the two just right so that the engine as at it's most efficient.

There are also other factors such as air/fuel ratio as running slightly rich can help cool the engine but I'll leave that for someone else/another day.

Hope this has been useful.

I'm not getting 47mpg in my unremapped Fabia with its new PD130.... Just done about 350 miles on

Eddy

I get about 42mpg on a daily run to work and back (some city stop start but the majority is progressive A and B road driving).

On the motorway, with cruise set to 70, I get around 57mpg on a decent run, so yes, I am getting more mpg than the Impossibly mapped Octys.

Just for info, my previous C-C map gave 152.5 WHP.

I'm confident that this new version will give more (I get 10mph+ faster now on my "roundabout to bridge, uphill dual carriageway" run).

Des, where are you? Not looking for your padlock I hope

What I do in my spare time has..........Oh, you're taking about the locked thread.

I am happy and calm now after a certain phone call and will not rise to such frivolous chit chat, I am above all of this. :P

On the motorway, with cruise set to 70, I get around 57mpg on a decent run, so yes, I am getting more mpg than the Impossibly mapped Octys.

Well done Josh!

'I am pleased to announce that my diesel car can do more miles to the gallon than a petrol car'

:hilarius:

:feedtrol:

I've got a jabba re-map and I'm very happy with it. It doesn't bother me if someone says it rubbish, because it does what I want it to do!

However after talking to Gerry and Dave I'm very interested in what IP might be able to do for the fabia.

Do they want a test car? :P

Well done Josh!

'I am pleased to announce that my diesel car can do more miles to the gallon than a petrol car'

:hilarius:

:feedtrol:

Josh was only replying to Gary's question which I believe was a genuine one to give him some comparison for the fuel consumption.

Further to this I used to get similar figures to the IP mapped cars (on the MFA at least, I never checked manually) in my non-DBW jabba'd Golf. However I'd agree with Gary's previous comments that the figures quoted do seem a little high for a DBW car. For instance the new Golf 1.4 SuperTurbo which has been designed for economy only claims 39mpg.

Unfortunately I can't really compare my current figures as the 4x4 is quite different to the 2wd cars due to the weight, transmission and very short ratios. However I did see a noticable improvement in fuel economy (around 10%) when I made the switch from Revo to C-C.

As a polite request can we try to keep this on topic and avoid 'Troll' comments, if you don't like it don't post rather than degrading the thread, thanks.

My minor remap returns 17.6mpg when track-daying ( 100 miles ) so I feel a petrol should acheive around the same given similar circumstances.

Not a lot for a diesel but it makes up for it on a daily basis.

Before anyone asks mine is a "hybrid" remap or is it "custom".

If there is anyone in the Essex and surrounding area that would like to drive my Octavia with the 'IP' map then just ask !

Andy