My point is that they are the same engines mechanically so if the can get about 140HP out of it legally why would they have to reduce the 110HP engine's output?

I never considered the 110 version because I would have thought its lower power was as a result of lower combustion temps and thus not with a NOx problem.

I am thinking it's the 2.0L 103TDI (140) that's affected.

Well the 110HP Vins are on the wanted list!

Well the 110HP Vins are on the wanted list!

Oh well, congratulations.

You get last prize also.

Keeps getting better... 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34601593

Under what conditions do they test for NOx output ?

 

EGR is used to reduce combustion temps and NOx outputs, but EGR is only active under no- or part- throttle conditions.

Under full throttle/load the EGR shuts off, so in the regions where the engine is developing its headline peak power, EGR will be disabled anyway and I imagine NOx will be quite high.

 

If NOx testing is done under part-throttle conditions, perhaps to simulate the majority of driving, then they could potentially reduce power & increase EGR at lower RPM & light throttle conditions, but retain the same peak power at the top end of the rev range.

In which case a "140" engine would still technically be a "140" engine, but maybe with a differently shaped power curve...

 

Who knows.

Under what conditions do they test for NOx output ?

 

.....

In Europe, I believe it's the NEDC. (New European Driving Cycle).

I agree about peak numbers probably being unaffected. Seems to be lots of "slowly accelerates" in the verbal descriptions of the cycle(s).

In Europe, I believe it's the NEDC. (New European Driving Cycle).

I agree about peak numbers probably being unaffected. Seems to be lots of "slowly accelerates" in the verbal descriptions of the cycle(s).

Looking at the NEDC test procedure then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_Cycle#Test_procedure

The tests use incredibly light throttle and gentle acceleration! Not representative of realistic driving at all.

I remember some years ago when the Yeti was first on the market someone put theirs on a rolling road and it had a higher tested power than the model designation i.e. the 110 came out at 115. Could this be the "illegal" software showing 110 on the official figures but the user getting 115 when it was on the road?

 

Perhaps after the software fix we might just be getting what we paid for.

 

tom

I remember some years ago when the Yeti was first on the market someone put theirs on a rolling road and it had a higher tested power than the model designation i.e. the 110 came out at 115. Could this be the "illegal" software showing 110 on the official figures but the user getting 115 when it was on the road?

 

Perhaps after the software fix we might just be getting what we paid for.

 

tom

 

My 170 came out as 175 bhp on a dyno run at Shark (who I've seen get a bit of flak for having conservative figures) on the standard map. What was more impressive was the torque figure of 368nm vs the quoted 350nm. A Stage 1 map pushed those figures to 200 bhp & 438nm. I have an STS unit so I can reapply either the standard or the Stage 1 map if needed. I'm waiting to find out just what the 'fix' involves, and what the implications are if it's not done. If I do decide/need to get it 'fixed' I'll likely get another dyno run with the new map for comparison, and have that loaded onto the STS. I presume by then the tuners will have more of an idea just what the fix does/doesn't do compared to the original, and I suspect remaps may become more popular!

Interesting, as VW might try and use that as a get of jail free card! That is, they can say that after the fix the car is still producing the manufacturers published figures even though the fix has reduced the power.

 

The argument from the customer will be though that VW have altered the power and characteristics (maybe) from the car that they have happily been driving around in for quite sometime.

 

The legal fraternity are really going to have a field day!

 

I've mentioned about mapping on the "Main" thread i.e. wondering if it will be made illegal like DPF and Cat. removal has?

re post #58,

Getting more power output than the minimum official figures from the manufacturer on a Dynamic Dyno in the UK is not unusual,

seeing as you are likely to be less than 3,000 foot above sea level in a building with a ambient temperature below 30*oC 

and with a Fan blowing air at the Intake. & running EU Spec Fuel.

ie 

Idea conditions that are going to give the most efficient engine performance, 

where as the figures given are also for other World Regions and Altitudes, Pressures and Temperatures less conducent to idea engine performance.

Good points. That is something that will have to be taken into account when real world MPG and emissions testing comes in as this will be done in a number of locations.

Has anyone noticed any improvement in economy (when trying) with a remap designed for increased power?.....ie , when not using the power, economy improves ......such as on long trips?

Yes - I've had a plug-in chip for 9-12 months and there's a noticeable increase in power (e.g. on cruise control at 75 it doesn't now drop to 5th on two specific uphill sections of a regular route, and the car is surprisingly fast away from lights) - and mpg overall is 2mpg better.  My mpg is calculated brim-to-brim and graphed via a spreadsheet.  The one downside is that the mpg and range that the car calculates are now wrong, by quite a large percentage - presumably because they are calculated from throttle opening rather than by the more accurate method of calculating the volume of fuel actually injected.  My insurance company charge an extra £16 pa but fuel saving more than covers this.

 

I transferred the chip from my Jaguar XF, with the settings adjusted, because the XF's standard 280bhp and immense torque is adequate for road use and I rarely made use of the extra 40bhp (mpg was unchanged on the XF).

That's what I found with my DTUK plug-in.

Hopelessly inaccurate range/consumption indication but also strange surging between 1700 - 1800 revs at times.

Has anyone noticed any improvement in economy (when trying) with a remap designed for increased power?.....ie , when not using the power, economy improves ......such as on long trips?

 

I think that's a pretty common comment from folks.

 

As Gnomeface says you can stay in a higher gear. As with some bigger engine cars it's found that they can be more economical than a smaller engine car working hard. You probably knew that though!