Does anybody know where I can get the torque and power curves for the 2.0 TDi 150 and 190 and the 2.0 TSi 220 please?

No.. But guess it would be also intresting to see the 1.6tdi 120 v 2.0 150 tdi

I haven't seen any charts, manufacturers seem somewhat reluctant to publish them these days.

We can do some comparison though.

 

For turbo cars, it's usually specified as a range at max torque.

The engine then produces less torque before as it ramps up to max range, holds that through the range then tails off again afterwards.

Most of the time your accelerating, you want a turbo car to be in the peak torque range unless you're eco mileing or drag racing.   

 

In the simplest form

 

Power = (torque x rpm) / constant

 

The constant is dependant on units, but as all the engines are in the same units, it can be mostly ignored to give:   

 

Power = torque x rpm     (note this will not be an actual power value, but a comparator as it's not in a valid unit)

 

1.6 TDI 120 250Nm   1600-3250 rpm

2.0 TDI 150 340Nm   1750-3000 rpm

2.0 TDI 190 400Nm   1750-3250 rpm

 

1.4 TSI 150 250Nm   1500-3500 rpm

2.0 TSI 220 350Nm   1500-4400 rpm

2.0 TSI 280 350Nm   1750-5600 rpm

 

1.6TDI 120 vs 1.4TSI 150 the power produced in the overlapping range will be identical at the same rpm (ignoring losses), the TSI has a wider range at peak torque so will pull harder at lower rpm and for a little longer.

 

2.0TDI 150 vs 2.0TSI 220 the TSI has slightly more torque in a wider range therefore will produce slightly more power at the same rpm, and also holds this for longer producing a significantly higher peak HP

 

2.0TDI 190 vs 2.0TSI 280 the TDI has more torque so produces approx 12% more power at identical rpm, however the peak torque range of the TSI is available for almost twice as many revs allowing it to keep producing more power then the TDI has had to change gear hence, TSI produces a lot more power and is much faster.

 

In all these cases, the actual torque applied to the road (acceleration) is dependant on the gearing, the 2.0 TSI's wide power band and diesel like torque would easily give them the same grunty feeling as the TDI 190 if skoda hasn't gone too eco on the ratio's, however it's likely the TDI's will be much better on fuel, especially under part throttle.

 

Regards

 

AD

Hi,

In the absence of any more info have you tried Shark Performance ? seem to remember they have "before& after" graphs of output.

Here is a graph for the 190:

 

Thanks all. Thought they seemed hard to come by. The reason I'm looking for them is that I have heard a few whispers that the 190 is a bit flat at low revs and the 150 performs better below about 2200rpm. My dealer only has a 190 available to try so not easy to compare the two. I will be coming from a SII 170 diesel which i am happy with the performance of but wouldn't want any less. I tow a caravan and 60mph on the motorway is well below 2200rpm! 

 

So has anybody gone from a 170 to either a 150 or 190 and how do they compare? My fear is a considerable amount of extra gear changes being required! I suppose i could go dsg and let it get on with it!

 

220 petrol appeals due to performance and nice low peak torque but not sure about running costs and how a petrol would take to towing duties.

I came from a 170 to a 150 TDi, both manual.

Firstly the new car is more of a cruiser by nature so you don't feel the desire to press on the same as in the S2.

Secondly the gearing is a lot longer in the new car which means it doesn't respond to the accelerator as sharply. Acceleration in 6th is fine but not instant like the 170. Pull in 5th in the 150 is similar to 6th in the 170. High speed cruising is much more relaxed in the new car though. 100 feels like 80.

New car typically operates easily from 250rpm lower in the rev range than 170 and will pull from virtually idle even in higher gears.

Ultimately you get used to the drive and it's more economical. Ride quality is much improved too.

Sometimes the 170 got me into more trouble than it got me out of!

Should have said I think the cruiser nature of the S3 means it would really suit the automatic gearbox.

The 6 speed DSG seems to be lower geared than the manual equivalent.  My 150PS DSG feels a bit busier at 70 mph than I'd have expected

The 6 speed DSG seems to be lower geared than the manual equivalent. My 150PS DSG feels a bit busier at 70 mph than I'd have expected

I had a 150 DSG for a week before we collected the 220. I have to agree it's low geared compared to most (I saw 2,500rpm plus at 70mph). Strangely the 220 is the opposite and does 1,800rpm at 70mph, which is similar to the 190 I believe.

I too would love to see some graphs, especially for the petrols. Most OEMs leave then out these days, unfortunately. :(

Edited 15 April, 201610 yr by Derv

Torque curves for both engines were previously on this thread (see post 2).

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/359450-ea288-20tdi-150-vs-190/?hl=%2Btorque+%2B150+%2B190

But the link seems to be broken. The comments basically confirm that the 190 lags behind at low revs.

Yes thanks for that. It confirms what I have been told. It looks like the 150 delivers it torque in a much more useable way than the 190, especially for towing. 

 

How do you find your 220 pulls from low revs Derv?

Yes thanks for that. It confirms what I have been told. It looks like the 150 delivers it torque in a much more useable way than the 190, especially for towing. 

 

How do you find your 220 pulls from low revs Derv?

 

Loathe to pull out the old saying, but 'like a train', whatever that means. It pulls strongly basically right from idle, which is the advantage of petrol rather than diesel as the latter relies almost solely on the turbo for its power. By the time it's on full boost at 1,500rpm it really does give good grunt and it doesn't let up until the red line (about 6,500rpm). As the turbo's torque tapers off the benefit of the rising horsepower has kicked in (torque x rpm = power), so there's no let up in pull until you change up at max revs. After years of driving diesels I have to say it's very relaxed and suitably torquey when you're pootling around town, but if you're in sport mode (or manual mode) and plant your foot from a standstill, it's a pinned-back-into-the-chair job.

 

Having driven every kind of diesel engine going, on various fuels (diesel, red diesel, paraffin, vegetable oil, RME etc) and then an NA petrol followed by the TSI, I have to say hand on heart the TSI has the benefits of both. You get low down torque for relaxed cruising (about 1,200rpm around town, 1.800rpm at 70mph, 2,000rpm at 80mph) and you get relentless acceleration right until you run out of revs, at which point it changes up and you just carry on and on. It's addictive.

I haven't seen any charts, manufacturers seem somewhat reluctant to publish them these days.

We can do some comparison though.

 

For turbo cars, it's usually specified as a range at max torque.

The engine then produces less torque before as it ramps up to max range, holds that through the range then tails off again afterwards.

Most of the time your accelerating, you want a turbo car to be in the peak torque range unless you're eco mileing or drag racing.   

 

In the simplest form

 

Power = (torque x rpm) / constant

 

The constant is dependant on units, but as all the engines are in the same units, it can be mostly ignored to give:   

 

Power = torque x rpm     (note this will not be an actual power value, but a comparator as it's not in a valid unit)

 

1.6 TDI 120 250Nm   1600-3250 rpm

2.0 TDI 150 340Nm   1750-3000 rpm

2.0 TDI 190 400Nm   1750-3250 rpm

 

1.4 TSI 150 250Nm   1500-3500 rpm

2.0 TSI 220 350Nm   1500-4400 rpm

2.0 TSI 280 350Nm   1750-5600 rpm

 

1.6TDI 120 vs 1.4TSI 150 the power produced in the overlapping range will be identical at the same rpm (ignoring losses), the TSI has a wider range at peak torque so will pull harder at lower rpm and for a little longer.

 

2.0TDI 150 vs 2.0TSI 220 the TSI has slightly more torque in a wider range therefore will produce slightly more power at the same rpm, and also holds this for longer producing a significantly higher peak HP

 

2.0TDI 190 vs 2.0TSI 280 the TDI has more torque so produces approx 12% more power at identical rpm, however the peak torque range of the TSI is available for almost twice as many revs allowing it to keep producing more power then the TDI has had to change gear hence, TSI produces a lot more power and is much faster.

 

In all these cases, the actual torque applied to the road (acceleration) is dependant on the gearing, the 2.0 TSI's wide power band and diesel like torque would easily give them the same grunty feeling as the TDI 190 if skoda hasn't gone too eco on the ratio's, however it's likely the TDI's will be much better on fuel, especially under part throttle.

 

Regards

 

AD

The 220 TSi has indeed gone "Eco", it has very similar (high) gearing to my EOS & the current 2.0 TSi vRS, 3K rpm = circa 95 mph in 6th, but the 280 TSi is much lower

geared, 3K rpm = circa 80 mph, as is the Golf R DSG!

(This is not guess-work, I've been test-driving a few cars in the last two months!)

 

My own Superb 2 2.0 TSi  has & SWMBO's Octy 2 FL TSi had similar low-ish  gearing, 3k rpm in 6th = 76 /78 mph.

Good for economical town driving, but probably a little juicy on autobahns.

 

As for power / torque, all our cars were remapped by AMD, so with 250+ ps & 360+ NM,  linear power curves & flat torque curves they all pull well from

low rpm's, with no noticeable turbo lag up to, (& beyond...) the red line.

 

Fuel consumption is, of course much worse than any of the diesels, (but 43mpg from Chelmsford up to Kings Lynn, to do a back to back test with a Superb 288 & a vRS 230,

& 38 mpg on the return trip on a very congested M11 isn't too bad for a 250 ps 4 year old luxo-barge....), but for us the driving experience is worth the extra expense.

 

Sorry for the waffle, DC

Just checked out Shark Performance and it looks like they went under in 2018. (In case anyone was interested.)

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07246707/insolvency

 

http://briskoda.net/forums/topic/463460-shark-performance-gone-who-now

important that people know they are still around if people want their services @ Racingline.

http://racingline.com

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 21 July, 20205 yr by Roottoot

Standard map Superb diesel 4x4 sportline, Bang on 190bhp and 400nm. Then the racingline map. 

The IS20 turbo in the 220/230/245 Octavia's hits maximum power at 5,000rpm and max torque at around 2,600rpm from my experience with a 245 at stage 1 and stage 2. Went from 400nm standard (skoda claim 370nm for this engine) to 467nm at stage 1 and finally 517nm at stage 2. Power was 249bhp standard (skoda claim 242bhp) then 302bhp at stage 1 and finally 336bhp at stage 2. These figures are with AmD remapping on their rolling road between March 2018 and November 2018.

My current car has the larger IS38 (Golf R hardware) turbo which behaves differently with maximum power at 6,000rpm like the 280 (6 speed DSG) before it the 272 needs revving for best performance. Low down it is lacking torque (skoda claim 350nm at 4,500rpm) as standard mine made 369nm yet at stage 1 map it not only increased to 514nm but produced at a much lower 2,800rpm which makes a huge difference with the 7 speed DSG to the way it feels at low rpm and how it accelerates now.

1 hour ago, shyVRS245 said:

The IS20 turbo in the 220/230/245 Octavia's hits maximum power at 5,000rpm and max torque at around 2,600rpm from my experience with a 245 at stage 1 and stage 2. Went from 400nm standard (skoda claim 370nm for this engine) to 467nm at stage 1 and finally 517nm at stage 2. Power was 249bhp standard (skoda claim 242bhp) then 302bhp at stage 1 and finally 336bhp at stage 2. These figures are with AmD remapping on their rolling road between March 2018 and November 2018.

My current car has the larger IS38 (Golf R hardware) turbo which behaves differently with maximum power at 6,000rpm like the 280 (6 speed DSG) before it the 272 needs revving for best performance. Low down it is lacking torque (skoda claim 350nm at 4,500rpm) as standard mine made 369nm yet at stage 1 map it not only increased to 514nm but produced at a much lower 2,800rpm which makes a huge difference with the 7 speed DSG to the way it feels at low rpm and how it accelerates now.

 

Thanks for the above info, every 280 / 272 I've driven felt flat, including this week's drive in a 272 wagon with only 90 miles on the clock. 

FWIW, every time we've had a test drive in a 280 / 272 & returned home in the old Superb (albeit with a stage 1 AmD map) we've felt that we've wasted our time, again! 

Q? Why did we have the exact opposite feeling when we drove (& subsequently purchased) our Golf R's? Is it just because they are smaller & lighter or does the extra 20 'ish ps really make a difference? 

 

Je suis confuse..... DC

6 hours ago, old newbie2 said:

 

Thanks for the above info, every 280 / 272 I've driven felt flat, including this week's drive in a 272 wagon with only 90 miles on the clock. 

FWIW, every time we've had a test drive in a 280 / 272 & returned home in the old Superb (albeit with a stage 1 AmD map) we've felt that we've wasted our time, again! 

Q? Why did we have the exact opposite feeling when we drove (& subsequently purchased) our Golf R's? Is it just because they are smaller & lighter or does the extra 20 'ish ps really make a difference? 

 

Je suis confuse..... DC

Maybe because the R has the silly Soundaktor that tries to convince you you're driving something much angrier?     Turned that thing off in the Golf the day i got delivery of it, tried to do the same on the Superb and realized it doesn't have it! Hallelujah...

In more seriousness, slightly less torque and a bit more weight would contribute to a less strong impression, irrelevant of-course if you plan on remapping as they both end up making the same power/torque, and depending on the actual remaps they run, a Stage 1 Superb can end up being even faster than a Stage 1 Golf R or Leon Cupra despite the extra kg

Edited 25 July, 20205 yr by newbie69

1 hour ago, newbie69 said:

Maybe because the R has the silly Soundaktor that tries to convince you you're driving something much angrier?     Turned that thing off in the Golf the day i got delivery of it, tried to do the same on the Superb and realized it doesn't have it! Hallelujah...

In more seriousness, slightly less torque and a bit more weight would contribute to a less strong impression, irrelevant of-course if you plan on remapping as they both end up making the same power/torque, and depending on the actual remaps they run, a Stage 1 Superb can end up being even faster than a Stage 1 Golf R or Leon Cupra despite the extra kg

Or even faster than a 2015 Audi RS3.

21 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

Or even faster than a 2015 Audi RS3

 

Well you know what they say... It's not a race if you don't both floor it at the same time-speed-gear  😛 

 

Besides, a tuned Superb is faster than lots of stock cars, my point was more related to the perceived differences between it and the "cousin" cars like the Golf and Leon with the same powertrain

1 minute ago, newbie69 said:

 

Well you know what they say... It's not a race if you don't both floor it at the same time-speed-gear  😛 

 

Besides, a tuned Superb is faster than lots of stock cars, my point was more related to the perceived differences between it and the "cousin" cars like the Golf and Leon with the same powertrain

I think most of the time it is the surprise factor from other often smaller cars with considerable power not expecting a large Skoda barge to be so light on its toes especially off the line upto 50mph (80kph) then the early advantage can be maintained.

17 hours ago, newbie69 said:

Maybe because the R has the silly Soundaktor that tries to convince you you're driving something much angrier?     Turned that thing off in the Golf the day i got delivery of it, tried to do the same on the Superb and realized it doesn't have it! Hallelujah...

In more seriousness, slightly less torque and a bit more weight would contribute to a less strong impression, irrelevant of-course if you plan on remapping as they both end up making the same power/torque, and depending on the actual remaps they run, a Stage 1 Superb can end up being even faster than a Stage 1 Golf R or Leon Cupra despite the extra kg

The Soundaktors are turned down, to 15% on hers & 10% on mine.... + in individual mode they are set to eco.

Never use "Sport" 'cos it's just not for us oldies (we leave the farting & popping for the local children), but I've been known to shift from D to S when attempting a rapid departure...... (Doesn't work so well in the FWD Superb though.)

As for remapping, maybe one day, but only if we feel the need. 

 

For now the old girl is going to stay on the mini- fleet but I would like to find an affordable replacement for my R. No luck so far....

 

 

On 25/07/2020 at 22:50, shyVRS245 said:

I think most of the time it is the surprise factor from other often smaller cars with considerable power not expecting a large Skoda barge to be so light on its toes especially off the line upto 50mph (80kph) then the early advantage can be maintained.

 

Yup, the same surprise factor when driving SWMBO's R Wagon, 'tis only the real enthusiast that recognizes it. I'd remove the badges but I'm not allowed....

The ancient barge is different, it's the pick-up from 50-60 mph that's unexpected, as was my Eos. (Same powertrain & Amd remap but taller gearing. 3k rpm in top [6th] = 95 mph.)