Re-mapping

[Fitzwilliam]

I did 60k in my Aygo, mainly tuition motoring for which it was adequate but I had another car for personal use, I could not have had the Aygo as my only car, above 50mph it was so noisy and unrefined, the harsh suspension transmitted so much road noise to the cabin that motorway driving very quickly gave me a headache, yes it is a little higher geared in each gear than the Citigo but it didn’t help refinement, the Citigo is in a totally different class in those areas in fact it rivals my previous Rapid 1.2tsi Sport for cruising refinement, and beats it for ride quality even though that had a 6 speed box and was a much larger car.

Over the years I’ve had lots of cars with 3 cylinder engines, several Suzuki’s, a Daihatsu, a Seat Arosa diesel and of course the Aygo, the Citigos engine is by far the smoothest and most refined and when pressed it produces the nicest sound as well, hope VW eventually put the turbo engine in the Citigo because apparently it’s a real gem.

[g6zru]

I can't comment about remapping the Citigo but I can offer my experience of both 59 and 75 engines as fitted in both of my wife's Seat Mii models.

Generally I couldn't tell the difference! The extra power is only generated at the top end of the rev range so unless you drive it to the limit in each gear the extra power will not be generated. I'd like to add that this is based on "normal" driving and not published figures. Why pay for something you unlikely to be able to use?

 

Fred

 

PS It is however a fun, economical attractive car. If you want more performance buy a VW Polo GTI! 

[ljstevenson1998]

This topic looks a bit dead but just for insight i had my citigo remaped and it went up to 88bhp on the dyno but everyones correct about the power mostly being increased at the top of the rev range

[Fitzwilliam]

4 minutes ago, ljstevenson1998 said:

This topic looks a bit dead but just for insight i had my citigo remaped and it went up to 88bhp on the dyno but everyones correct about the power mostly being increased at the top of the rev range

Be interested to know if you car is the 59 or 74bhp to begin with ? Also 88bhp seems pretty high just for a remap, the new 1litre Tsi Turbo engine is 89bhp, seems a bit implausible that normally aspirated could be as powerful.

[ljstevenson1998]

13 minutes ago, Fitzwilliam said:

Be interested to know if you car is the 59 or 74bhp to begin with ? Also 88bhp seems pretty high just for a remap, the new 1litre Tsi Turbo engine is 89bhp, seems a bit implausible that normally aspirated could be as powerful.

mine was the "59" one but before remaped on the rolling road it said it had 67. sure the 89 tsi ones can get up to 115 remaped

[Ootohere]

The Official max hp / Nm torque are actually the minimum that should be achieved at higher levels above sea level in extremes of temperatures.

 

So given in the UK you are not going above 4,000 above sea level and not in ambient temps above 30*oC you should be getting better than the minimum output.

The 89 ps TSI engine as dynoed in the UK should also put out more than 89 ps.

 

Simples to see what you can get with a remap, do it then dyno the car.

[ljstevenson1998]

6 minutes ago, Offski said:

The Official max hp / Nm torque are actually the minimum that should be achieved at higher levels above sea level in extremes of temperatures.

 

So given in the UK you are not going above 4,000 above sea level and not in ambient temps above 30*oC you should be getting better than the minimum output.

The 89 ps TSI engine as dynoed in the UK should also put out more than 89 ps.

 

Simples to see what you can get with a remap, do it then dyno the car.

As said above my car after the remap said it was producing 88bhp once put on a dyno again.

[Hyphons]

Are we speaking of power at the wheels or flywheel? My 59hp ran 78hp, but this was at the flywheel, which is about 60hp at the wheels, either that or the dyno is reading high, max I have seen is 83 at the wheels

[sportq]

On 5/9/2018 at 23:17, ljstevenson1998 said:

This topic looks a bit dead but just for insight i had my citigo remaped and it went up to 88bhp on the dyno but everyones correct about the power mostly being increased at the top of the rev range

@ljstevenson1998 where did you get the remap? I'm in central Scotland and would rather get a dongle that updates the map through the OBD2 port but I gather these are locked out now.

 

Peter

[ljstevenson1998]

6 minutes ago, sportq said:

@ljstevenson1998 where did you get the remap? I'm in central Scotland and would rather get a dongle that updates the map through the OBD2 port but I gather these are locked out now.

 

Peter

Im from newcastle way so mine was done at durham remaps which is like 30 mins from there. And tbh im not sure, had no experience so i couldn't  comment. Are they safe to use because if its the one im thinking of i thought it could damage your engine

[Ootohere]

If in Central Scotland or anyplace else these are the people to go talk to.

http://ecotune-scotland.co.uk 

Edited 18 May, 2018 by Offski

[Russ77]

On 5/10/2018 at 07:10, Offski said:

The Official max hp / Nm torque are actually the minimum that should be achieved at higher levels above sea level in extremes of temperatures.

 

So given in the UK you are not going above 4,000 above sea level and not in ambient temps above 30*oC you should be getting better than the minimum output.

The 89 ps TSI engine as dynoed in the UK should also put out more than 89 ps.

 

Simples to see what you can get with a remap, do it then dyno the car.

 

This makes total sense....... many moons ago I had a 1.8 petrol Focus, standard power output was quoted as 115bhp.  It ran 134bhp on a set of rollers known as "the ego killers" but wasn't modified in any way.

 

Did consider getting it remapped at the time but didn't think the 8-10bhp gain suggested warranted £250+.

 

Just for comparison.......  on the same day there standard Focus ST170s running around 160-165BHP but they weren't hitting the rev limiters.  The tuning shop dug around under the bonnet and found out the throttle mechanism (totally manual) wasn't opening fully but with a slight modification (bending it a bit) the cars were all hitting 175-180BHP........  gotta be the cheapest mod every for a few BHP 

[ljstevenson1998]

On 10/05/2018 at 09:04, Hyphons said:

Are we speaking of power at the wheels or flywheel? My 59hp ran 78hp, but this was at the flywheel, which is about 60hp at the wheels, either that or the dyno is reading high, max I have seen is 83 at the wheels

When i spoke to the guy doing it the dyno reading is at the wheels.

[Michaelski]

I was just "flicking" through this thread out of interest, but I have to agree that, having been in exactly the same situation as g6zru (2 October 2017), I totally support his unequivocal statement.    In 2015 I bought a 75 bhp SE-L Greentech, & I had it for 2 1/2 faultless years.    When I swapped it for another SE-L in Feb '18 (yeah, I was so impressed with it), I had initially intended to replace like-for-like.  In the event (dictated purely by preferring to buy one that was already at the Docks in Germany, rather than hanging on for another 3 months to have one built from scratch), I accepted one of the 60 bhp.  Now & after some 7 months/7k miles, I have to admit that (driven as most people do drive them) there simply ain't not, not no difference, & the 75 simply doesn't warrant the extra cost & the slight increased insurance premium.     Staying South of 4000 revs  (which most average drivers do) to me, there isn't any real advantage in having the 75 over the 60.     Mpg is just a "leedle" better with the 60, as the 75 is slightly lower geared than the 60, but (& it ees a beeg & pertinent but) to me, if the 75 bhp was such a potent firecracker of an unit, then surely Mr Skoda (or even Mrs Skoda, or any of the little Skodas) would have fitted this engine to their "supposedly" go like S H One T-off-a-stick machine - the Monte Carlo.  In the event, if you want a Monte Carlo, then you have to accept the 60 bhp engine, & that suits the car to a "T".  When I change again in '20, it will still be another Citigo but I may (just "may") opt for the turbo-charged unit from the Up - assuming that it's available - which I confidently expect that it will be.

The other factor that no-one seems to have yet mentioned is that unless one advises their Insurance Company (& then subsequently watch their premium go into out-of-earth orbit) if you re-map the engine & then have a bump & a claim, one could well learn that they're simply uninsured.   Food for thought indeed! 

[Vitas]

I can say that for every day use, the 60 suffices down to the way the engine is designed anyway. You'll never see the full 60 horsepower anyway. Especially since you can be in 5th gear by 30. As a matter of fact you'll only get 60 horsepower at 5000 rpm which is when the VVT shuts off. The 75 gets the VVT all the way to to redline. So you'll only notice the power difference if you belt down the country lanes on the regular (like I do)

[Fitzwilliam]

I'm in full agreement that the 75PS is probably not worth the extra money over the 60PS, initial purchase price plus extra insurance and possibly having a little road tax to pay rather than none at all. All lot of magazine road tests usually say if you do lots of motorway driving go for the 75, utter garbage, for one the 60 has slightly higher gearing so less revs at motorway speeds, managed to find a definitive spec for gearing albeit for the move up 60 which quoted 3400rpm at 120kph, you can do the math. 3400 is quite close to the torque peak so speed stability at motorway speeds is good, I use the cruise control on mine and it never drops more than 1-2 mph from the set speed on motorway upgrades.

In brisk driving if you stay between 3500 and 5000 it covers the ground at a decent lick.. I only really find mine lacking under 2000rpm where the pull is weak and the engine smoothness (or lack of it) shows its a 3 pot.

As for the guy hoping for a turbo version of the Citigo, dream on, VW would stunt their Up! TSi sales and make less money. Why do you think there's no Fabia VRS anymore.

With regard to rated BHP check Celtic Tuning, they dyno'd a standard 59bhp version prior to remapping and it actually had 65bhp to start with.

Edited 8 September, 2018 by Fitzwilliam

[Miller73]

3 hours ago, Fitzwilliam said:

I'm in full agreement that the 75PS is probably not worth the extra money over the 60PS, initial purchase price plus extra insurance and possibly having a little road tax to pay rather than none at all. All lot of magazine road tests usually say if you do lots of motorway driving go for the 75, utter garbage, for one the 60 has slightly higher gearing so less revs at motorway speeds, managed to find a definitive spec for gearing albeit for the move up 60 which quoted 3400rpm at 120kph, you can do the math. 3400 is quite close to the torque peak so speed stability at motorway speeds is good, I use the cruise control on mine and it never drops more than 1-2 mph from the set speed on motorway upgrades.

In brisk driving if you stay between 3500 and 5000 it covers the ground at a decent lick.. I only really find mine lacking under 2000rpm where the pull is weak and the engine smoothness (or lack of it) shows its a 3 pot.

As for the guy hoping for a turbo version of the Citigo, dream on, VW would stunt their Up! TSi sales and make less money. Why do you think there's no Fabia VRS anymore.

With regard to rated BHP check Celtic Tuning, they dyno'd a standard 59bhp version prior to remapping and it actually had 65bhp to start with.

 

Thus why the new Polo's base engine is rated at that.