EA888 Gen3B - Tuning options for the 2.0 190PS TSI

[EnterName]

On 23/09/2022 at 07:57, EnterName said:

I don't think I could live with the drop in fuel economy. 😊

It's just me getting used to the different throttle response on the sport setting.

Also the one junction I tend to perform quick getaways is slightly uphill, so it's really a few factors that all contribute.

I'll get used to it.

 

It turned out to be the change in the response to the throttle in "Sport Mode".

I get more gas for a throttle demand, which was catching me out.

As I expected, I got used to it.

[Pessimal]

How in the name of whatever are you getting 50plus mpg?!

 

Our 220 only gets into the very low 40's on a run if I am very careful and in eco mode!

[EnterName]

On 26/02/2023 at 17:21, Pessimal said:

How in the name of whatever are you getting 50plus mpg?!

 

Our 220 only gets into the very low 40's on a run if I am very careful and in eco mode!

There are probably several factors, @Pessimal

Firstly, it's a different engine. The Gen3 vRS engine (and I think the 220 is the same) has VVT on the exhaust valves.

The Gen3B engine in my car has VVT on the inlet valves. They close early before the piston is at BDC.

I'd like to give you a full explanation of why this is a good thing, but to be completely honest, I don't fully understand why it improves fuel economy, but apparently it does.

The early valve closing is on low throttle/low load demand. When there is driver demand for more fuel/power, the inlet valve timing changes to the power mode.

The images below are from the VAG eSelf Study Program 920163

 

Secondly, I consciously drive economically most of the time. Despite this, when the engine is cold and on short runs in stop/start traffic, the economy isn't great, TBH. It was in the high 20's on a short trip to the shops yesterday, despite driving carefully, the traffic was too stop/start to get decent economy. But on the 7 mile drive to work in freely moving traffic, I get high 40's if I'm careful, or low 40's if I'm not being as careful. On a long run, I get low 50's without much bother or mid 50's if I'm careful and keep the speed under. I also don't drive the car hard until the oil is up to 80°C, and on the drive to work, that doesn't happen at this time of year.

[EnterName]

10 minutes ago, EnterName said:

There are probably several factors, @Pessimal

Firstly, it's a different engine. The Gen3 vRS engine (and I think the 220 is the same) has VVT on the exhaust valves.

Secondly, I consciously drive economically most of the time.

Thirdly, I am still running the original, albeit slightly disintegrating, Bridgestone Turanza 001 tyres which have a pretty low rolling resistance, and I have inflated them to the economy pressures as specified under the fuel filler flap.

Fourthly, I run my car on Super unleaded (97RON), which helps fuel economy.

Fifthly, when I had my car remapped, I told the tuner I wanted the same or better economy on low throttle demand and about 230PS peak power, which is a fairly modest boost to peak power.

 

All these factors together give me decent economy, though I'm pretty sure driving economically has the biggest impact. The auto box helps me drive economically IMO, as I can concentrate on light throttle control and don't have to think about the gears at all. However it does call for some restraint and thought, and I'm sure it's not a driving style that would suit most people.

I do enjoy a blast around now and then, but it's not something I do often.

[EnterName]

On 01/03/2023 at 07:54, EnterName said:

But on the 7 mile drive to work in freely moving traffic, I get high 40's if I'm careful, or low 40's if I'm not being as careful. On a long run, I get low 50's without much bother or mid 50's if I'm careful and keep the speed under. I also don't drive the car hard until the oil is up to 80°C, and on the drive to work, that doesn't happen at this time of year.

I checked my commute yesterday, and on my current route to work it's actually about a 10 mile journey, with a slightly different route coming home. (Work for the very wonderful HS2 causes delays & detours at the moment.)

Yesterday was a fairly typical journey, though I wasn't particularly careful about economy on the way home, which has a bit less traffic. The journey has 2.8 miles of motorway, but the rest is urban commuting traffic, albeit avoiding peak times.

[EnterName]

On 06/06/2022 at 13:59, EnterName said:

Here are a few of the available numbers from those websites.

Not all companies quote a power increase, preferring to tailor a map to a specific vehicle.

However some companies seem to have very similar improvement claims, which indicates to me (rightly or wrongly), an off-the-shelf map.

(I've quoted a variety of units as there's inconsistency between units quoted by sites, so I used a conversion tool so the numbers could be compared on a like-for-like basis. I've rounded up/down to limit to one decimal point. https://www.unitsconverters.com/en/Power-Conversions/Measurement-18?MeasurementId=18 )

 

	Power	Power	Torque	Torque Nm
Stock	190ps	187.4bhp	236lbft	320nm
Revo	from 242ps to 266ps	from 238.6bhp to 262.4bhp	from 291lbft to 321lbft	from 394.5nm to 435.2nm
Racingline	240ps	236.7bhp	286.9lbft	389nm
Quantum Tuning	261.6ps	258bhp	324.5lbft	440nm
Top Tuning	261.6ps	258bhp	324.5lbft	440nm
Superchips	261.6ps	258bhp	325.2lbft	441nm
Turners	248.4ps	245bhp	317.2lbft	430nm
Chip Tuners	248.4ps	245bhp	317.2lbft	430nm

Just came across this tuner too.

https://puretuning.net/en/chiptuning-files/skoda/skoda-octavia/2-0-tsi-190hp

Unusually, their remap claims no additional power, but claims additional low-end torque.

I don't think I've ever seen a remap that claimed no additional peak power, so I suspect this is an error.

There's no "Stage 2" available at the moment when I just looked, so maybe this product isn't quite ready yet. I dunno.

[EnterName]

I've been doing a little studying and I thought I'd give some additional information.

The EA888 Gen3B is quite an interesting engine in that it has some very different fuelling characteristics, depending on what driving mode you're in.

My headline finding is: ECO mode caps engine torque to 250Nm up to 5300rpm. (I think you can push past this if you absolutely floor the throttle.)

 

 

Roughly speaking, that looks like this.

 

That's a big old difference!

Even in standard drive mode, you use the efficient B-cycle until you get to 3500rpm.

 

So that's worth considering if you feel your 2.0TSI Gen3B isn't a sprightly as you would like: Are you actually inhibiting full power yourself?

(I've used red text to more easily differentiate the VAG stuff and my text in this post.)

[EnterName]

Source of information is one of the VAG self-study docs, which can be found here.

https://procarmanuals.com/self-study-program-645-audi-2-0l-tfsi-engines-ea888-series/

[Gerrycan]

Some really interesting information here on how this type of engine operates @EnterName. 

I must admit to having little interest in an engine with performance beyond what I need on public roads and probably even less in mapping for more performance, BUT the apparent excellent consumption results you are achieving has piqued my interest. I've always said power is easy, efficiency is far more difficult but assumed where consumption improves it is probably due to the mapping not having to meet stringent manufacturers emissions standards

One question in my mind is whether you have confirmed the accuracy of the displays with actual figures during refueling post map?

 

Even allowing for a bit of display optimism, and the fact you are driving economically, I have got to say they are still probably the best I can remember seeing reported on Briskoda for a 2.0tsi. 

 

 

[EnterName]

27 minutes ago, Gerrycan said:

Some really interesting information here on how this type of engine operates @EnterName. 

I must admit to having little interest in an engine with performance beyond what I need on public roads and probably even less in mapping for more performance, BUT the apparent excellent consumption results you are achieving has piqued my interest. I've always said power is easy, efficiency is far more difficult but assumed where consumption improves it is probably due to the mapping not having to meet stringent manufacturers emissions standards

One question in my mind is whether you have confirmed the accuracy of the displays with actual figures during refueling post map?

 

Even allowing for a bit of display optimism, and the fact you are driving economically, I have got to say they are still probably the best I can remember seeing reported on Briskoda for a 2.0tsi.

Hi @Gerrycan!

It really doesn't take much for the economy of my car to drop quite dramatically. But, I do drive on ECO mode a lot of the time, in fact I'd say most of the time.

As far as I know, the remap didn't change what happens in ECO. When I'm pootling about in ECO, I only have 250Nm to play with (same as a 1.5TSI) , plus the benefit of the Budack set up. (Though sadly no 2-cylinder mode).

I'm not entirely convinced the DRIVE mode was changed, either, though I don't have reduced toque in DRIVE, so maybe it was, I dunno.

But SPORT mode is different, and I seldom use that unless I need the additional performance to join a busy road and it will help me match traffic speed more easily. It really is quite brisk in SPORT mode, following the remap.

Generally on my journey to work, I'm somewhere in the low to mid 40's. Only when things are quiet and the lights are with me can I break 50MPG on my commute.

On a long run, 50+MPG is reasonably achievable, unless I use the extra performance or traffic is horrible, in which case it drops into the 40s.

Short runs when cold are its Achilles' heel, and I get mid to low 30s on very short urban runs, no matter how careful I am.

[EnterName]

Just now, EnterName said:

One question in my mind is whether you have confirmed the accuracy of the displays with actual figures during refueling post map?

Oops! Forgot to answer the question.

No.

The figures are as the car provides them.

[Gerrycan]

12 hours ago, EnterName said:

Oops! Forgot to answer the question.

No.

The figures are as the car provides them.

I used to religiously record refuels and distance but now only do a quick calc when I refuel to see how it compares with the display 'since refuel' figures. A bit easier being metric based here.

My other small runaround is so old and basic I have to rely on the manual reset of the trip meter and calcs when I refuel. Varies between 4.8L/100 and 5.9L/100 depending on the driving profile between refuels, similar to our 1.4tsi if I am driving it, worse if my wife is driving the Octavia during local peak traffic periods.

It is possible to get far better consumption driving over 8km in our local (Adelaide) urban environment than at the higher speeds of our interstate 'highways' (mostly undivided single lane each way) unlike the UK where the busy motorways will nearly always better urban driving (West side of the M25 at peak is particularly miserable in my experience).

 

 

[EnterName]

16 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

I used to religiously record refuels and distance but now only do a quick calc when I refuel to see how it compares with the display 'since refuel' figures. A bit easier being metric based here.

My other small runaround is so old and basic I have to rely on the manual reset of the trip meter and calcs when I refuel. Varies between 4.8L/100 and 5.9L/100 depending on the driving profile between refuels, similar to our 1.4tsi if I am driving it, worse if my wife is driving the Octavia during local peak traffic periods.

It is possible to get far better consumption driving over 8km in our local (Adelaide) urban environment than at the higher speeds of our interstate 'highways' (mostly undivided single lane each way) unlike the UK where the busy motorways will nearly always better urban driving (West side of the M25 at peak is particularly miserable in my experience).

 

 

I had a look at my long term MPG today, and it was a little over 40MPG.

Nowhere near my headline figures, but a reasonable reflection of how I drive, and in the grand scheme of things, not bad at all, given the fact it will go acceptably briskly if I want it to.

[EnterName]

Experiment time.

The long-term MPG on my remapped car (reset upon remap) for time since the remap (only about 3700 miles), running exclusively on Super Unleaded since the remap (apart from the first tankfull, as I wanted the car mapped running regular unleaded, was 42.4mpg, according to the car.

I'm now going to run it for a few months on regular unleaded.

I've reset the long-term MPG and I'll see what sort of MPG the car returns.

I'd tell you what my initial impressions are, but I don't think they're worth much as I'm sensitive to apparent differences just at the moment.

What will be more important is when I forget that I've made the change, and the car behaves noticeably differently.

 

[Ootohere]

Long term now through Winter months, possibly colder weather, so not really the same as the past 6 months.

 

Winter spec petrol now even in the southern parts of the UK being served at filling stations.

Maybe actually a slightly better octane than the summer formulation of the E5 97 / 99 ron min, or even the E10 95 ron min.

 

Formulated to be less hygroscopic, and that might mean less or nil ethanol or other ingredients.  The fuel should certainly not provide less energy as that is what you pay for.

[EnterName]

On 30/10/2023 at 09:26, Rooted said:

Long term now through Winter months, possibly colder weather, so not really the same as the past 6 months.

 

Winter spec petrol now even in the southern parts of the UK being served at filling stations.

Maybe actually a slightly better octane than the summer formulation of the E5 97 / 99 ron min, or even the E10 95 ron min.

 

Formulated to be less hygroscopic, and that might mean less or nil ethanol or other ingredients.  The fuel should certainly not provide less energy as that is what you pay for.

It's funny you should say that, as so far, the MPG hasn't been much different, given the usual vagaries of day to day driving.

This morning's 48.9mpg on the way to work was pretty good.

I'm still highly sensitive to changes, so I need to just get on with it and forget about it, but so far, so good.

I did some calculations, and for my car, assuming a long-term MPG of 42.4 for 97RON, so long as the 95RON stuff gives me 40MPG, there will be a small cash advantage to using 95RON, while there's a 10p/litre difference in price.

By my reckoning, depending on the actual price of regular unleaded, a 10p premium for super-unleaded is only around 6% more than regular, so as long as the MPG difference is 6% or less, I'll be better off using regular.

But if it's more than that, then I'll get better value from Super Unleaded.

 

But as you said, @Rooted, the reality is far more complicated than my somewhat crude experiment is set up to unpick.

That said, I think a rule of buying regular when the price difference is 10p/l or more, and super unleaded when it's less than 10p/l more expensive than regular will probably be my general rule, going forward.

[Gerrycan]

Some very interesting info on petrol prices there.

Australian petrol does not bear as high a Government tax burden as UK petrol nor is it refined to the low EU sulphur levels (will change soon) so our overall prices are not surprisingly considerably lower than yours.

However.... when you compare the price of our 95 Ron against 98 Ron there is about 7 cents difference between the two which is about 4 pence. Assuming similar detergents and volatiles are added by Shell/BP/Mobil as in the UK then it seems that your local 10p difference is pure price gouging as UK tax would be pretty much the same on both?

 

Our 140ppm sulphur allowed 91Ron is about 15 cents cheaper than currently mandated 50ppm 95Ron.

 

E10 91Ron (if it actually has 10% ethanol,  can be as high as 94RON but they no longer claim this higher RON due to well publicised variations of ethanol added) is a couple of cents cheaper,  and E85 (105RON) is available but rare and you need a heavily modified engine to run it.

Edited 3 November, 2023 by Gerrycan

[EnterName]

5 hours ago, Gerrycan said:

Some very interesting info on petrol prices there.

Australian petrol does not bear as high a Government tax burden as UK petrol nor is it refined to the low EU sulphur levels (will change soon) so our overall prices are not surprisingly considerably lower than yours.

However.... when you compare the price of our 95 Ron against 98 Ron there is about 7 cents difference between the two which is about 4 pence. Assuming similar detergents and volatiles are added by Shell/BP/Mobil as in the UK then it seems that your local 10p difference is pure price gouging as UK tax would be pretty much the same on both?

 

Our 140ppm sulphur allowed 91Ron is about 15 cents cheaper than currently mandated 50ppm 95Ron.

 

E10 91Ron (if it actually has 10% ethanol,  can be as high as 94RON but they no longer claim this higher RON due to well publicised variations of ethanol added) is a couple of cents cheaper,  and E85 (105RON) is available but rare and you need a heavily modified engine to run it.

Arguably, while 10p/litre is quite a difference in price, Super Unleaded may represent better value for money than regular unleaded.

It's an experiment, and when I refill, I'll get an accurate account of my MPG for the tank of unleaded and I'll have a starting point to build on.

As I potter about mostly, the anti-knock properties of super-unleaded are wasted on me, though subjectively, the car does seem to have lost a little grunt at low revs, but that is most likely all in my head while I'm trying to detect any difference. I haven't seen any objective testing under controlled conditions on the difference in MPG between super and regular unleaded fuel, which is slightly surprising, though there may be tests done that I simply haven't found.

You'd think it would have been tested though, if only by some green NGO lobby group looking to ban whichever of the two emits more hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, kryptonite gas or whatever they're worried about now. 😋

[Ootohere]

I can link you Tesco's testing they had done in 2012 with their 95 Ron and 99 and AN Others.    But it was about less emissions.  But clearly they were showing for better efficiency.      Then in the UK all E5, Super unleaded is not the same as far as formulation and location location location.   Storage ,,/ distribution reasons. 

 

GREENERGY part owned by TESCO PLC produce and Distribute Momentum 99 & also ESSO Fuels in some parts of the UK and other fuels E5 / E10 to other independents / retail forecourts. 

 

 

388380a097b04fe693a8c27db8bb4974 (1).pdf 6ca06d648b9541e78fa838fece4a1a23 (1) (12).pdf

Edited 3 November, 2023 by Rooted

[EnterName]

17 minutes ago, Rooted said:

I can link you Tesco's testing they had done in 2012 with their 95 Ron and 99 and AN Others.    But it was about less emissions.  But clearly they were showing for better efficiency.      Then in the UK all E5, Super unleaded is not the same as far as formulation and location location location.   Storage ,,/ distribution reasons. 

 

GREENERGY part owned by TESCO PLC produce and Distribute Momentum 99 & also ESSO Fuels in some parts of the UK and other fuels E5 / E10 to other independents / retail forecourts. 

 

 

388380a097b04fe693a8c27db8bb4974 (1).pdf 995.53 kB · 0 downloads 6ca06d648b9541e78fa838fece4a1a23 (1) (12).pdf 2.86 MB · 0 downloads

The results are slightly confusing to me, because it looks to me like there's a bit better than a 4% improvement in MPG switching from regular to super unleaded that can be reliably assumed.

Not sure where the 6% improvement is shown.

I realise their fuel may be better than some random competitor's, but between the two types of Tesco's own fuel, it appears to me you can count on about 4% extra MPG, in like for like driving.

Granted, I might well be misunderstanding the results.

[Ootohere]

All sh1te.   You drive your car tuned as it is the way you drive, as we all do.  (Not your car ) We buy the fuel and pay for it so we can check ourselves.    Tyres, pressures, fuel, temperatures.  We should know where and when we are placed and if there is any difference.   All I want is easy starts and smooth running and if the mpg is the same or no better I care not.  If I floor the pedal I want no misfires.  No limp mode, no car up my jacksy and me getting overtaken.  Well not if it is a less powerful rep mobile. 

Edited 3 November, 2023 by Rooted

[EnterName]

10 minutes ago, Rooted said:

All sh1te.   You drive your car tuned as it is the way you drive, as we all do.  (Not your car ) We buy the fuel and pay for it so we can check ourselves.    Tyres, pressures, fuel, temperatures.  We should know where and when we are placed and if there is any difference.   All I want is easy starts and smooth running and if the mpg is the same or no better I care not.  If I floor the pedal I want no misfires.  No limp mode, no car up my jacksy and me getting overtaken.  Well not if it is a less powerful rep mobile. 

Certainly the wrong tyre pressures can cost you improvements in MPG.

As can lugging around a load of junk in the boot.

Probably having a clean and shiny car might well give some benefit too over a car that's covered in grime.

Not to mention the difference in rolling resistance between different types of correctly inflated tyres.

But it's fun to mess around with the numbers and see what the difference are.

[Ootohere]

I will chose pressures and treads that grip regardless of economy over higher pressures, ECO tyres which achieve better mpg with less grip so friction / traction.   There are some real crap tyres fitted as standard.  

[EnterName]

1 minute ago, Rooted said:

I will chose pressures and treads that grip regardless of economy over higher pressures, ECO tyres which achieve better mpg with less grip so friction / traction.   There are some real crap tyres fitted as standard.  

It is possible to get tyres with good grip and low rolling resistance, but you don't get that for free, and ultimately, they won't grip as well as proper  grippy tyres.

I found the OEM Turanza 001 tyres to be surprisingly grippy, given their low rolling resistance.

But then they fell apart after 4 years.

The Goodyear Assym 6's I've got now are grippy, but they're sticky, and even slow speed car park driving (10-15mph) gives my car a light pebbled-ash, as bits of grit and whatever are picked up by the tyres and flick off onto the car.

 

[Ootohere]

I am in Scotland so talking all season / all weather tyres.   Not Sport summer tyres.     Talking getting about in all conditions and not too much TC / ASR flashing if still wanting to get a move on.