Modifying Your Fabia MK III

[TheFozzy]

4 minutes ago, FabiaGonzales said:

Yep, hybrid turbo to 230bhp for example,

 

The big advantage of the 125ps 1.4TSI EA211 is that it is a drop in upgrade replacement for the 1.2TSI, same harness, same ecu, same everything pretty much.

 

The 140/150ps versions have additional gubbins such as active cylinder disabling and the addition of variable valve timing on the exhaust camshaft (the 125ps 1.4 and the 1.2s only have vvt on the intake camshaft).

 

Overall a lazy move from skoda (could have been an easy vrs model which would have sold well), but it does show how it's a valid option if your 1.2 lump blows up (at least thats how i see it with mine 😂 )

 

Unfortunate conclusion to yesterdays Turbo Tuesday, it's back to stock for the time being, as there's something wierd happening beyond the 4500 rpm mark, where beyond a certain boost level it closes off the throttle, the turbo's still trying to make boost and the ecu is still dumping fuel in as it goes mad rich at that point, it's just closing the throttle for whatever reason.

 

The other thing being wierd is the wastegate actuator, cycling it with vcds it moves perfectly fine, but in practice there's a gap where it's goes from being open to just shutting off and sending boost to the moon, so that wasn't helping things.

 

I'm swapping the actuator across from the old turbo, and the tuner is looking into the maps to see if there's something that's missing for whatever reason, perhaps there's a high rpm throttle map thats not showing up or something, who knows!

 

So it's booked in for 3 weeks time on the 20th, at that time it'll probably be having the secondary cat removed, unless something else happens and i get a custom downpipe but thats on the less likely side of things 😂

 

Its a shame skoda didn't make a MK3 Fabia VRS, though it would probably be another DSG petrol instead of a 6 speed.

 

Was the throttle issue happening on those power runs you posted yesterday or just in the safe 175bhp tune?

[Mickmartin]

1 hour ago, TheFozzy said:

 

Ah, thanks for enlightening me, isn't the 1.4tsi in the R5 edition the EA211 turbocharged one rather than the twin charged?

 

Not sure about engine codes etc of the R5 however having my head in the engine bay of and being a passenger in one, I can tell you the turbo is on the opposite side of the block, like the normal mk3 whilst the mk2 vrs is bolted at the front.

 

Not trying to be a an mk2 fanboy here(I am really) but there's more than enough good examples to show how good that little engine is, Early on in the life of the twin charger nobody knew how to fix them without spending a fortune, the DQ200 was new and particularly skoda would just replace engines and 3rd party parts weren't ready available. Now for example mk2 waterpump can be replaced for £60 which once cost £500+, Mechatronics and gearbox issues than once cost thousands can be fixed with a simple £40 part, Members on here have paid in excess of £3500 to have the mech fixed.

 

Still great news that the mk3 is now able to get the power it deserves, Now that there's examples of the mk2 vrs hitting 500bhp on the standard gearbox and clutch...….even more hope for the mk3.

 

 

 

 

Edited 30 September, 2020 by Mickmartin

[TheFozzy]

4 minutes ago, Mickmartin said:

 

Not sure about engine codes etc of the R5 however having my head in the engine bay of and being a passenger in one, I can tell you the turbo is on the opposite side of the block, like the normal mk3 whilst the mk2 vrs is bolted at the front.

 

Not trying to be a an mk2 fanboy here(I am really) but there's more than enough good examples to show how good that little engine is, Early on in the life of the twin charger nobody knew how to fix them without spending a fortune, the DQ200 was new and particularly skoda would just replace engines and 3rd party parts weren't ready available. Now for example mk2 waterpump can be replaced for £60 which once cost £500+, Mechatronics and gearbox issues than once cost thousands can be fixed with a simple £40 part, Members on here have paid in excess of £3500 to have the mech fixed.

 

Still great news that the mk3 is now able to get the power it deserves, Now that there's examples of the mk2 vrs hitting 500bhp on the standard gearbox and clutch...….even more hope for the mk3.

 

 

 

 

 

In which case, it's definitely the newer EA211 1.4TSI in the R5.  Though it would have made more sense to use the 150bhp version of that engine imo, but hey, that's what mods are for right?

 

Main reason I haven't been a fan of the twincharged 1.4 is after one of my family members had a £2k repair bill in 2014

[FabiaGonzales]

24 minutes ago, TheFozzy said:

 

In which case, it's definitely the newer EA211 1.4TSI in the R5.  Though it would have made more sense to use the 150bhp version of that engine imo, but hey, that's what mods are for right?

 

Main reason I haven't been a fan of the twincharged 1.4 is after one of my family members had a £2k repair bill in 2014

Yes, they unfortunately liked to crack pistons for whatever reason. Some engine codes worse for it than others.

 

With the tuning on my 1.2 the issue kinda starts once it hits around 130bhp and gets worse the higher yiu go, the throttle closes off above 4.5k bringing power and torque back down with it. It hit 208bhp at around 4850rpm when doing the benchmark runs at 1.5bar+ But it drops right back to 130 after 5000 rpm. Its like theres some boost or throttle map thats interfering but isnt showing up

Edited 30 September, 2020 by FabiaGonzales

[TheFozzy]

2 minutes ago, FabiaGonzales said:

Yes, they unfortunately liked to crack pistons for whatever reason.

 

The issue kinda starts once it hits around 130bhp and gets worse the higher yiu go, the throttle closes off above 4.5k bringing power and torque back down with it. It hit 208bhp at around 4850rpm when doing the benchmark runs at 1.5bar+ But it drops right back to 130 after 5000 rpm.

 

Just a wild thought, is it possible that the ecu is getting stack overflow and sending the wrong value to the throttle beyond a certain point?  Maybe there's a safety mechanism which is putting the engine in some form of limp mode beyond a certain point?

[Mickmartin]

25 minutes ago, FabiaGonzales said:

Yes, they unfortunately liked to crack pistons for whatever reason. Some engine codes worse for it than others.

 

With the tuning on my 1.2 the issue kinda starts once it hits around 130bhp and gets worse the higher yiu go, the throttle closes off above 4.5k bringing power and torque back down with it. It hit 208bhp at around 4850rpm when doing the benchmark runs at 1.5bar+ But it drops right back to 130 after 5000 rpm. Its like theres some boost or throttle map thats interfering but isnt showing up

 

They actually melt pistons if that makes it sound any better.

 

 

 

It sounds like your hitting a limiter, Not a full blown closure but a safety limit. Does VCDS show the maximum torque per gear as its possible running at 1.5 bar has caused it to hit the limiter. I know fords use data from the boost to close the throttle body/plate so yous could be similar?

 

 

[Kobayashi]

On 29/09/2020 at 13:54, FabiaGonzales said:

The hybrid 1.4 turbo should be a very sweet upgrade, probably around 200 mark, 1.3 bar is around the limit for a safe 24/7 map, the hybrid should hold it easily to high rpms, the ecu and sensor can do 1.5 bar boost but the torque that kicks out at lower revs is possibly just a bit too much. I'm surprised it hasn't torn through my clutch tbh 😂

 

It's costing me £400 in all, with £50 deposit then £350 on the day. Still here at the moment  

The Mk 3 as standard 110bhp has turbo lag I'm thinking of taking to ADE one day, can this lag be improved using the standard turbo? ADE worked wonders on my MK2 VRS (Cave)

[FabiaGonzales]

7 minutes ago, Kobayashi said:

The Mk 3 as standard 110bhp has turbo lag I'm thinking of taking to ADE one day, can this lag be improved using the standard turbo? ADE worked wonders on my MK2 VRS (Cave)

They might change the throttle response and such to try reduce it a little but idk how much it would help tbh

[Fab1493]

@Kobayashi I too dislike the lag! 

From what I can tell it isn't just the turbo lag, but also the throttle mapping. After months of research trying to change the throttle with OBD11 and getting nowhere, I bit the bullet and got a pedalbox. I know it isn't a popular opinion, but it is genuinely excellent. I have it turned up quite high because I like to have pretty close to 0 lag. 

I did enquire about lag when I went into JBS for custom mapping and they said they werent aware of how to get rid of it. Hence why I decided to get the pedalbox... 

[TheFozzy]

1 hour ago, Fab1493 said:

@Kobayashi I too dislike the lag! 

From what I can tell it isn't just the turbo lag, but also the throttle mapping. After months of research trying to change the throttle with OBD11 and getting nowhere, I bit the bullet and got a pedalbox. I know it isn't a popular opinion, but it is genuinely excellent. I have it turned up quite high because I like to have pretty close to 0 lag. 

I did enquire about lag when I went into JBS for custom mapping and they said they werent aware of how to get rid of it. Hence why I decided to get the pedalbox... 

 

Which pedal box did you end up going for?

[Fab1493]

9 minutes ago, TheFozzy said:

 

Which pedal box did you end up going for?

I got the most basic one from PedalBox/DTE.

[TheFozzy]

13 minutes ago, Fab1493 said:

I got the most basic one from PedalBox/DTE.

Ah ok, I thought you were referring to a replacement pedals kind of pedal box like the sort you would typically get from demon tweaks.

[Fab1493]

3 minutes ago, TheFozzy said:

Ah ok, I thought you were referring to a replacement pedals kind of pedal box like the sort you would typically get from demon tweaks.

Ah I get ya, nah I just wanted to change the throttle mapping. ...and it did so happy days 

[Aviii]

Do any of you guys with remaps think they're worth it? Does the increase in torque really help with the fuel consumption. Its probably been asked like 100 times as well, but does it do more damage to mechanics and that?

[RenzO]

I went from 90 horses to 130 horses so yes difference ^^

 

 

[Tim1631]

On 06/10/2020 at 14:49, RenzO said:

I went from 90 horses to 130 horses so yes difference ^^

 

 

 

Wow 130!

[shyVRS245]

2 minutes ago, Tim1631 said:

 

Wow 130!

It was enough in 2005 to feel nippy in my Mk1 Fabia Vrs diesel.

[RenzO]

40 minutes ago, Tim1631 said:

 

Wow 130!

This is not a supercar but it's better than original 😅

[Aviii]

would be quicker than a standard mk1 vrs i think

[TheFozzy]

Went and bought a few more bits for my car, including a Forge BOV and an unbranded silicone pipe to go along with it. (I did also buy a HKS style sequential BOV but it didn't fit so I'm sticking with the Forge BOV for now)

 

I also bought an engine cover for £20 off ali express, it was supposed to have a Skoda logo, but came with a VW logo so as a work around I used my spare tailgate emblem to cover that up (I ended up going for all black emblems on the exterior a while ago as the colored ones i bought have a slightly different shade of red which just didn't look right)  As the spare emblem was black and red, I wrapped the TSI text with some spare red vinyl tape and cut it to shape to match.

 

 

The next problem I had was the engine cover not fitting as 2 of the mounting points were supposed to mount to the OEM intake pipe.  The work around for this was taking some galvanized steel, cutting and bending it to size and mounting it using a a screw on the engine, in this case it was one that holds in one of the ignition coils.

 

 

Overall, the engine bay is looking pretty good now.  Maybe the Forge silicone pipe kit in red should be the next purchase for the engine bay...

[Jamez1095]

On 05/10/2020 at 13:02, Aviii said:

Do any of you guys with remaps think they're worth it? Does the increase in torque really help with the fuel consumption. Its probably been asked like 100 times as well, but does it do more damage to mechanics and that?

 

I think it's noticeably nippier. 90 to 130hp and 160nm to 215nm torque for me. Not really any noticeable difference with fuel consumption. 

 

I did a couple of little before and after tests but not by any accurate means. Rolling road is not really worth it with these numbers so this was more just  to check something had been done lol 

40 to 60mph in 5th gear was 13.25 seconds, now 11.4

30 to 60 mph in 4th gear was 13 now 11.8

I wish I did a 2nd gear 10 to 55 time as that I feel like would have dropped by a good couple of seconds.

[Aviii]

17 hours ago, Jamez1095 said:

 

I think it's noticeably nippier. 90 to 130hp and 160nm to 215nm torque for me. Not really any noticeable difference with fuel consumption. 

 

I did a couple of little before and after tests but not by any accurate means. Rolling road is not really worth it with these numbers so this was more just  to check something had been done lol 

40 to 60mph in 5th gear was 13.25 seconds, now 11.4

30 to 60 mph in 4th gear was 13 now 11.8

I wish I did a 2nd gear 10 to 55 time as that I feel like would have dropped by a good couple of seconds.

I'm debating whether or not to get one done, my insurance will be through the roof, so I'm trying to justify if an extra 20-30bhp is worth it. I already have a cone filter but I doubt it makes any difference.

[TheFozzy]

1 hour ago, Aviii said:

I'm debating whether or not to get one done, my insurance will be through the roof, so I'm trying to justify if an extra 20-30bhp is worth it. I already have a cone filter but I doubt it makes any difference.

The cone filter won't make much of a difference other than maybe 1-2 bhp, this was proven by mighty car mods.  The main effect that a cone filter has is induction noises. 

 

Considering a tune and dyno session usually costs about £400, that's quite a bit just for a 20-30bhp increase in my opinion.  This is why I'm waiting until I've fitted the 1.4tsi turbo which has been sat in a box for 4 months.

[Jamez1095]

2 hours ago, Aviii said:

I'm debating whether or not to get one done, my insurance will be through the roof, so I'm trying to justify if an extra 20-30bhp is worth it. I already have a cone filter but I doubt it makes any difference.

 

It's the torque increase too that helps make a difference, not to forget.  My remap was £230. And bumped my car insurance up £90 (working it out for the whole year) but it was only my second year of driving. I can understand there would be less improvements as you've got the 110 and not the 90 but maybe If you're expecting your car insurance to decrease a lot at renewal time, maybe hold off until then and then go for it.

[Aviii]

3 hours ago, TheFozzy said:

The cone filter won't make much of a difference other than maybe 1-2 bhp, this was proven by mighty car mods.  The main effect that a cone filter has is induction noises. 

 

Considering a tune and dyno session usually costs about £400, that's quite a bit just for a 20-30bhp increase in my opinion.  This is why I'm waiting until I've fitted the 1.4tsi turbo which has been sat in a box for 4 months.

 

Ah, I thought so, it does sound a lot nicer than standard. Another thing I could consider is the turbo, maybe I'll get one once the current one is on its last legs.

 

1 hour ago, Jamez1095 said:

 

It's the torque increase too that helps make a difference, not to forget.  My remap was £230. And bumped my car insurance up £90 (working it out for the whole year) but it was only my second year of driving. I can understand there would be less improvements as you've got the 110 and not the 90 but maybe If you're expecting your car insurance to decrease a lot at renewal time, maybe hold off until then and then go for it.

 

I think I may get a quote once my renewal is up but I have a feeling they're going to give silly prices as I already have a few mods done, just some wheels and springs. I have 4 years experience and 2 years no claims but they'll probably increase my premium somehow.