sorry, keep forgetting to scan them in. Hopefully I do it tomorrow in work

 

One thing to note is my car seemed to gain the same as the cars quoting 300 + . Mine seemed to produce much lower figures on a dyno which is regarded as something that under reads slightly. I think the dtuk car that had 313 bhp ish had something like 260 stock on the dyno. Read into that as you will....

 

for the money I think its quite good. However you can't beat a real map for a petrol car anyway.

Edited 29 September, 20169 yr by john_20v

Interesting thread and thanks for posting

 

For me though, reading about all the errors and lottery results I'll give the box approach a swerve and stick with stock

Edited 30 September, 20169 yr by Wakey

 I think the dtuk car that had 313 bhp ish had something like 260 stock on the dyno. Read into that as you will....

 

 

 

To me, that says a 20% increase, which might suggest the stock 220PS would go to 264. 

 

Although, in fairness, that will be without raising the rev limiter which I understand is a remap trick for more peak BHP.

Still, 20% increase for £380.

 

Interestingly, I reckon the reason the German DTE website makes less extravagant claims is that they have to be able to actually evidence them for TUV approval etc.

 

It seems the UK has an inflationary spiral of bull**** claims from tuners around the country (or more correctly, around the internet).

Interestingly, I reckon the reason the German DTE website makes less extravagant claims is that they have to be able to actually evidence them for TUV approval etc.

 

It seems the UK has an inflationary spiral of bull**** claims from tuners around the country (or more correctly, around the internet).

 

I think to be fair Shark developed the maps that DTUK use which are better than the DTE maps they run on the same hardware

I think to be fair Shark developed the maps that DTUK use which are better than the DTE maps they run on the same hardware

 

Well, they would say that wouldn't they. Sadly DTUK have failed to actually publish before/after dyno plots.

I can't think of any good reason you would do that if the results robustly supported your claims.

I can believe that they did do some minor tweaking and improvement if they devoted a lot of time and testing to it (and the testbed engine was in an Octy), but frankly I don't believe that the experienced tuners/engineers at DTE would have been far off the mark.  

 

It's all about the overall increase, that's why it's so important for both pre and post Dyno runs.

20% is about average for any Stage 1 petrol remap.

What I like from say revo, is that they now quote a power range rather than just one headline figure.

high revs isn't any issue as the smaller IS turbo fitted to the vrs runs out of puff at top anyway. My peak figures where high 5k low 6k.

To be fair dtuk have said in the past they are looking more at the gains rather than the new figures.

Don't get me wrong. I think the dtuk box is great for the price and the ability to remove for warranty work. Just don't get your hopes up for 300+ Bhp like some maps can achieve. Oh and dtuk have put graphs up of their work.

Edited 30 September, 20169 yr by john_20v

. Oh and dtuk have put graphs up of their work.

 

 

I can only find one before/after graph for the EA288 TDI and that did show about a 20% gain that was posted to Briskoda.

Their extensive catalogue of dynos on the website just show "after" graphs without control plots.

What they are really missing is a set of plots for each of their different maps.

On one hand they say "It's all about the driving experience and not the graphs" but on the other hand they make claims with numbers attached.

If they are selling thousands of them, as they claim (which I believe), then what's the harm in doing dyno runs with different maps and boost settings  and sharing the results?

Still, I reckon it's a great piece of technology and has it's place.

 

Hi John,

Are you able to do any logs with vcds? I'm interested to see boost logs with and without the drum box fitted. Also be good for a 02 lambda log to check fuelling.

I can only find one before/after graph for the EA288 TDI and that did show about a 20% gain that was posted to Briskoda.

Their extensive catalogue of dynos on the website just show "after" graphs without control plots.

What they are really missing is a set of plots for each of their different maps.

On one hand they say "It's all about the driving experience and not the graphs" but on the other hand they make claims with numbers attached.

If they are selling thousands of them, as they claim (which I believe), then what's the harm in doing dyno runs with different maps and boost settings  and sharing the results?

Still, I reckon it's a great piece of technology and has it's place.

Jono

I mentioned on the phone that map 1 plus 1 produced 236.5hp and 377lbft, map 2 produced 234.5hp and 377lbft and that map 3 was a variant of map 2, but with a small tweak in the higher rpm range

Well, they would say that wouldn't they. Sadly DTUK have failed to actually publish before/after dyno plots.

I can't think of any good reason you would do that if the results robustly supported your claims.

I can believe that they did do some minor tweaking and improvement if they devoted a lot of time and testing to it (and the testbed engine was in an Octy), but frankly I don't believe that the experienced tuners/engineers at DTE would have been far off the mark.

You would be surprised how wrong Germany can be, on our particular Skoda one of the files caused severe injector rattle... so as you can imagine we don't use that. On the other hand we did try that file on 3 loan cars and the injector noise wasn't as bad, but certainly noisier that the stock car. They conduct all of their testing on the dyno, I prefer to use the A1 as in my own experience it's a better option

I can only find one before/after graph for the EA288 TDI and that did show about a 20% gain that was posted to Briskoda.

Their extensive catalogue of dynos on the website just show "after" graphs without control plots.

What they are really missing is a set of plots for each of their different maps.

On one hand they say "It's all about the driving experience and not the graphs" but on the other hand they make claims with numbers attached.

If they are selling thousands of them, as they claim (which I believe), then what's the harm in doing dyno runs with different maps and boost settings  and sharing the results?

Still, I reckon it's a great piece of technology and has it's place.

 

 

 

google is your friend:  http://www.golfgtiforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=269904.0

 

Take note of the author

This is the new map I was given. @ flywheel. Please note this is on tesco 99 and is on plus 2. I will try plus 3 on the dyno at a later date.

 

 

Below is the new map +2 next to stock @ wheels.

 

 

I believe this is the map thats been used for a while +2 again @ fly

 

 

old map +2 vs stock again @ wheels

 

 

Please also note it was a bloody hot day, and the dyno is known to under read esspecially torque.

 

They are revo dealers, for example a stage 1 s1 put down 290bhp and I'm sure he said a stage one mk7 gti once made 310ish

 

So its pretty impressive for something that takes 5 minutes to fit and almost half the price of revo etc

Edited 3 October, 20169 yr by john_20v

Oh and I can't notice that dip at all on the road. So maybe it was a heatsoak issue.

 map 1 plus 1 produced 236.5hp and 377lbft, map 2 produced 234.5hp and 377lbft and that map 3 was a variant of map 2, but with a small tweak in the higher rpm range

 

 

Yeah thanks Andrew, I know, but they are just peak figures, I'm interested in the shape of the torque curve.

In fairness - I know that previously you have made a big deal about looking at the % improvement, not just what a dyno's potentially inflated headline figure is.

I did see your single head to head plot for the 184PS with a CRDT some time ago I think.

I still think it would be great for potential customers to see graphs of the different maps and with different +/- settings and vs stock.

It's a shame that nearly every graph published on your website doesn't have a "before" plot, but that's based on what people send you and what you choose to publish.

 

You would be surprised how wrong Germany can be, on our particular Skoda one of the files caused severe injector rattle... so as you can imagine we don't use that. On the other hand we did try that file on 3 loan cars and the injector noise wasn't as bad, but certainly noisier that the stock car. They conduct all of their testing on the dyno, I prefer to use the A1 as in my own experience it's a better option

 

The fact that you guys have put so much time in on the EA288 probably explains how you have managed to improve it.

I'm still skeptical that your claims of a true 240PS and 500Nm are directly comparable DTE's claims of 212PS and 440Nm, but I guess you did get those numbers on the dyno you used.

 

It seems too big a stretch to me, and I put it down to DTE having a higher burden of proof on their claims in Germany, perhaps for their TUV approval certification.

Are there any more TDI plots for the CRD3+ with the new maps out there?

Edited 3 October, 20169 yr by Jono

So the dtuk maps are roughly making 270bhp? I'm still undecided about whether to go for revo or opt for the dtuk box and it's great to see someone is running these maps and putting graphs up for others in my position.

Oh and I can't notice that dip at all on the road. So maybe it was a heatsoak issue.

I was going to ask about that, as it looked quite significant in the graph!

The dyno operator said I should feel that on he road, but I honestly can't. Could be a few things. Might be knock detection or boost or heat soak.

I've got a dtuk box to put on but I've also got a vwr r600 induction kit and full milltek with sports cat and non res fitted. I'm hoping for more than 270bhp, I'd be happy with the 300bhp mark

You would be surprised how wrong Germany can be, on our particular Skoda one of the files caused severe injector rattle... so as you can imagine we don't use that. On the other hand we did try that file on 3 loan cars and the injector noise wasn't as bad, but certainly noisier that the stock car. They conduct all of their testing on the dyno, I prefer to use the A1 as in my own experience it's a better option

 

 

Yeah thanks Andrew, I know, but they are just peak figures, I'm interested in the shape of the torque curve.

In fairness - I know that previously you have made a big deal about looking at the % improvement, not just what a dyno's potentially inflated headline figure is.

I did see your single head to head plot for the 184PS with a CRDT some time ago I think.

I still think it would be great for potential customers to see graphs of the different maps and with different +/- settings and vs stock.

It's a shame that nearly every graph published on your website doesn't have a "before" plot, but that's based on what people send you and what you choose to publish.

 

 

The fact that you guys have put so much time in on the EA288 probably explains how you have managed to improve it.

I'm still skeptical that your claims of a true 240PS and 500Nm are directly comparable DTE's claims of 212PS and 440Nm, but I guess you did get those numbers on the dyno you used.

 

It seems too big a stretch to me, and I put it down to DTE having a higher burden of proof on their claims in Germany, perhaps for their TUV approval certification.

Are there any more TDI plots for the CRD3+ with the new maps out there?

 

I went to see Andrew and the gang up at DTUK when I was back in the North East this weekend - just wanted to see what new software they had for the 150ps Diesel DSG.

 

Andrew set up the TUV approved map from Germany on my box to try, and I felt it sluggish and unresponsive compared to the map I was running previously.

 

He then gave me a map that they had tinkered with and the car felt much better in comparison to the file that came straight from DTE (something to do with the Cam settings and box reaction time if I remember correctly).

 

Not put mine on the dyno, have absolutely no intention of either - but the car feels night and day different to what it is standard, and the CRD3 product is excellent in my opinion.

 

Not put mine on the dyno, have absolutely no intention of either...

 

Why not?

Why not?

 

My car is an L&K - not really dyno material 

 

Besides, I bought the box to give the car a bit more oomph, and improve economy and it does the job I wanted it to.

   :thumbup: