Jump to content

Re-mapping


Kingy01

Recommended Posts

Hi, has anyone in the community re-mapped their Citigo? I have the 59BHP version and as I use it for my daily commute, I'm looking to increase the power of the car as I do find it lags at times when it is really needed. If anyone has any good contacts or can give any advice, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SC03OTT said:

It's a small, NA engine. You're not going to see the gains/results you're hoping for. 

I beg to differ, if you plan on keeping the car for the long haul, it's worth it, if you're not, then I wouldn't say it's worth the costs, if you are interested, it's Celtic Tuning who do the Citigo remap. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're certainly not going to see the gains that you would with remapping a turbo diesel, but it might be worth it on the Citigo.

 

In simple terms the difference between the 59bhp and 74bhp engines is that the electronics on the 59 limit the opening of the butterfly in the inlet, effectively constraining the amount of air flowing into the engine.  If you look at the dyno curves for both engines, you'll see that they are pretty much identical until 5,000rpm when the 59 flattens off.

 

A remap on this engine will basically allow the butterfly to open as it would on the 74 and the power to continue to build above 5000rpm

 

The Superchips graph shows it quite well (though I'm not 100% convinced by their 82bhp claim

 

http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/VWUP!60PS.pdf

 

To help you decide on whether it's worth you doing it, it might be worth noting how often you're above 5000rpm. When I started noting the RPM, the answer was not very often at all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 18/08/2017 at 10:05, Gyp said:

(though I'm not 100% convinced by their 82bhp claim)

 

http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/VWUP!60PS.pdf

 

To help you decide on whether it's worth you doing it, it might be worth noting how often you're above 5000rpm. When I started noting the RPM, the answer was not very often at all

That power graph looks like it was done on my son's Etch A Sketch :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Citigouk said:

That power graph looks like it was done on my son's Etch A Sketch :)

 

I know it's a bit rubbish but it's the clearest graph to show the difference between the two that I've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Gyp said:

 

I know it's a bit rubbish but it's the clearest graph to show the difference between the two that I've seen.

Here's one I made earlier :D 

 

Final_zpsn6bqaiw8.png

 

This is my own comparison of 2015 v 2016 

 

Things to bare in mind, both years had a K&N air filter, 2015 was without a remap, 2016 was with

2016 had a custom air intake but this had a split in it, something at the time I didn't know, so this may have effected the end result, I also had a full exhaust done, but as this was a straight through exhaust (and a massive mistake) power was probably lost there too, I will be doing another rolling road this year, with just a custom air filter / intake setup

Edited by Hyphons
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm quite interested in the Celtic Tuning Remap as, unlike the Superchips graph which only gives more power at the very top end, the Celtic remap gives a torque boost at low to medium revs which is what the engine really needs.

 

https://www.celtictuning.co.uk/services/performance-stats/volkswagen/up-2012/petrol/1-0-12v-59-bhp-2012-ECU-remap-chiptuning/stage-1#t3-content

Click on where it says View Chart for power/torque curves.

For £295 for the conversion done at your home it seems like a no brainer to me.

Edited by Fitzwilliam
Extra info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would take Celtic's claimed 25% torque increase with a very large dose of salt.

 

Spend the cash instead on some top class tyres or dampers. Much more fun going round corners faster than just faster in a straight line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ronime, the percentage torque increase quoted is their measured torque after remap compared to VW/Skoda spec of 70 lbft, if you check the dyno graph the engine tested already had more power and torque than VW spec to start with, 65bhp and 78lbft, an extra 14bhp and 9lbft of torque are still worth having imo.

The torque improvement below 2500rpm, where it's really needed is even greater and should considerably improve  driveability. I think it's worth the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fitzwilliam said:

Don't suppose it matters provided they use the same test before and after.

 

It does matter. Repeatability is not the rolling road dyno's strong point and the graphs can be skewed by manipulation of tyre pressures, calibration speed, selected gear and how the engine is accelerated for the test run. It's a shady practice known as "swinging the dyno" and the so-called  tuning industry is notorious for it.

 

That aside, I can tell you as a matter of fact that a 9 ftlbft low increase in torque in a 900kg car is not going to rock your world. Spend your hard-earned money wisely. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tbh I've only had the Citigo for 2 days and I have to say I'm pretty impressed with how it performs particularly as the miles i've done so far, mainly short journeys and town driving show a 56 mpg average on the trip computer. The reason I'm interested in the remap is I've had considerably more performance from my last 2 cars, a Skoda Rapid Tsi Sport and before that a Fabia VRS 1.9Tdi, both of them pulled with real vigour from 1500rpm which is where the Citigo could use some help. I'm not going to rush into getting a remap, although Celtic do offer a 14 day refund if you're not satisfied with the improvements.

I think the 75 has a slightly lower final drive which is helpful for better acceleration but I'm not sure if that's true of the auto version.

Edited by Fitzwilliam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just accept the Citigo for what it is - a pleasant, economical little city car. It has no sporting pretensions.

 

In the last 10 years we have owned three turbocharged cars - Golf TDI, Leon TSI and now a BMW 320i TwinPower. All with at least 250Nm of torque with maximum torque available around 2,000rpm.

 

We have also owned three normally aspirated cars - Mazda MX-5, MINI Cooper and Skoda Citigo. All with very much less than 250Nm of torque and maximum torque generated somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000rpm.

 

The turbocharged and normally aspirated cars are like chalk and cheese. Even after spending a four-figure sum rebuilding and tuning the MX-5 engine it was never anything like the shove-in-the-back experience of the turbocharged cars.

 

I have recently been driving an Ibiza 1.0 TSI 110PS DSG as a hire car in the Canary Islands. This powertrain is delightful and would be awesome in a Citigo, I'm sure.

Edited by ronime
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 08/09/2017 at 10:42, ronime said:

 

The turbocharged and normally aspirated cars are like chalk and cheese. 

 

 

100% and why turbo cars IMHO are better 'real world' performance..... high revving VTEC systems make you look like a tit driving around near the redline searching for the horses.

 

The citigo is a very economical and reliable N/A engine, it does what its supposed to do...... remapping it seems to be waste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a related note in appears the new 2018 polo has the same engine for the base spec models but it is quoted at 65PS. I wonder if they have actually tweaked it up from 60, or as has been quoted on here before from people who have had it tested it actually produces 65 stock and they have just gone with that figure now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Miller73 said:

On a related note in appears the new 2018 polo has the same engine for the base spec models but it is quoted at 65PS. I wonder if they have actually tweaked it up from 60, or as has been quoted on here before from people who have had it tested it actually produces 65 stock and they have just gone with that figure now?

More than likely to do with the mapping of the ECU, you could make the 59 up to a 75 model, or a 69 model and so on, my 59 ran 73 with just a K&N panel filter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Power outputs as sold, 60 ps, 75ps etc are showing as Max PS / HP. Torque, but they are Minimum expected in different weathers / temperatures / altitudes / fuel qualities.

UK must be ideal conditions of below 4,000 ft above sea level, temps never below -20 or above 35*oC and fuel 95 ron minimum of a good quality 

so any vehicle should be performing better than the minimum while being driven in the UK surely.

If in doubt put them on a Dyno if it matters, if you do not drive places on rolling roads, then just drive on roads.

 

A few weeks time and Winter Spec Fuels will start arriving at filling stations in the UK, starting first in Scotland & North of England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The high revving Honda i-VTEC engines imo are totally out of place in a cooking medium sized saloon or hatchback, 3 years ago I owned a Honda Jazz 1.4 SE,  (99PS and 94lb/ft) who’s average buyer age is 60+, for that age of driver the requirement is not to have maximum torque arriving at 4800 rpm where it will never get used in day to day driving. The upshot is a totally gutless performance at low revs, even at medium revs it was lacklustre with no real urgency until 4k was exceeded. I also disliked the fact that Honda call an engine with 1339ccs a 1.4   Tbh my Citigo has more low and midrange punch even though it’s higher geared, not only that but it cruises quieter at 70 on the motorway as well at 2-300rpm less than the Jazz. It’s about time they phased that engine out and replaced it with a small capacity turbo engine with decent low end grunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My previous car (2008 Toyota Aygo @120k miles) was gutless compared to the Citigo.

 

The Citigo can climb most hills in a gear taller than the Aygo.

 

Fuel consumption is similar though, 59.5mpg in the Aygo and (after 19k miles) 60.9mpg in the Citigo.

 

I did have a 1.7litre  Lupo diesel and that averaged 67.7mpg during 110k miles.

 

The lower gearing of the 75Citigo should aid torque.

 

At lower engine speeds the torque is identical, so it won't be worth the effort unless you're regularly using higher speeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Community Partner

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to BRISKODA. Please note the following important links Terms of Use. We have a comprehensive Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.