Modifying Your Fabia MK III

[Benz3ne]

17 hours ago, Lemto said:

Hi folks, hope you've all been well. This probably isn't the place for this but it's the only thread I really comment on. Just have a question for you guys, attached picture - do you think it's possible for this to be caused by another car? If so, would it be possible for no damage to be caused to the other car whatsoever?

 

Thanks lads. 

Which bit of the car is this? Bumper/splitter/trim?

 

It could have been caused by another car, but just as easily could have been caused by a kerb or something. If it was against another car, I'd imagine there would be a bit of damage, probably to a similar extent as yours but that would be difficult to prove.

[steslatt]

2 minutes ago, Benz3ne said:

Anyone here managed to film anything of the sort? Only seen the video linked kindly by Rizzoed.

I'll be able to do pulls through gears as of next week. Got mine booked in for remap at JBS Wednesday. Decided not to bother with the crackle over run though.

[Benz3ne]

Just now, steslatt said:

I'll be able to do pulls through gears as of next week. Got mine booked in for remap at JBS Wednesday. Decided not to bother with the crackle over run though.

That'd be ace, thanks! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on it too Yours a 95/5sp or 110/6sp?

[steslatt]

1 minute ago, Benz3ne said:

That'd be ace, thanks! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on it too Yours a 95/5sp or 110/6sp?

95/5sp. They've said it should see between 140-145bhp 🤞

[Carlston]

On 16/01/2020 at 13:50, steslatt said:

95/5sp. They've said it should see between 140-145bhp 🤞

 

SKODA FABIA NJ 2017 -

1.0 TSI

70 kW / 95 PS, 160 Nm (standard)

performance increase

capacity	999 cc
torque	240 Nm at 2000 rpm
More efficient	35 HP / 26 kW, 80 Nm

 

https://www.dtintecno.de/cars/1-0-tsi-70-kw-95-ps:14646

 

SKODA FABIA NJ 2017 -

1.0 TSI

81 kW / 110 PS, 200 Nm (standard)

performance increase

capacity	999 cc
torque	240 Nm at 2000 rpm
More efficient	20 HP / 15 kW, 40 Nm

 

https://www.dtintecno.de/cars/1-0-tsi-81-kw-110-ps:14647

[steslatt]

18 minutes ago, Carlston said:

 

SKODA FABIA NJ 2017 -

1.0 TSI

70 kW / 95 PS, 160 Nm (standard)

performance increase

capacity	999 cc
torque	240 Nm at 2000 rpm
More efficient	35 HP / 26 kW, 80 Nm

 

https://www.dtintecno.de/cars/1-0-tsi-70-kw-95-ps:14646

 

SKODA FABIA NJ 2017 -

1.0 TSI

81 kW / 110 PS, 200 Nm (standard)

performance increase

capacity	999 cc
torque	240 Nm at 2000 rpm
More efficient	20 HP / 15 kW, 40 Nm

 

https://www.dtintecno.de/cars/1-0-tsi-81-kw-110-ps:14647

 

[Benz3ne]

On 16/01/2020 at 13:47, steslatt said:

I'll be able to do pulls through gears as of next week. Got mine booked in for remap at JBS Wednesday. Decided not to bother with the crackle over run though.

Hope today has been a good day for you!

[Carlston]

On 17/01/2020 at 20:09, steslatt said:

 

 

The low down torque doesn't look good in that graph.

 

At 2,000rpm the engine is only producing 100lb-ft of torque. This is no where near its maximum torque of almost 170lb-ft. It's not an engine I would want to own. Many modern turbo petrol engines do produce good torque at 2,000rpm. Sadly, this remap doesn't. Maybe the remapper has done other things to this engine other than a remap. It could explain why "just" a remap is getting over 140HP when other remappers only get around 130HP. 130HP is much better than 140HP if you've got good low down torque.

 

Having strong torque at low revs is what you need for good drivability and good economy. I would want good torque from 1,500rpm, so even lower than 2,000rpm. If you can't accelerate smoothly and strongly from 40mph to 50mph in top gear, then it's not my kind of engine.

Edited 22 January, 2020 by Carlston

[steslatt]

2 hours ago, Benz3ne said:

Hope today has been a good day for you!

Yes very well, ended up with 142bhp and 186ftlb torque. The drive back was nice!

[steslatt]

7 minutes ago, Carlston said:

 

The low down torque doesn't look good in that graph.

 

At 2,000rpm the engine is only producing 100lb-ft of torque. This is no where near its maximum torque of almost 170lb-ft. It's not an engine I would want to own. Many modern turbo petrol engines do produce good torque at 2,000rpm. Sadly, this remap doesn't. Maybe the remapper has done other things to this engine other than a remap. It could explain why "just" a remap is getting over 140HP when other remappers only get around 130HP. 130HP is much better than 140HP if you've got good low down torque.

 

Having strong torque at low revs is what you need for good drivability and good economy. I would want good torque from 1,500rpm, so even lower than 2,000rpm. If you can't accelerate smoothly and strongly from 40mph to 50mph in top gear, then it's not my kind of engine.

I don't think you quite understand the graph. The black line is stock and the blue line is after remap. If you look at the torque lines at 2000rpm they are virtually identical. So saying you wouldn't want to own that engine is saying you wouldn't want to own the the standard 1.0tsi...

[steslatt]

Anyway, here's the graph.

[Benz3ne]

14 minutes ago, steslatt said:

Yes very well, ended up with 142bhp and 186ftlb torque. The drive back was nice!

Very nice figures there! Looking forward to your vids of in gear pulls etc!  no pressure. 
Woof! That graph looks really nice!

Edited 22 January, 2020 by Benz3ne

[steslatt]

Just now, Benz3ne said:

Very nice figures there! Looking forward to your vids of in gear pulls etc!  no pressure. 

I'll try do them at weekend. Need to figure out how to record while driving, I might need to get a suction mount for my phone.

[Carlston]

13 minutes ago, steslatt said:

I don't think you quite understand the graph. The black line is stock and the blue line is after remap. If you look at the torque lines at 2000rpm they are virtually identical. So saying you wouldn't want to own that engine is saying you wouldn't want to own the the standard 1.0tsi...

 

The black line and the blue line shows the power not the torque. Dynos measure torque not power. The power is calculated by multiplying the torque by the corresponding revs.

Edited 22 January, 2020 by Carlston

[steslatt]

3 minutes ago, Carlston said:

 

The black line and the blue line shows the power not the torque. Dynos measure torque not power. The power is calculated by multiplying the torque by the corresponding revs.

Dashed line represents torque and solid line represents bhp.

[Carlston]

15 minutes ago, steslatt said:

Dashed line represents torque and solid line represents bhp.

 

Your graph looks good. Much better than the previous two graphs especially the poor performing Seat Ibiza. Strong torque between 2,000rpm and 5,000rpm.

 

it's very strange that the Seat Ibiza only produces 100lb-ft of torque at 2,000rpm whereas your Skoda Fabia produces a massively better 150lb-ft of torque at the same revs.

 

Although the Seat Ibiza shows a peak power output of 144HP and your Skoda Fabia shows a peak power output of 142HP, your engine has much more power low down in the rev range where you need it most on the road.

Edited 22 January, 2020 by Carlston

[steslatt]

Just now, Carlston said:

 

Your graph look good. Much better than the previous two graphs especially the poor performing Seat Ibiza. Strong torque between 2,000rpm and 5,000rpm. If the graphs are accurate.

 

it's very strange that the Seat Ibiza only produces 100lb-ft of torque at 2,000rpm whereas your Skoda Fabia produces a massive 50% more torque at the same revs.

Yeah agreed, it is strange. You'd have thought the remap would be very similar across all the 1.0tsi engines.

[steslatt]

Though I did read somewhere that different engine codes, produce different amounts of torque. Mine being CHZB produces 170nm where others produce 160nm.

I don't know how true this is, it could be why there is some variation but I wouldn't have thought it was that much.

[Carlston]

18 minutes ago, steslatt said:

Though I did read somewhere that different engine codes, produce different amounts of torque. Mine being CHZB produces 170nm where others produce 160nm.

I don't know how true this is, it could be why there is some variation but I wouldn't have thought it was that much.

 

Your graph looks faked. 150lb-ft torque at exactly 2,000rpm and 5,000rpm. It looks too good to be true. Maybe get an independent test on a dyno elsewhere. I suspect the people involved in the remapping business are even more dishonest than estate agents.

Edited 22 January, 2020 by Carlston

[Benz3ne]

16 minutes ago, Carlston said:

 

Your graph looks faked. 150lb-ft torque at exactly 2,000rpm and 5,000rpm. It looks too good to be true. Maybe get an independent test on a dyno elsewhere. I suspect the people involved in the remapping business are even more dishonest than estate agents.

It’s not at exactly 5k rpm. It dips just below it. I don’t understand this statement unless you’ve found one which is identical elsewhere. 

[Carlston]

5 minutes ago, Benz3ne said:

It’s not at exactly 5k rpm. It dips just below it. I don’t understand this statement unless you’ve found one which is identical elsewhere. 

 

Almost exactly 5,000rpm. Could be a very skilled deceiver. Someone who tries to cover their tracks by dipping ever so slightly. If something looks too good to be true, it probably is.

[Benz3ne]

23 minutes ago, Carlston said:

 

Almost exactly 5,000rpm. Could be a very skilled deceiver. Someone who tries to cover their tracks by dipping ever so slightly. If something looks too good to be true, it probably is.

I don’t understand what’s ‘too good to be true’ about this. 95ps and ~120ftlb is commensurate with 140ps and 175-180ftlb. 
There are also examples of the Up! GTi making around the same and it has a very similar (if not the same) engine. 
I agree that dynos should be taken with a pinch of salt but there’s nothing that screams a red flag to me here.  
(legitimate discussion, btw. Not just me being an arse, for the record)

[Carlston]

20 minutes ago, Benz3ne said:

I don’t understand what’s ‘too good to be true’ about this. 95ps and ~120ftlb is commensurate with 140ps and 175-180ftlb. 
There are also examples of the Up! GTi making around the same and it has a very similar (if not the same) engine. 
I agree that dynos should be taken with a pinch of salt but there’s nothing that screams a red flag to me here.  
(legitimate discussion, btw. Not just me being an arse, for the record)

 

I wasn't focusing on peak power. I was focusing on the shape of the torque curve, particularly around 2,000rpm.

 

When some respected Germany tuning companies only manage to get 125HP to 130HP, you really need to ask yourself whether tuning companies claiming much higher figures of 140HP to 145HP are really telling the truth. If they really are getting that amount of power, then another question pops up. How are they doing it? For example, are they running the engines on a lean mix of petrol/air which could melt the pistons and spark plugs and possibly cause valve damage...or at the very least have a very negative effect on engine life?

 

The German tuning firm DigiTec are claiming 125HP and 235Nm of torque at a low 1,750rpm for a remapped VW Up! 90HP Turbo.

 

https://www.dtintecno.de/cars/1-0-tsi-66-kw-90-ps:12356

Edited 22 January, 2020 by Carlston

[Benz3ne]

3 minutes ago, Carlston said:

 

I wasn't focusing on peak power. I was focusing on the shape of the torque curve, particularly around 2,000rpm.

 

When some respected Germany tuning companies only manage to get 125HP to 130HP, you really need to ask yourself whether tuning companies claiming much higher figures of 140HP to 145HP are really telling the truth. If they really are getting that amount of power, then another question pops up. How are they doing it? For example, are they running the engines on a lean mix of petrol/air which could melt the pistons and spark plugs and possibly cause valve damage...or at the very least have a very negative effect on engine life?

 

The German tuning firm DigiTec are claiming 125HP and 235Nm of torque at a low 1,750rpm

 

https://www.dtintecno.de/cars/1-0-tsi-66-kw-90-ps:12356

Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s an older iteration of the engine right? I’m not aware of a 1.0tsi produced today that has ‘only’ 90ps stock peak power. 

[Carlston]

24 minutes ago, Benz3ne said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s an older iteration of the engine right? I’m not aware of a 1.0tsi produced today that has ‘only’ 90ps stock peak power. 

 

It may be an older version, but to produce 235Nm of torque at just 1,750rpm is really good.

 

Here's a Skoda Octavia 115HP remapped to 136HP

 

https://www.dtintecno.de/cars/1-0-tsi-85-kw-115-ps:14427

 

However, it looks like the Ford 1 litre petrol turbo engine is the best for power when remapped. Here the power of the 1 litre petrol turbo Ford engine in a Fiesta goes from 125HP to 150HP  with maximum torque of 240Nm produced at just 1,800rpm.

 

https://www.dtintecno.de/cars/1-0-ecoboost-88-kw-120-ps:4691

 

Renault have a new 1 litre petrol turbo engine. It will be interesting to see what that remaps to. However, I doubt it will beat the Ford engine.

Edited 22 January, 2020 by Carlston