DTUK Tuning Box on 1.6 DSG

[ajl124]

Hi I'm thinking of installing a DTUK Tuning box to my 2015 1.6 DSG Black Edition Estate.

 

There are a couple of options 125 or 135 PS and also a Max Response Pedal Box.

 

Does anyone have these fitted to their cars, if so are you happy with the results ?

 

Andy

[socialgrenade]

Got both on my 184 love them. Pedal box feels great, under rated in my opinion

[GoneToBeemer]

Yeah I have the new CRD3 system on mine - 150 DSG L&K and its transformed the car into something that really is fairly pokey. Super smooth power delivery and noticeable fuel economy improvements too with long distance cruising. Highly recommend it, and the DTUK team are a good bunch of guys to boot.

Edited 22 May, 2016 by vtec to vrs!

[the mad monk]

im tempted with trying this on my 150 golf, had it a year now and its a bit boring but its cheaper than changing the car

can i be cheeky and ask what diff it made to your insurance as mines due soon so was thinking of timing it right and starting it with the box in the quote

Edited 22 May, 2016 by the mad monk

[GoneToBeemer]

No difference mate, apart from the admin charge of £25 to update my policy! In hindsight not a bad result, but £25 just to type something into a computer is daylight robbery!!

[duro]

Unfortunately, none of the answers were from 1.6 DSG owners. Which I am.

My doubt is not "Is it pokey?" but "Will the DSG7 stand the increased torque?"

 

BTW, I've just seen that new Superb has a 120HP version of the 1.6CRD... but they state the same 250Nm torque as my 105HP engine. How comes that there's not the slightest difference?

[ajl124]

Well I took the plunge and ordered the box and fitted it on Wednesday.

Ordering process was great after chatting to Andy at DTUK to ensure the correct box for my car.

My only slight concern was that there was not more information about what the programs actually achieve and it would be down to trial of each program to find best results.

Really simple to fit, 10 mins and set it to program 1.

The car had a immediate increase in torque and power and economy was a better too.

The following day I switched to program 2 which felt less power and torque.

I'm on program 3 at the moment which is close to program 1.

It's off for a very expensive oil service on Tuesday so I will remove everything and be able to compare.

Overall I'm very happy with the performance increase and would recommend it for the 1.6 engine  with DSG.

[Gerrycan]

Unfortunately, none of the answers were from 1.6 DSG owners. Which I am.

My doubt is not "Is it pokey?" but "Will the DSG7 stand the increased torque?"

 

BTW, I've just seen that new Superb has a 120HP version of the 1.6CRD... but they state the same 250Nm torque as my 105HP engine. How comes that there's not the slightest difference?

I think your query about the DSG7 is a valid one. Even the relatively small increase of torque from 250Nm to 280Nm for the 1.8tsi engine (FWD to 4WD Scout) Skoda uses the DSG6 speed 'wet' version for the higher value..

 

Power is an expression of torque and revs. The maximum 250Nm of torque is only available over a very narrow rpm band on the 1.6CRD and drops off markedly as the revs rise, but the actual work done by the engine (measured in bhp or kW) is still increasing, until the peak power point (optimum point of torque and revs).

The difference between 103 and 120 bhp is that the Superb engine has a slightly higher torque value (well below the 250Nm maximum torque) at the peak power point, probably reflected in a slightly wider peak torque rev range as well although I have not looked at the figures to confirm that.

[Gerrycan]

If it was that easy to improve consumption then you had better believe that Skoda would have done it themselves. I would not expect your real consumption to be worse than without the box, except where you are using the extra available performance of course.

You might want to check the accuracy of those fuel figures because the DTUK boxes corrupt the data to the trip calculator making the readouts a bit optimistic.

Edited 7 December, 2016 by Damo

[GoneToBeemer]

You might want to check the accuracy of those fuel figures because the DTUK boxes corrupt the data to the trip calculator making the readouts a bit optimistic.

If it was that easy to improve consumption then you had better believe that Skoda would have done it themselves. I would not expect your real consumption to be worse than without the box, except where you are using the extra available performance of course.

Yeah agreed, the box will exaggerate the economy, but I must say that on a motorway run (I frequently do London to Birmingham, or London to Newcastle), the consumption is noticeably better with the box than without it. I mean in terms of the car visually uses less fuel than it used to. Edited 2 June, 2016 by vtec to vrs!

[cozza]

@gerrycan yep i agree fully i've had it say 85- 105mpg before on the screen over 4 miles onwards at 60-70mph..

but i divide the tank gallons over miles done on my trip computer it works out over 65mpg on a long run i was previously getting 52-54's on the real set up.

I am aware the the box confuses the computers mpg as it alters the fuel input figures for the exact mph your doing and reducing fuel waste in the process.

But it 100% works no question about it, my last car was remaped properly but this is definatly as good and removable for warrenty work

[skd12]

My understanding is that fuel economy figures are adversely affected by emissions regulations. By having to be able to deal with a variety of operating conditions and fuel qualities without having separate maps for different countries we Brits, with decent fuel and neither extremely hot or cold weather can make adjustments and still pass emissions tests.

 

(correct me if I'm regurgitating bollards that I've read elsewhere )

[Gerrycan]

If that is the case then I am just stunned!

 

So an engine, that has had nothing more done to it to reduce friction, or improve airflow, or cam profile changes, or compression ratios AND a car with no weight reduction, no improvements in aerodynamic performance has its steady state consumption at 70mph improved by a whopping 20% on the same fuel merely by a software override!!!

 

I would have been impressed if it improved it by 2% to be honest

[GoneToBeemer]

As stated above, a car needs to be set up to be able to deal with varying fuel qualities and atmospheric conditions. Tuners are able to do what they do by adjusting parameters to account for the good conditions and fuel we have in the UK.

As I mentioned before, tuning boxes do definitely exaggerate the economy figures on the consumption display, and if you're using the performance then you're definitely going to use more fuel, but at a steady run my car is noticeably more fuel efficient.

[Gadget007]

Adding a DTUK box to mine did make the consumption readout over exaggerate, but after a few tankfull's and calculating the actual consumption I could see that a correction of about 10%was needed so I added this using vcs and now the average recorded consumption matches the consumption as calculated and to be honest the instantaneous readout would be at best 0.2 - 0.3 l/100 km better with the box installed

[JaminWales]

If that is the case then I am just stunned!

So an engine, that has had nothing more done to it to reduce friction, or improve airflow, or cam profile changes, or compression ratios AND a car with no weight reduction, no improvements in aerodynamic performance has its steady state consumption at 70mph improved by a whopping 20% on the same fuel merely by a software override!!!

I would have been impressed if it improved it by 2% to be honest

Another advocate here for the extra mpg achieved by the dtuk box- more power and better economy gained. Could think of it this way- the same car with the same engine is producing more power so is using less power when 'chipped' to achieve the same mph = better fuel economy as the engine is not working as hard

Or am I also talking bollards? Feel free to correct me

[the mad monk]

ive ordered one and the pedal box for the golf, hope its as good as others have found it

[themanwithnoaim]

I'm a tuning box believer

But, you can probably tell from my fuelly sig.

[Gerrycan]

I don't deny that it is possible to get better fuel economy from tuning for increased performance. I had experienced that myself in my youth, 'flow porting' the very rough castings (of that period) in the inlet manifold and cylinder head, but those economy benefits were relatively small.

Similarly the non ACT 1.4tsi from VW is marginally more economical in its 103kW/250Nm version compared to the 90kW/200Nm version. I am not aware if that performance increase is solely due to software though it would not surprise me.

Getting increased power is relatively easy, especially with a turbo engine (you just burn more fuel) but improving efficiency and meeting emission standards at a reasonable price is difficult.

That is why VW had dieselgate, Hyundai/Kia were fined in the US for lying about their vehicles fuel figures (it is notable they are the only major manufacturer whose current published figures are now notably worse than previous versions), that Suzuki and Mitsubishi have just admitted to cheating Japanese consumption figures. Even recent Fiat diesels have been discovered to have VW type cheating software.

You don't do this sort of thing if getting better consumption is easily done with a software update. I don't know if DTUK boxes compromise emission performance, it is not something that is discussed by those fitting them.

 

Looking back at initial figures for 1.6CRD, namely 52 to 54 mpg at 60/70mph,  and taken at face value, they are actually not very good figures at all for that engine.

It appears that his DTUK box has actually allowed his vehicle to achieve its potential both for performance and economy, which is great, but why was his consumption so bad in the first place?

 

Looking back over a number of threads where consumption figures have been discussed it strikes me that there are a fair number of diesel owners who complain about their vehicles figures. Often those complaints are comparisons with previous vehicles so it is not as if they have suddenly changed their driving style or environment, simply their cars are not performing as they should. Maybe it is the complexity of modern vehicles and the difficulty of getting everything right on a mass produced car?

The petrol owners (generally) do not seem to report quite so much variation, even TMWNA has admitted to getting good consumption when he moderates his driving with family on board.

 

I'm not offering any real insights or explanations but my (too) long experience of life is that if something looks too good to be true, then it usually is.

You know, like when 'cold fusion' was going to solve the world's energy crisis. How EVs are going to save the planet (have you worked out how many extra power stations/windmills/solar panels would be required to power all the world's vehicles if they were all EV?)

Edited 7 December, 2016 by Damo