Anybody used the add on tuning boxes on a Kodiaq.
 

CRTD4 TRIPLE CHANNEL WITH RPM DIESEL TUNING BOX CHIP

SKODA KODIAQ 2.0 TDI

 

https://tdi-tuning.com/en-gb/car/skoda/kodiaq/20-tdi-187-bhp-190-ps-140-kw-400-nm-295-lbft/crtd4-triple-channel-with-rpm-diesel-tuning-box-chip

 

Promises increase of 60hp. And 20% increase in fuel economy.

Always thought if it was that simple then manufacturers would fit as standard ….

 

You can always get more power and torque by pushing in more fuel, but that would not give hp increase.

1 minute ago, Sargan said:

And 20% increase in fuel economy.

 

You're missing the crucial words - 'up to'. That could be anything from 0% to 20%. It's like the toilets in McDonalds claiming to reduce water usage by up to 100%...

 

The manufacturers are more concerned about reliability than extracting the absolute best from their engines. They need them to last for years and years, so they set them to operate within safe parameters that will cope with the dodgy fuel you get anywhere they sell the cars (we're lucky* in that the petrol/diesel we pump into our cars is decent quality). Then there is the question around invalidating warranties etc, if that a) applies to you still and/or b) actually bothers you anyway.

 

But to answer your question - no, never used one... but I keep looking at the pedal boxes to try and reduce/eliminate the throttle lag because I think that's the biggest issue with the Kodiaq feeling 'sprightly' (no matter what the engine). Maybe if I hang onto the vRS after the warranty runs out, I'll consider a tuning box / remap - it's the Golf GTI engine so it's a popular one for such things, after all!

My warranty finished last year .... now have a purchased warranty.

It does say can be plugged in and unplugged without trace - so that would get round the warranty issue.

 

As mentioned accept the power increase is easy enough, but the increase in the economy does not normally follow - be good if someone here has fitted and we get feedback.

 

42 minutes ago, Sargan said:

but the increase in the economy does not normally follow

 

I think the general idea is that the engine isn't sipping more fuel, it's just generating more power/torque from the same amount of fuel by changing some parameters. I'm no engineer, so I have no idea how viable the whole thing is in that respect.

 

But again, the small print says "depending on driving style". They know that most people who get more power will use more fuel because they'll be trying to use that power... otherwise what's the point? Even with fuel prices how they are, it's going to take a very long time to save enough to cover the purchase price of the box itself.

It does not get around warranty issues because it is not Factory approved software, engine management or hardware.  But if no manufacturers warranty no issue. But anyone elses warranty might have a loss adjuster check your insurance and a declared Tuning box fitted.  As well to get a remap done, declared on the insurance and if anything goes wrong pay up yourself for repairs. 

1 hour ago, Sargan said:

It does say can be plugged in and unplugged without trace - so that would get round the warranty issue.

 

 

Not so, changes in parameters of fuelling, boost etc are still logged and easily seen by any tech worth their salt.

As above best getting a remap from a reputable tuner and declaring it.

I’d bet it’s impossible to get significantly less fuel to produce significantly more power.

 

I’d also bet that as the tuning box sits between all the sensors and the ecu that it can tell the ecu it’s using whatever amount of fuel it likes.

Trip computer may say one thing, but brim to brim will be different. 

I've never tried such a box, but the internet is awash with claims for these sorts of devices.  I work in the car industry and I know OEM emissions engineers who would sell their own mothers for an extra 3% - never mind 20% fuel economy and CO2 reduction!

More power is easy with a forced induction engine.  Give it more boost and more fuel and it will make more power.  These box (and remap) suppliers often produce dyno graphs showing the extra power - and they might well be accurate.  However, they tend to rely on customer testimonials for their claims on fuel consumption.  They could go off and do the same emissions and fuel consumption tests that the car manufacturer would have to do for type approval, but strangely, they always seem to choose not to...

You can get more power out - prior to ECU, it used to be common to change to a stage 2 cam for example .... opened inlet vale more and for longer.

Did produce more power by the allow more fuel/air mix into chamber ..... with injection & ECU you can have far more precise control, but it still needs more fuel

I think their power gain claims are nonsense.  A good remap on a 190 TDI will see c. 230 bhp.  I've looked into it for our 190 TDI Karoq and having already had my 150 TDI Yeti remapped to c. 185 bhp.  I've seen people claiming unattainable figures without a bigger turbo and larger injectors.

 

Can I also suggest watching Darkside Developments' test of tuning boxes.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_sIRoPgFFI

Edited 29 April, 20224 yr by Schtum

@Avocet pointless doing the tests manufacturers do for the WLTP or RDE2 as they are nothing but fiction running tests to a ridiculous route / speeds and on rolling roads.  The issue is that engine management has been to get the results required at tests rather than out on the road with owners.   Hence the lack of torque / kangerooing when VW group had to manipulate the results before certification.     The VW defeat device crimes were revealed first by tuners that knew VW had been at it.  The software was written to know when vehicles were on rolling roads and being tested. 

On 30/04/2022 at 13:20, roottoot said:

@Avocet pointless doing the tests manufacturers do for the WLTP or RDE2 as they are nothing but fiction running tests to a ridiculous route / speeds and on rolling roads.  The issue is that engine management has been to get the results required at tests rather than out on the road with owners.   Hence the lack of torque / kangerooing when VW group had to manipulate the results before certification.     The VW defeat device crimes were revealed first by tuners that knew VW had been at it.  The software was written to know when vehicles were on rolling roads and being tested. 

I think you might be confusing some of the test work?  VW were cheating on the NEDC drive cycle tests (which were only done on a rolling road).  The RDE tests were introduced as a direct result of the VW scandal, as a check to make sure the car delivered more or less the same results on a real road as it did on the rolling road, so that it would show up any VW-style defeat devices.  The WLTP drive cycle was introduced because the NEDC drive cycle was (quite rightly) widely criticised as not being representative of how cars were driven in real life.  The main drawback was that it was a "one-size fits all" drive cycle, so the accelerations in it had to be attainable by the lowest-powered cars on the market.  You therefore ended up with your 1000cc "shopping trolleys" working quite hard to achieve it, and your Aston Martins practically doing it on a closed throttle.  The WLTP now has three different drive cycles, depending on power-to-weight ratio.  

Naturally, no standardised test can ever be exactly representative of how any one particular owner drives their particular car, but I think the current regime is a million times better than what we had before.

As far as I'm aware, it was a bunch of American academics who initially broke the VW story?

On 29/04/2022 at 16:32, Sargan said:

You can get more power out - prior to ECU, it used to be common to change to a stage 2 cam for example .... opened inlet vale more and for longer.

Did produce more power by the allow more fuel/air mix into chamber ..... with injection & ECU you can have far more precise control, but it still needs more fuel

Yes, of course you can get more power by making actual physical changes to the engine, such as you describe, but I thought we were talking about electronic changes only?

VW really had issues with the WLTP & RDE and now RDE2 because that had been having their test results accepted.

Cheating was going to be very difficult.  They had not been developing the low emission engines they needed to be doing.

& were well behind on mild hybrids, plug in hybrids and EV's.  Buying into others R&D had not worked.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/vw-group-hit-hard-new-wltp-emissions-test

 

It is good that there are parts of the world where the WLTP is not relevant and you can buy a 1.4 TSI with a 8 speed autobox. 

 

 

@AvocetA bunch of American Academics had the Cheat brought to their attention by tuners that were remapping vehicles.

Who broke the story does not matter. 

It could have been UK Government Ministers that had been made aware years before by the UK Testing company.

Patrick McLoughlin MP (later made Baron McLoughlin) the Transport Secretary and his department, 

 

It could have been Suzuki that VW had bought into to get their R&D or Fiats but then Suzuki bought their last shares back the eve of the scandal breaking with money Toyota lent them. 

http://bbc.co.uk/news/business-34275917

 

http://bbc.co.uk/news/business-34324772

 

Daimler, BMW & VW & others were conspiring to not have to have bigger AdBlue tanks in vehicles and required Defeat Devices to ensure that the SCR system could require less of it.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news-government-and-legislation/eu-fines-bmw-vw-colluding-daimler-emissions-tech

 

  VW Group were caught with Software cheats after 2015 with Software for DSG's. They have been under investigation since and still are.

There were Implausible C02 g/km figures in the sister brands but not with Skoda. 

There were Euro 6 emission vehicles that had to discontinued that were not going to get the WLTP / RDE certification and ones that did that then failed re-testing.

https://autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/99634/audi-recalls-127000-cars-over-emissions-cheat-device-discovery

 

Edited 2 May, 20224 yr by roottoot

Average Emissions required in the UK are now separate from the EU requirement.

VW Group have not had enough First Registrations of their own brands but have partnered with the likes of MG to ensure they can have the required scores on the doors.

https://europe.autonews.com/environmentemissions/vw-group-says-it-met-eu-co2-goal-2021-higher-ev-sales

 

8 hours ago, Avocet said:

Yes, of course you can get more power by making actual physical changes to the engine, such as you describe, but I thought we were talking about electronic changes only?

Yes the OP is about tuning boxes.

You can get more power by changing timing & duration of fuel injection, which was the point I was trying to make …. Was previously done by changing the cam.

2 hours ago, Sargan said:

Yes the OP is about tuning boxes.

You can get more power by changing timing & duration of fuel injection, which was the point I was trying to make …. Was previously done by changing the cam.

Unless the car has variable valve timing that is under the control of the engine management system, you can only change ignition timing, not valve timing - which is what the cam swap would do.  Yes, you can give them more fuel, but without a way of getting more air into them at the same time, they just run richer.  Easy with a turbo, if the wastage is under the control of the ECU, but pretty hard to do with a well-sorted naturally aspirated engine.

That was design excellence of Honda  VTEC.   variable valve timing engine.

 

3 hours ago, roottoot said:

Average Emissions required in the UK are now separate from the EU requirement.

VW Group have not had enough First Registrations of their own brands but have partnered with the likes of MG to ensure they can have the required scores on the doors.

https://europe.autonews.com/environmentemissions/vw-group-says-it-met-eu-co2-goal-2021-higher-ev-sales

 

These are two completely separate bits of emissions legislation, though.  Nobody was accusing VW of cheating on the CO2 reg.  And yes, we now have a separate GB one that mirrors the EU one, but don't get me started on "Brexit dividends".  We've shot ourselves in the foot quite nicely by doing that!  Beforehand, there was one New Car CO2 Regulation for the whole of the EU, and manufacturers could average their fleet CO2 emissions over their entire sales across the EU.  Now, they can do that across the EU but for the GB regs, they can only average their emissions across what they sell here.  Unfortunately for us, the UK likes its higher performance, and heavier cars, so when we were in the EU, they could average their CO2 emissions with loads of little city cars and low CO2 emitters, sold in the Mediterranean and Eastern European countries to meet the targets.  Now, many of them are going to be struggling to meet the same targets for GB-only.  I therefore think they're going to start withdrawing some o the higher CO2 emitters from our market, whilst still being able to sell them in the EU.

1 minute ago, Sargan said:

That was design excellence of Honda  VTEC.   variable valve timing engine.

 

Yes, a great engine, also the Alfa twinspark engines.  But was the Honda's valve timing under the control of the engine management system?  I know the Alfa's wasn't, so there was nothing you could do with a "chip", "remap" or tuning box, that would alter the valve timing.

4 hours ago, roottoot said:

VW really had issues with the WLTP & RDE and now RDE2 because that had been having their test results accepted.

Cheating was going to be very difficult.  They had not been developing the low emission engines they needed to be doing.

& were well behind on mild hybrids, plug in hybrids and EV's.  Buying into others R&D had not worked.

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/vw-group-hit-hard-new-wltp-emissions-test

 

It is good that there are parts of the world where the WLTP is not relevant and you can buy a 1.4 TSI with a 8 speed autobox. 

 

 

@AvocetA bunch of American Academics had the Cheat brought to their attention by tuners that were remapping vehicles.

Who broke the story does not matter. 

It could have been UK Government Ministers that had been made aware years before by the UK Testing company.

Patrick McLoughlin MP (later made Baron McLoughlin) the Transport Secretary and his department, 

 

It could have been Suzuki that VW had bought into to get their R&D or Fiats but then Suzuki bought their last shares back the eve of the scandal breaking with money Toyota lent them. 

http://bbc.co.uk/news/business-34275917

 

http://bbc.co.uk/news/business-34324772

 

Daimler, BMW & VW & others were conspiring to not have to have bigger AdBlue tanks in vehicles and required Defeat Devices to ensure that the SCR system could require less of it.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry-news-government-and-legislation/eu-fines-bmw-vw-colluding-daimler-emissions-tech

 

  VW Group were caught with Software cheats after 2015 with Software for DSG's. They have been under investigation since and still are.

There were Implausible C02 g/km figures in the sister brands but not with Skoda. 

There were Euro 6 emission vehicles that had to discontinued that were not going to get the WLTP / RDE certification and ones that did that then failed re-testing.

https://autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/99634/audi-recalls-127000-cars-over-emissions-cheat-device-discovery

 

I'm not sure they struggled any more than anyone else with WLTP?  Remember, WLTP is only the drive cycle.  The actual emissions limits (tailpipe emissions of chemicals like CO HC, NOx, and particulates, not CO2, which is separate) were set out in the various "Euro 6" regulations.  It was all quite simple, with the limits changing for Euro 1 Euro2, 3, 4 and 5.  But the VW scandal broke during Euro 6, so the EU Parliament gave the EU Commission a right kicking and told them to get a grip on it.  The Commission responded by rushing-in several different versions of "Euro 6"  (Euro 6a, 6b, and so on).  Even worse, we had "Euro 6dTemp" and then "Euro 6d" - which is what we're on at present.  The next one (we're told) will be Euro 7.  It gets incredibly complex and I'd have to fire up my "work" laptop to find which changes went with which letters.  I've a feeling WLTP came in with Euro 6d Temp and RDE but with fairly generous "conformity factors" (i.e. the manufacturers were allowed to exceed the regulated limits by a small "conformity factor" when tested on a real road, in recognition of the fact that such a test could never be as repeatable as in the lab). I think Euro 6d brought down the conformity factors.

I hadn't heard anything about tuners tipping-off academics, but yeah, maybe that's true?  I was under the impression that it was students in Virginia, looking at city air quality and comparing it to what it should theoretically have been for the traffic concentrations, if all the vehicles had been emitting according to the regs.  They found a surprising disparity.  However, as you say, it's not that important who broke the story!

I don't really get how you can "conspire" to have a bigger AdBlue tank?  They just needed bigger AdBlue tanks to meet the NOx requirements!  VW could have done that too, but diesel isn't popular in the USA and the European manufacturers (especially VAG) had really pushed "clean diesel" technology very hard over there.  They were just starting to get somewhere, when the regs changed to require AdBlue, and (at least in the story I heard),  they were worried that American consumers wouldn't accept having to top up an AdBlue tank, so they tried to size it so that it would only need topping up during services.  This meant having to reduce the dosing to make the contents of the tank last long enough.  Unfortunately, reducing the AdBlue dosing, also meant that the cars emitted more NOx than they should have done.   Accordingly, they came up with the idea of giving the car the required amount of AdBlue only when it was on a rolling road (using the steering angle sensor to work out that the car was being driven but not steered).  However, none of that explains why they then decided to do the same thing in Europe!  Certainly, over that period, my company cars were a series of 2 litre (150 horse) Sharans and it was very noticeable when they became compliant, because the AdBlue consumption practically doubled on the later cars!

Skoda were using the same "cheat" for NOx and AdBlue consumption as the rest of VAG, I'm afraid.  However, they might not have known it, because they buy the technology from VW, but even on their own website they admit they were:

https://www.skoda.co.uk/owners/ea189-claim

CO2 is a separate issue entirely.  There was never a regulated limit for CO2 emissions "per car".  It was only ever a fleet averaging requirement.

 

4 hours ago, roottoot said:

 

 

@AvocetI posted 'Conspiring  not to not have to have bigger AdBlue tanks'.

 

Skoda Executives might want to look like they are stupid as VW's Martin Winterkorn did,

but he was an Engineers Engineer yet everything gets blamed on minions. 

 

They conspired to have smaller AdBlue tanks & reduce component costs. To use the Daimler System that was licensed and VW bought.

It was a cabal or cartel.  it was a system so that US drivers would not need to be topping up tanks all the time because if the emission reduction really worked big tanks would be required to have longer between refills.

 

VW Green Diesels were introduced to the US by Stefan Jacoby CEO North America & of the VW Family (never got the top job) that then huffed off to Volvo / Geely in 2010,   **VOLVO /GEELY then completed the Twin Chargers development properly and the hybrids which VW had not done successfully.)

then Stefan Jacoby was off to GM Global. 

He had been at Mitshubishi after his career start at VW and then returning. 

(Now is he a whistleblower or just a cuckoo in the nest?)

 

We know about averages, made up of highs and lows.  Lots of lows to bring an average down.

Lots of manipulation to get the low figures, even using vehicles with no ICE or manufacturers with low registrations of higher emission vehicles as a partner so that you are not penalised for still producing high emission vehicles.

 

VW Testing was cheating C02 g/km with their own test results done at whichever facilities.  Petrol & Diesels.

They might say a fuddle not a fiddle but they were caught.   Putting engine oil in diesel was a cheat that was only too common with the diesels under the old test regime.  Over inflating tyres of test vehicles and that was ones on rolling roads.

VW Group were going to just tweak the engine management for the introduction of the WLTP.

They tweaked 1.5TSI EVO ACTs and still they were too high on emissions and they tweaked till they were certificated but some run like crap.

The 1.4 TSI' for the Plug in Hybrids as they were in 2015/16 actually needed more done to get certificated so production stopped for a bit.

https://slashgear.com/vw-admits-430k-2016-models-have0implausible-co2-claims-17414721

 

 

The Mild Hybrid & Plug In Hybrids tested under the WLTP and RDE2 figures are just pure kidology.

 

Lord Michael Heseltine was there with Margret Thatcher when diesel was going to be the fuel for the UK, she knew that was wrong.

Lord Michael Heseltine owned and then owned again Haymarket Media Group that owns AutoCar, What Car & Piston Heads among other motoring & financial journals.

He owns via his companies part of an Emissions Testing Company that does testing for the Motor Industry and the UK Government.

Lord Heseltine was involved in the Sale of Rolls Royce & Bentley to Volkswagen Group in 1998.

David Cameron brought Lord Heseltine in to help with business an the motor industry. 

At the heart of government and the economy and see nothing just as the heads of VW did not. 

 

Are they all selectively deaf, dumb and blind or just all in it together? 

 

 

 

Martin Winterkorn. Chairman of VW AG.  A details person with yes men and woman around him.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 2 May, 20224 yr by roottoot

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_21_3581

 

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/05/volkswagen-bosch-fiat-diesel-emissions-cheats-cracked-open-in-new-research

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 2 May, 20224 yr by roottoot

2 hours ago, Avocet said:

Now, they can do that across the EU but for the GB regs, they can only average their emissions across what they sell here...   Now, many of them are going to be struggling to meet the same targets for GB-only.  I therefore think they're going to start withdrawing some o the higher CO2 emitters from our market, whilst still being able to sell them in the EU.

 

Probably a good thing for the environment and us then really? 

4 hours ago, Avocet said:

Yes, a great engine, also the Alfa twinspark engines.  But was the Honda's valve timing under the control of the engine management system?  I know the Alfa's wasn't, so there was nothing you could do with a "chip", "remap" or tuning box, that would alter the valve timing.

 The Tech blurb says ......"The switching operation between the two cam lobes is controlled by the ECU which takes account of engine oil pressure, engine temperature, vehicle speed, engine speed and throttle position. Using these inputs, the ECU is programmed to switch from the low lift to the high lift cam lobes when certain conditions are met. At the switch point a solenoid is actuated that allows oil pressure from a spool valve to operate a locking pin which binds the high RPM rocker arm to the low RPM ones."