Want a Citigo GO

[AGFalco]

Had the Citigo for 9 months now and all good except it could do with a little more GO on the hills around here.

Am spoilt by both the other cars I own as both have a bigger engine's which are turbocharged / intercooled / direct injection / 16 valve. 

 

I have found some details of a Remap on this engine by Celtic Tuning, see below:-

 

 

The above graph shows the engine before produced 67.9 BHP and after at 84.3 BHP when it is listed at 59 BHP as standard.

Looks like this was done on one of the hottest days this year just last month.

 

 

Two weeks later the engine had an MOT emissions test which shows as all still good.

 

Anybody had this done / got any experience of the company?

Was it worth doing and what are the driving results like?

 

Thanks, AG Falco 

[Gyp]

The butterfly opening in the intake of the Citigo is limited on the (nominally) 59bhp models and allowed to open fully on the (nominally) 74bhp versions.

 

Because there's no turbo boost to adjust etc, whilst there's likely a little tweaking with the injection and ignition, what the tuners are doing is fundamentally allowing the inlet butterfly to open fully on the lower power engine to match the higher power one.

 

Celtic are showing a slight improvement all the way through the range which is good, but not entirely surprising as the engine will be able to flow a little more air with a wide open throttle.

 

The thing to be aware of is, unlike a diesel remap where the extra torque is usually very apparent all the way through the rev range, you'll likely only notice a difference on the Citigo when you're revving beyond 5k as it'll continue to make power rather than running out of puff and requiring another gear. If your car has a rev counter (I think they all do but not 100% sure), it's worth keeping an eye on the revs you are going to gauge how often you're exploiting that top end of the rev range. i.e. is it worth it for the few times you're up by the red line?

 

The dyno chart on the Superchips site shows similarly that the power continues as the revs increase rather than plateauing at 5,000rpm https://www.superchips.co.uk/ECU-Remap/Skoda/Citigo-MK1-2012-2016/Petrol/SE-1-0-MPI-59-bhp/stage-1

 

Also worth considering the insurance implications as the insurers, if they will insure a remapped car, typically load the premium based on % power increase. From 68 to 84 is 24%, though if the insurers take is as a 59bhp increase to 84 that's a whopping 42%.

 

Anyway, as in the simplest terms, the Citigo is just being set up to run the same as the 74bhp model then there should be no problems. As the 59bhp car has slightly shorter gearing than the 74bhp, it should feel *slightly* peppier through the gears. Celtic has, as far as I know, a very good reputation. If you get it donw, do report back and let us know how it goes.

 

 

[DAN@ADRIAN FLUX]

Hi.

If you have any issues with insurance at all for a re-map then please feel free to drop me a line.

Regards,

Dan.

[pinkpanther]

On 21/08/2022 at 12:54, AGFalco said:

Had the Citigo for 9 months now and all good except it could do with a little more GO on the hills around here.

Am spoilt by both the other cars I own as both have a bigger engine's which are turbocharged / intercooled / direct injection / 16 valve. 

 

I have found some details of a Remap on this engine by Celtic Tuning, see below:-

 

 

The above graph shows the engine before produced 67.9 BHP and after at 84.3 BHP when it is listed at 59 BHP as standard.

Looks like this was done on one of the hottest days this year just last month.

 

 

Two weeks later the engine had an MOT emissions test which shows as all still good.

 

Anybody had this done / got any experience of the company?

Was it worth doing and what are the driving results like?

 

Thanks, AG Falco 

I recall driving both versions of the citigo and being pretty much unable to tell any difference, unless it was completely revved out.

 

I then drove a TSi Up! which was a revelation.

[pinkpanther]

Just now, pinkpanther said:

I recall driving both versions of the citigo and being pretty much unable to tell any difference, unless it was completely revved out.

 

I then drove a TSi Up! which was a revelation.

In fact the TSi Up! was so good as to make the GTi seem not worth the extra 💰

[AGFalco]

31 minutes ago, pinkpanther said:

In fact the TSi

 Yes I have a TSI Fabia III which is a cracking engine.

 

I have now managed to drive the remapped Citigo car back to back with mine on local known roads.

It is noticeably more responsive / quicker from idle and all the way up the rev range.

It will pull up hills easier, you don't want / need to change down gear as much.

Motorway hills / overtakes are much better / easier than mine.

It's no GTI but it makes the car nicer / easier to drive.

Fuel consumption seems to be very similar to mine with 55 MPG on last tank used.

But my Fabia III is much better on fuel consumption with 62 MPG on the last tank.

 

Thanks, AG Falco

[TrevorB33]

Tsi in a citigo best of both worlds 😂

[AGFalco]

18 hours ago, TrevorB33 said:

Tsi in a citigo best of both worlds

Never made / sold in the UK. 

Only in the VW UP but with the insurance group higher than my Fabia III TSI with a 1.2 Lt engine not the 1.0 in the UP.

 

Thanks, AG Falco

[TrevorB33]

2 hours ago, AGFalco said:

Never made / sold in the UK. 

Only in the VW UP but with the insurance group higher than my Fabia III TSI with a 1.2 Lt engine not the 1.0 in the UP.

 

Thanks, AG Falco

Not officially no 😜

Edited 27 August, 2022 by TrevorB33

[freemansteve]

NB, at least for facelift versions, the 60ps & 75ps have identical gear and final drive ratios.

[Carlston]

Having lower gearing for the 60PS version than the 75PS would make no sense as they both have the same low down torque and so the lower powered version can just as easily pull the same gears as the 75PS version.

 

Having different gearboxes and/or final drive would add unnecessary expense to produce the cars. Lower gearing would mean higher fuel consumption, and the 60PS version is actually slightly more economical than the 75PS version, ie. 4.5L/100km instead of 4.7L/100km.

 

As you can see in the below chart, both versions produce 95Nm of torque between 3,000rpm and 4,300rpm.

 

1.0 Litre non-turbo petrol engine 60PS/75PS

95Nm@3,000rpm–4,300rpm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Up#Engines

 

It would have been nice if the Citigo had been produced in a 0.65Litre (650cc) two cylinder turbo petrol version with 75PS/130Nm. That could have made an average fuel consumption of 4L/100km (70mpg) possible instead of 4.4L/100km (64mpg) for the 1.0Litre (1,000cc) three cylinder turbo petrol.

 

As a turbo petrol engine can have maximum torque coming in much lower in the rev range (perhaps from 1,500rpm to 3,000rpm) than a non-turbo petrol engine, a 650cc two cylinder turbo engine would be much nicer to drive than a 1,000cc three cylinder non-turbo petrol engine.

 

Edited 20 September, 2022 by Carlston

[Ootohere]

The Engine was to be going in the rear.

 

 

 

 

VW had to work with what they had or bought in and even buying part if Suzuki for a while to get to know what Suzuki & Fiat / Mitsubishi & even Yamaha was working on never got them the engines they had not put work into.

As for Auto boxes, or Automated Manuals VW managed to fit the worst about in the UP!MiiCitigo. 

 

Suzuki got out on the eve of the crap hitting the fan for VW Group over Defeat Devices.   Coincidence.  I think not.

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

http://bbc.co.uk/news/business-15867168

Likely with financial help from Toyota who had or used far better small auto's or even CVT's than VW bothered buying in. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 20 September, 2022 by roottoot

[freemansteve]

For anyone curious, here are the figures published by Skoda for fuel consumption and gearing, as applied to facelift models.

Note that the LPG model is included, as are automatic versions, plus Greentech variants, so read carefully!

Combined fuel consumption is the same for manual 60ps & 75ps manuals, but oddly, the urban fuel consumption of the non-Greentech 60-ps is listed as a tad more than the non-Greentech 75ps for reasons I don't see (as far as I know, the test cycle wouldn't have involved going above 4300rpm, but i don't have the test details at hand - this is not great for showing fuel economy!)

 

Also, the fuel consumption listed is in litres per 100km, so a bigger number means lower MPG.
 

 

Edited 21 September, 2022 by freemansteve