So have been thinking a lot about a remap... here is a sample graph from the dyno that PerformanceRemap showed me of their stage 1 for the 1.2 TSi (105)...

 

I'm no expert so what are peoples thoughts/observations?

 

From what I can see the 105 actually had 109bhp to start with. And I'm wondering about the flat spot around 4000rpm in both the BHP and torque?

 

I realize this is a silly question but what would the difference be.... post map, drive wise?

One thing I notice is that the temperature rose 4 degrees C between runs but the barometric pressure remained the same.

Dyno's have been in correctional factors that account for those 2 variables.

 

It also looks like 2 stock power runs and 2 stage 1 power  runs were completed but only 2 torque results are show - just seems like odd inconsistancies.

Display shows 3 lines per run. I'm thinking, Power at wheels, Power at Crank, Torque.

 

The 9 dgrees is cooler than ISA (international standard atmosphere) so it should beat the factory 105PS (103.5bhp) figure which would almost certainly be tested at higher ambient. The subsequent increase in ambient is actually penalising the tuned run so the gain is possibly more than shown.

 

To see how quick these chipped 1.2 are search on youtube.

 

Also I have seen stock Rapid 1.2/105 engines dyno'd at 116PS by Czech magazines before now.

 

Revo offer more outright power I think, but for sheer value Racechip offer +14bhp +35Nm for Euro149 with a tuning box instead of map.

 

 

 

 

Edited 29 January, 20188 yr by camelspyyder

10 minutes ago, camelspyyder said:

Display shows 3 lines per run. I'm thinking, Power at wheels, Power at Crank, Torque.

 

To see how quick these chipped 1.2 are search on youtube.

 

Also I have seen stock Rapid 1.2/105 engines dyno'd at 116PS by Czech magazines before now.

 

Revo offer more outright power I think, but for sheer value Racechip offer 14bhp for Euro149 with a tuning box instead of map.

 

 

 

 

The reason I’m thinking about the remap is because the white one we had felt so much quicker than the black one! I was wondering if it had been remapped and thus the difference in feel. Does the greentech version have a different map? Or was the white one running more power like the one you mentioned...

14 minutes ago, camelspyyder said:

Display shows 3 lines per run. I'm thinking, Power at wheels, Power at Crank, Torque.

 

To see how quick these chipped 1.2 are search on youtube.

 

Also I have seen stock Rapid 1.2/105 engines dyno'd at 116PS by Czech magazines before now.

 

Revo offer more outright power I think, but for sheer value Racechip offer +14bhp +35Nm for Euro149 with a tuning box instead of map.

 

 

 

 

To my eyes the map looks quite smooth. My understanding of the tuning box was they mimic the original curve - but I could be very mislead on that.

1 hour ago, camelspyyder said:

Display shows 3 lines per run. I'm thinking, Power at wheels, Power at Crank, Torque.

 

The 9 dgrees is cooler than ISA (international standard atmosphere) so it should beat the factory 105PS (103.5bhp) figure which would almost certainly be tested at higher ambient. The subsequent increase in ambient is actually penalising the tuned run so the gain is possibly more than shown.

 

To see how quick these chipped 1.2 are search on youtube.

 

Also I have seen stock Rapid 1.2/105 engines dyno'd at 116PS by Czech magazines before now.

 

Revo offer more outright power I think, but for sheer value Racechip offer +14bhp +35Nm for Euro149 with a tuning box instead of map.

 

 

 

 

I would appreciate your thoughts on this dyno::

 

It would be easier to read if the Bhp and torque scales were at opposite ends of the graph, but it shows a good increase in power and torque. I'm not sure if this Beetle engine is identical to an Ibiza/Toledo/Rapid/Fabia one, but Google list of VW engines will clarify that. One thing I've never seen on these graphs is an extension of the rev range. The 1.2 with it's tiny turbo seems to run out of puff at 6000. Even the graphs for Revo's 144bhp drop dead at the same revs as stock.

 

EDIT: Wiki says all are EA111 8v chain-cam CBZB (105PS) engines - allso in Polo Mk5 Golf Mk6 Octy Yeti Audi A1 blah blah blah.

 

 

Edited 29 January, 20188 yr by camelspyyder
New data

12 hours ago, john2017 said:

I would appreciate your thoughts on this dyno::

 

 

The troque looks very different to the one I posted... and there looks like a couple of dips in the curve (not very smooth) but I’m no expert...

11 hours ago, camelspyyder said:

It would be easier to read if the Bhp and torque scales were at opposite ends of the graph, but it shows a good increase in power and torque. I'm not sure if this Beetle engine is identical to an Ibiza/Toledo/Rapid/Fabia one, but Google list of VW engines will clarify that. One thing I've never seen on these graphs is an extension of the rev range. The 1.2 with it's tiny turbo seems to run out of puff at 6000. Even the graphs for Revo's 144bhp drop dead at the same revs as stock.

 

EDIT: Wiki says all are EA111 8v chain-cam CBZB (105PS) engines - allso in Polo Mk5 Golf Mk6 Octy Yeti Audi A1 blah blah blah.

 

 

The torque on the performance remap looks loads more than the Celtic tune...

I never got round to re-mapping either of my 1.2 TSi Rapid's, but can highly recommend Shark

 

I've also previously had Jabba and Revo remaps, both of which differed somewhat in day to day driving.  The Revo was much more sudden / abrupt, but tailed off further up the rev range, whereas my current (Shark) map is perhaps a little more subtle in its power delivery, but continues to pull strongly right up to the red-line.

 

Shark are local to me and the ability to talk through various options (face-to-face) is what swayed me to Shark, when it became apparent my current Yeti required it's EA189 update removing.

 

Best of luck with whichever company you choose to go with - increased insurance premiums have been the only downside of >100k miles covered in various remapped vehicles over the last few years.

 

Edited 30 January, 20188 yr by pinkpanther
Syntax