Notice @shyVRS245 uses imperial measurements just like the press uses farenheit to impress/bamboozle plebs. 

 

6 minutes ago, xman said:

Notice @shyVRS245 uses imperial measurements just like the press uses farenheit to impress/bamboozle plebs. 

 

Wrong it's because I am old enough to remember the way it was before litres and centimetres. Was at the local Surgery today and the young Nurse asked me if I was 5 feet 11 inches tall and not 1.83cm. Go figure. Perhaps she voted LEAVE.Don't worry xman it was just my 5 year health MOT, gained 4kg in 5 years not too bad with all those all-inclusive holidays.

39 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

Wrong it's because I am old enough to remember the way it was before litres and centimetres.

Well I'm pretty sure I'm a fair bit older than you shy, and SI units were taught in grammar schools, perhaps not the secondary school you were sent to...

 

UK formally adopted the metric system in 1965.

 

Most, if not all manufacturers quote torque in Nm and nowadays with turbos usually easy round numbers.

 

You gained 9lb not 4kg, do try to be consistent and don't try to hide the fact you are overweight...

 

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, xman said:

Well I'm pretty sure I'm a fair bit older than you shy, and SI units were taught in grammar schools, perhaps not the secondary school you were sent to...

 

UK formally adopted the metric system in 1965.

 

Most, if not all manufacturers quote torque in Nm and nowadays with turbos usually easy round numbers.

 

You gained 9lb not 4kg, do try to be consistent and don't try to hide the fact you are overweight...

 

 

 

 

Yep got me there 15.4 stone let you do the conversion. Studied at Lutterworth Grammar from 1979-1983.

2 hours ago, shyVRS245 said:

gained 4kg in 5 years

You need some new scales as they obviously don’t seem to be working right. 

10 minutes ago, john999boy said:

You need some new scales as they obviously don’t seem to be working right. 

Joking aside our scales in the bathroom are only 2kg out (4.4lb for xman). Talking portly things just ordered you the New Nissan GT-R Nismo only £180,000 and 592bhp just in case the 296bhp Ateca Cupra isn't quite quick enough for you.

59 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

Joking aside our scales in the bathroom are only 2kg out (4.4lb for xman). Talking portly things just ordered you the New Nissan GT-R Nismo only £180,000 and 592bhp just in case the 296bhp Ateca Cupra isn't quite quick enough for you.

I notice you didn’t say which way they were out? 

Thanks for the Nismo. I certainly enjoyed going around Snetterton in one as it just oozed power and grip.

The Cupra will always feel less powerful than the Leon - because it is!

5 minutes ago, john999boy said:

I notice you didn’t say which way they were out? 

Thanks for the Nismo. I certainly enjoyed going around Snetterton in one as it just oozed power and grip.

The Cupra will always feel less powerful than the Leon - because it is!

The scales over read so it rounds me up to an even 100kg. Already on a diet.

Whats the 0-60 on paper that skoda claim for the 280? 

 

My cupra has a claimed 0-60 of 4.9 but no idea if it can or not as dont have anything to record it. 

3 minutes ago, Adrian55555 said:

Whats the 0-60 on paper that skoda claim for the 280? 

 

My cupra has a claimed 0-60 of 4.9 but no idea if it can or not as dont have anything to record it. 

Think it's 5.2 for the 280 and probably 5.4 for the 272.

The 4x4 does make it sooo much better!  Traction is very good! 

13 hours ago, Adrian55555 said:

Whats the 0-60 on paper that skoda claim for the 280? 

 

My cupra has a claimed 0-60 of 4.9 but no idea if it can or not as dont have anything to record it. 

According to a few vids I’ve seen it’s likely a little quicker than claimed, 4.6-4.8 secs seems to be the usual numbers with recording equipment. 

 

...and no I haven’t seen proof of calibration for the recording equipment in said videos 🤣

13 minutes ago, penguin17 said:

According to a few vids I’ve seen it’s likely a little quicker than claimed, 4.6-4.8 secs seems to be the usual numbers with recording equipment. 

 

...and no I haven’t seen proof of calibration for the recording equipment in said videos 🤣

Lol!!!  If superb is a bit quicker maybe mine is a bit quicker too being lighter than the superb. 😅

4 minutes ago, Adrian55555 said:

Lol!!!  If superb is a bit quicker maybe mine is a bit quicker too being lighter than the superb. 😅

One of the top magazines recently tested the 306bhp 2018 Golf R which recorded 0-60mph in a barely believeable 4.2seconds.

Mine will be slightly slower than the hatch golf r being the ST version. 

On 31/07/2019 at 09:56, Adrian55555 said:

Mine will be slightly slower than the hatch golf r being the ST version. 

Ah but you will have more downforce...just ask Rickard Rydell 

7 minutes ago, penguin17 said:

Ah but you will have more downforce...just ask Rickard Rydell 

Lol! 

The facelift 272 estate claims 5.7 to 62

 

4 minutes ago, edwards said:

The facelift 272 estate claims 5.7 to 62

 

The Superb Estates are slightly heavier than the Hatch and therefore a couple of tenths slower as a result.

11 minutes ago, shyVRS245 said:

The Superb Estates are slightly heavier than the Hatch and therefore a couple of tenths slower as a result.

 

I drive like an old fart most of the time, not sure I'd notice  

 

I'd love to know what my 0-60 is with the box trailer on the back, I do know I can surprise solo cars off the lights sometimes  

Resurrecting this because I've lost my beloved octy 245 project, and about to get a Superb 220. I'll sort out the suspension later, but a remap first. Only driven it for 30 mins or so, and it's quicker than I expected, but the wheelspin / torque steer is a bit unwanted. 

I keep seeing claims of 300ps and 440Nm after an S1, is this so? What about a race chips box (or whatever the good ones, are, won't go near DTUK again) 

FWIW, someone delete the nonsense about 0-60 times, its an FWD car ffs, so meaningless. 30-70 and 50-100 times are what you really need to know if straight line racing on the motorway is your bag! 

On 03/01/2022 at 11:17, stever750 said:

Resurrecting this because I've lost my beloved octy 245 project, and about to get a Superb 220. I'll sort out the suspension later, but a remap first. Only driven it for 30 mins or so, and it's quicker than I expected, but the wheelspin / torque steer is a bit unwanted. 

I keep seeing claims of 300ps and 440Nm after an S1, is this so? What about a race chips box (or whatever the good ones, are, won't go near DTUK again) 

FWIW, someone delete the nonsense about 0-60 times, its an FWD car ffs, so meaningless. 30-70 and 50-100 times are what you really need to know if straight line racing on the motorway is your bag! 

 

i recently put my Superb 220 on a dyno run, as i curious to see how much power it was making with an APR Stg 1 ECU tune and APR DSG tune.

3x runs, each time doing approx. 222 kW (299 hp) & 532 Nm (393 ft lbs), at the wheel.

 

one of the runs......

 

Pretty happy with those numbers, given its mostly software.  

power is bang on as expected, based on APR's claims. 

torque is more than i expected.  i was expecting between 490 to 500 Nm.

 

as u said, for a FWD - 0-60 times r nonsense!!

prior to getting the DSG tune done on mine, the 80-120 km/h time dropped from 5.8 to 3.4 secs, with the Stage 1 tune.

 

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, JR RS said:

 

i recently put my Superb 220 on a dyno run, as i curious to see how much power it was making with an APR Stg 1 ECU tune and APR DSG tune.

3x runs, each time doing approx. 222 kW (299 hp) & 532 Nm (393 ft lbs), at the wheel.

 

one of the runs......

 

Pretty happy with those numbers, given its mostly software.  

power is bang on as expected, based on APR's claims. 

torque is more than i expected.  i was expecting between 490 to 500 Nm.

 

as u said, for a FWD - 0-60 times r nonsense!!

prior to getting the DSG tune done on mine, the 80-120 km/h time dropped from 5.8 to 3.4 secs, with the Stage 1 tune.

 

 

300HP sounds good until you look at the shape of the power curve.

 

The power drops off so quickly at higher revs that for maximum acceleration it doesn't look like it would be worth revving past about 5,250rpm before changing up.

 

However, it would help fuel economy and perhaps engine longevity by it not being beneficial to rev the engine out to the redline at 6,700rpm when accelerating.

 

Maybe you could get a 5,250rpm rev limited added to the remap so that you don't have to worry about pointless over-revving past the worthwhile gear change points.

 

I expect 272HP/280HP 4x4 engines hold onto their power higher up in the rev range than this remapped 220HP/300HP engine, due to their bigger turbos.

 

To put the rapid drop off in power at higher revs into perspective, the power of a remapped turbo diesel engine might drop off rapidly after about 3,750rpm, so having a 5,250rpm usable redline is much better than that.

 

Between about 5,600rpm and 5,800rpm it looks like the engine is only putting out about 220HP, which is a far cry from the 300HP peak power at about 4,500rpm.

 

The engine has got a lot of torque, but below about 2,750rpm the torque drops off a cliff. At 2,000rpm the torque has dropped to just 275Nm.

 

I don't know what the mph/1,000rpm is on the Superb MK3 with the 220HP engine, but if it's 32mph/1,000rpm the car would have to be driving at 88mph to be at that 2,750rpm point where there's a massive amount of torque available. In the old days, this was called coming on cam, ie. 2,750rpm is where the start of the power band is.

 

0rpm to 2,750rpm = slow

 

2,750rpm to 5,250rpm = fast

 

Edited 10 March, 20233 yr by Carlston

Yup, the power delivery is early and then drops off courtesy of the small turbo, and to an extent, the factory intercooler.

 

The small turbo generates too much heat too early, in turn the intercooler isn't up to the job, thus increasing the intake air temps (IAT).   The ECU sees this and reduce boots, power drops.

The outside ambient air temp was 20 deg Celsius when we did the runs.

The IATs were getting hotter after each run.

 

Not surprised.

I wasn't expecting it to hold steady all through the rev band.

 

A bigger turbo will help to prolong that power delivery.

Likewise a larger intercooler will also aid in sustaining the power band longer.

 

My next move is to get a larger intercooler, but I'll b looking at doing that towards the end of our winter.