New model should also feature LED lights and not the xenons on current model. Not sure what fuel you guys (current 280 owners) are using but Shell V-Power or Tesco Momentum should give at least the 7bhp increase I saw with my 245. Then there is always a remap which saw my Octavia improve from 37mpg over the first 7,000miles to average 41mpg since mapping 7 months ago. Current mileage is just over 14,000 and the savings in the 10% increase in tank range is slowly paying for  the £500 cost of the remap.

10 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

New model should also feature LED lights and not the xenons on current model. Not sure what fuel you guys (current 280 owners) are using but Shell V-Power or Tesco Momentum should give at least the 7bhp increase I saw with my 245. Then there is always a remap which saw my Octavia improve from 37mpg over the first 7,000miles to average 41mpg since mapping 7 months ago. Current mileage is just over 14,000 and the savings in the 10% increase in tank range is slowly paying for  the £500 cost of the remap.

Is that real mpg (amount of fuel put in the tank divided by miles driven) or mpg as reported by the on-board computer?

 

Reported mpg can't be relied on with any kind of remapping/tuning boxes because sometimes the remap delivers more fuel than it tells the computer, which then thinks the mpg is better than it really is...

3 minutes ago, IanJD said:

Is that real mpg (amount of fuel put in the tank divided by miles driven) or mpg as reported by the on-board computer?

 

Reported mpg can't be relied on with any kind of remapping/tuning boxes because sometimes the remap delivers more fuel than it tells the computer, which then thinks the mpg is better than it really is...

Last 4,770 miles driven using 528.94 litres (116.35gallons) at an average (brim to brim) 40.99MPG. I never rely on the trip computer although mine is pretty accurate. LONG TERM currently showing 41.3MPG over 3,000 miles. Hope that clarifies.

2 hours ago, IanJD said:

Is that real mpg (amount of fuel put in the tank divided by miles driven) or mpg as reported by the on-board computer?

 

Reported mpg can't be relied on with any kind of remapping/tuning boxes because sometimes the remap delivers more fuel than it tells the computer, which then thinks the mpg is better than it really is...

With a box that would be the case as fuel tables are spoofed but wouldn't a remap from a respected tuner work in harmony with the ECU, and fuelling? 

11 hours ago, penguin17 said:

With a box that would be the case as fuel tables are spoofed but wouldn't a remap from a respected tuner work in harmony with the ECU, and fuelling? 

Also a remap makes the engine more efficient as it is optimised for that specific engine and being able to use a higher gear at any given speed REDUCES fuel consumption. There appears 2 MYTHS that are constantly used talking about remaps (usually by people who have never actually had one done) AND THE FIRST is the assumption that more power and torque results in higher fuel consumption. At normal speeds on normal roads a remapped car will use less fuel as I have shown with my car (brim to brim comparison) over 2 periods of 7 months and 7,000 miles on each occasion. My average tank range when standard was 400 miles but now it is 450 miles. This is saving me £17 per month in fuel not used so after 30 months this saving will have paid for the remap (£500). As I intend to keep the car for at least 10 years this is eventually mean that the annual road tax of £140 will be paid for by the monthly fuel saving. MYTH number 2 is reliability. I have had a clutch fail on a manual Superb diesel at 11,000 miles with 138bhp (replaced under warranty). I have also read about turbo failures on 22,000 mile standard VRS Tsi. Unless you have tried a remap over considerable time and distance then you shouldn't comment about this area as experience is everything.

22 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

Also a remap makes the engine more efficient as it is optimised for that specific engine and being able to use a higher gear at any given speed REDUCES fuel consumption. There appears 2 MYTHS that are constantly used talking about remaps (usually by people who have never actually had one done) AND THE FIRST is the assumption that more power and torque results in higher fuel consumption. At normal speeds on normal roads a remapped car will use less fuel as I have shown with my car (brim to brim comparison) over 2 periods of 7 months and 7,000 miles on each occasion. My average tank range when standard was 400 miles but now it is 450 miles. This is saving me £17 per month in fuel not used so after 30 months this saving will have paid for the remap (£500). As I intend to keep the car for at least 10 years this is eventually mean that the annual road tax of £140 will be paid for by the monthly fuel saving. MYTH number 2 is reliability. I have had a clutch fail on a manual Superb diesel at 11,000 miles with 138bhp (replaced under warranty). I have also read about turbo failures on 22,000 mile standard VRS Tsi. Unless you have tried a remap over considerable time and distance then you shouldn't comment about this area as experience is everything.

Agreed. When doing 25k a year the Revo remap I had paid for itself (and then some), over 3 years. So the additional fun factor was free 

 

Not one fault code, sensor fault or EML light in that time too.  Let’s just say the ‘undetectable’ tuning box on another car left lots of ‘fueling’ and ‘boost pressure’ clues. Of course the remap could lead to a TD1 flag but if that’s an issue then don’t remap the car. Simple. 

 

If you lack mechanical sympathy or just have bad luck then you can destroy clutches etc without the presence of a remap. 

Edited 11 October, 20187 yr by penguin17

I wasn't saying that remaps/boxes can't improve consumption as well as performance, just that some of them (not all) lie about it on the OBC, and drivers who believe the resulting massive mpg increases (and shout about it on forums, and on tuning box websites...) are being misled. A properly done remap should be able to get better consumption (still accurate on the OBC) as well as performance; a tuning box is less likely to do so, especially keeping the OBC mpg accurate.

 

But actual consumption results (like a couple quoted above) are needed, not just OBC readings. Don't forget that a true comparison has to be done after the engine is well run in (not comparing original map from new and modified map afterwards) since many people report mpg increasing anyway over the first few thousand miles...

49 minutes ago, IanJD said:

I some of them (not all) lie about it on the OBC,

I think with boxes it's  *all* of them that cause even more unreliable OBC readings.  That's how the boxes work, they intercept the signals and 'amplify' them. eg. Driver presses accelerator and sensors send a request to the ECU to say this much boost/air/fuel is required to meet those needs but the tuning box requests more boost/air/fuel in order to get a bigger bang.  The ECU thinks it's only sent x amount of fuel but the tuning box has intercepted the signal and requested even more.  So there's always a disparity with what the ECU thinks it's done and what actually happens when the tuning box does it's thing.   It's basically spoofing the ECU.  

 

With a remap you've actually altered the ECU so it should 'know' exactly what's going on.  The OBC could still be inaccurate but it would likely be out by the same % as before the remap was carried out. 

 

Sorry to go OT, let's keep this 272/280-centric for the OP's benefit.  

Edited 11 October, 20187 yr by penguin17

6 minutes ago, penguin17 said:

I think with boxes it's  *all* of them that cause even more unreliable OBC readings.  That's how the boxes work, they intercept the signals and 'amplify' them. eg. Driver presses accelerator and sensors send a request to the ECU to say this much boost/air/fuel is required to meet those needs but the tuning box requests more boost/air/fuel in order to get a bigger bang.  The ECU thinks it's only sent x amount of fuel but the tuning box has intercepted the signal and requested even more.  So there's always a disparity with what the ECU thinks it's done and what actually happens when the tuning box does it's thing.   It's basically spoofing the ECU.  

 

With a remap you've actually altered the ECU so it should 'know' exactly what's going on.  The OBC could still be inaccurate but it would likely be out by the same % as before the remap was carried out. 

 

Sorry to go OT, let's keep this 272/280-centric for the OP's benefit.  

Appreciate the extra info. Lots of what I've read have suggested that pedal box is a necessary addition for the 280/272. Being new to the idea do you know if there's a risk of the box breaking down mid journey and cutting the accelerator altogether or is there a bypass in the event the box fails?

10 minutes ago, Fantantonio said:

Appreciate the extra info. Lots of what I've read have suggested that pedal box is a necessary addition for the 280/272. Being new to the idea do you know if there's a risk of the box breaking down mid journey and cutting the accelerator altogether or is there a bypass in the event the box fails?

I was referring to a tuning box, not a pedal box.  Though the pedal box is similar in that it just alters signals.  e.g you press the accelerator 10% and the box amplifies the signal to 40%, for example.  People often argue that you can just press the accelerator 40% to begin with BUT it's not just the angle of the accelerator pedal, the signals are also sped up so the response times are much improved.  It doesn't alter the overall BHP/torque of the car but it undoubtedly feels like the car is sharper and more willing to accelerate.  All driver perception of course.  Having used one previously they definitely work and really do improve the overall driving experience.  

 

I've not yet felt the need to get one on the 280 but when I have some spare pocket money, I may get another. 

 

EDIT: If the box fails there's usually a setting to bypass the box but in honesty they are so easy to fit/remove that I would just remove it altogether if you suspected an issue.  I mean it takes seconds to disconnect the boxes connector/harness and refit the OEM connector back into the throttle body.  I ran mine for over a year and it worked flawlessly.  Sold it on here when I switched cars and the new owner also rated the box and it's been trouble free for him too. 

Edited 11 October, 20187 yr by penguin17

59 minutes ago, IanJD said:

I wasn't saying that remaps/boxes can't improve consumption as well as performance, just that some of them (not all) lie about it on the OBC, and drivers who believe the resulting massive mpg increases (and shout about it on forums, and on tuning box websites...) are being misled. A properly done remap should be able to get better consumption (still accurate on the OBC) as well as performance; a tuning box is less likely to do so, especially keeping the OBC mpg accurate.

 

But actual consumption results (like a couple quoted above) are needed, not just OBC readings. Don't forget that a true comparison has to be done after the engine is well run in (not comparing original map from new and modified map afterwards) since many people report mpg increasing anyway over the first few thousand miles...

My best recorded trip over the first 7,000 miles (nicely run-in) was 47.4MPG, BUT AFTER the remap my best was 53.5MPG, QUITE A SIGNIFICANT increase which can't be just explained by the engine just having loosened up a bit.

18 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

My best recorded trip over the first 7,000 miles (nicely run-in) was 47.4MPG, BUT AFTER the remap my best was 53.5MPG, QUITE A SIGNIFICANT increase which can't be just explained by the engine just having loosened up a bit.

All I said was that some people have claimed big before-and-after improvements without allowing for running in, which we already know makes a big difference with VAG engines since the ECU map changes with mileage -- if you didn't fall into that trap, good. As I'm sure you know, a single "best trip" result is also meaningless unless you know that the traffic and weather and load and average speed and acceleration/braking were exactly the same, which means driving under closely controlled conditions.

 

To get a valid "mpg improvement from remap" result you really need to compare average consumption over a long period, which ideally means a whole year (to exclude seasonal weather differences) before and after a remap -- assuming the weather isn't different year to year, which isn't guaranteed nowadays...

 

I'm not just nit-picking here, but there are literally thousands of examples of people being convinced that something makes a difference (because they *know* it does, and they've paid money for it...) where they're proved wrong when the results are carefully checked -- it's called "bias of expectation". It's perfectly possible that your remap does improve mpg significantly, but "my best trip result was 6mpg better" isn't proof of this unless you know that the conditions of the two trips were EXACTLY THE SAME -- see, I can use capitals too ;-)

 

Show me average results recorded over a long period before and after the remap (with comparable conditions) and *then* I'll believe the improvement :-)

1 hour ago, IanJD said:

All I said was that some people have claimed big before-and-after improvements without allowing for running in, which we already know makes a big difference with VAG engines since the ECU map changes with mileage -- if you didn't fall into that trap, good. As I'm sure you know, a single "best trip" result is also meaningless unless you know that the traffic and weather and load and average speed and acceleration/braking were exactly the same, which means driving under closely controlled conditions.

 

To get a valid "mpg improvement from remap" result you really need to compare average consumption over a long period, which ideally means a whole year (to exclude seasonal weather differences) before and after a remap -- assuming the weather isn't different year to year, which isn't guaranteed nowadays...

 

I'm not just nit-picking here, but there are literally thousands of examples of people being convinced that something makes a difference (because they *know* it does, and they've paid money for it...) where they're proved wrong when the results are carefully checked -- it's called "bias of expectation". It's perfectly possible that your remap does improve mpg significantly, but "my best trip result was 6mpg better" isn't proof of this unless you know that the conditions of the two trips were EXACTLY THE SAME -- see, I can use capitals too ;-)

 

Show me average results recorded over a long period before and after the remap (with comparable conditions) and *then* I'll believe the improvement :-)

First trip was Coalville to Cardiff on a Bank Holiday Saturday in August 2017 and second trip was Coalville to Grays, Essex on a Friday in July 2018, both warm days (24 degrees C). Cardiff was 137 miles and Grays 134 miles so no not identical journeys but very similar weather conditions.

1 hour ago, shyVRS245 said:

First trip was Coalville to Cardiff on a Bank Holiday Saturday in August 2017 and second trip was Coalville to Grays, Essex on a Friday in July 2018, both warm days (24 degrees C). Cardiff was 137 miles and Grays 134 miles so no not identical journeys but very similar weather conditions.

Same average speed, same traffic? In my experience, a Bank Holiday Saturday in August usually means bad traffic which means lower mpg ;-)

 

Either way, comparing one journey is always dodgy to draw conclusions about mpg from. Lots of journeys under similar conditions are much better. Or guaranteed identical journeys on a rolling road.

 

I'm still not saying you're wrong about getting better mpg after the remap, but if it was that easy to get 13% more mpg just by changing the map don't you think every single car manufacturer would already be doing it, given the amount of trouble they have meeting CO2 standards?

 

In the end you squirt a given amount of fuel into the cylinders and ignite it with a spark and burn all of it (emissions regs make this mandatory), and the timing of both these (and valves, and boost, and other things like EGR) is often adaptive anyway in modern engines. Manufacturers spend thousands of expert engineer man-hours playing with the ECU to optimise power and economy and emissions, and I very much doubt there's anything like 13% left lying on the table -- because if there was they'd pick it and reduce CO2 emissions by 12% at a stroke. and get a nice big pat on the head from their bosses :-)

 

More power and torque, yes that's easily believable because manufacturers have to play safe. Significantly lower fuel consumption (13%) under identical conditions, that's not so believable...

1 hour ago, IanJD said:

Same average speed, same traffic? In my experience, a Bank Holiday Saturday in August usually means bad traffic which means lower mpg ;-)

 

Either way, comparing one journey is always dodgy to draw conclusions about mpg from. Lots of journeys under similar conditions are much better. Or guaranteed identical journeys on a rolling road.

 

I'm still not saying you're wrong about getting better mpg after the remap, but if it was that easy to get 13% more mpg just by changing the map don't you think every single car manufacturer would already be doing it, given the amount of trouble they have meeting CO2 standards?

 

In the end you squirt a given amount of fuel into the cylinders and ignite it with a spark and burn all of it (emissions regs make this mandatory), and the timing of both these (and valves, and boost, and other things like EGR) is often adaptive anyway in modern engines. Manufacturers spend thousands of expert engineer man-hours playing with the ECU to optimise power and economy and emissions, and I very much doubt there's anything like 13% left lying on the table -- because if there was they'd pick it and reduce CO2 emissions by 12% at a stroke. and get a nice big pat on the head from their bosses :-)

 

More power and torque, yes that's easily believable because manufacturers have to play safe. Significantly lower fuel consumption (13%) under identical conditions, that's not so believable...

Yeah VW EXPERT ENGINEERS created dodgy SOFTWARE to cheat emissions testing, now arrested, some in prison, HEADS of Porsche, Audi and VW all resigned/sacked in DISGRACE. I rest my case you really should read the news more.

3 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

Yeah VW EXPERT ENGINEERS created dodgy SOFTWARE to cheat emissions testing, now arrested, some in prison, HEADS of Porsche, Audi and VW all resigned/sacked in DISGRACE. I rest my case you really should read the news more.

 

None of which has the slightest relevance to what I asked you. Classic distraction when faced with facts you don't like -- attack the people, not the facts. And use CAPITALS. Are you related to DONALD TRUMP?

 

If you want to talk about exactly what VW did I'm perfectly happy to go into the technical details (and bore eveyone to death), but it will only show that VW engineers aren't stupid, in fact just the opposite -- but their management screwed up big time.

 

So I'll repeat my question -- how do you think a small remapping firm can magically squeeze lots more mpg out of a tank of fuel when a huge engineering team whose job it is to reduce emissions (which means maximising mpg) can't?

 

No hand-waving "makes the combustion better" waffle, give a proper reason which would stand up in front of people who actually understand petrol engines and combustion and thermodynamics. Like me -- I'm an engineer and I'd *love* to know ;-)

 

More power and torque, yes. Big mpg improvements like you claim, no. It could have been done in the old days when engines were inefficient and chucked unburnt fuel (and lots of pollution) out of the exhaust and ignition timing used weights in a distributor, but not nowadays.

 

BTW, if you really believe they can do what you claim with mpg (which means lower CO2 emissions), you should really get in touch with the boffins at the remapping firm you used and tell them to license their "secret sauce" to the big motor companies, because they'd all be MULTI-MILLIONAIRES VERY QUICKLY ;-)

Edited 11 October, 20187 yr by IanJD