Despite a 40mph max on our rock in the Channel I needed a bit more go in 79/100 . I would have loved to Jabba it as an inital stage but 8 hours of ferry plus a couple of days before christmas in the UK was ridiculous budget wise ( cat off pipe + decent cluch equivalent !) and The Minister for the Interior would have given me grief. APR sounds reasonable but the cruise control stalk etc added up and again had complexity that I wanted to avoid. There is no Revo dealer here so tests and backup would be non existent. Also there are no RRs that I am aware of on the Island. So following discussion with a small but enthusiast garage owner who had fitted a few of these I have gone for a

Tony,

Was the chip specifically for the RS, I recall another forum member tried another brand of chip sometime ago and it exhibited strange problems one sounds like yours. It needs to be a skoda chip because they have a different wastgate activation compared to other VAG models.

Yes it was specifically Skoda and it was printed as such on the instal instructions.

The flatish spot is not desperate but just noticable.

Managed a reasonable run this pm and the flat spot that mostly showed in 2nd has all but gone not sure if this is processor compensations or driving through it. However , the performance in 3rd /4th to c110+ (don't ask) is significantly greater and especially noticable in 4th +85 - 110 when the scenery starts to get in the way.So far slight initial disappointment has turned to realisation that what it said on the box is actually there.

The next tuning project is courtesy of my ever observant 13yr old son who has pointed out following a dinner table lecture on physics that, as F=ma then every 10kg I lose in weight (allright 100N)

equals 1Kw gain in effective power ie 1 stone (as ancient units) lost gives 1BHP gained ! Atkins Diet here I come.

Tony

Hi

Is this a box that wires into the loom, a chip, or a "software upgrade"

The site looks very similar to http://www.power-system.nl/

They make "soap on a rope" type tuning boxes.

I have one of their boxes (although it's gone faulty and is currently waiting for me to send it back).

On a normally aspirated car like mine, it didn't seem to do much more than smooth out the power delivery, but they're meant to be pretty good on turbo'd cars (albeit not particularly sophisticated).

Kinda like a Unichip, but without the ability to tune it on a rolling road.

Glad you like it anyway.

Nice results there, but it MUST be frustrating with that speed limit - I know it would be for me.

I was on Guernsey weekend before last, and the amount of super fast machinery was staggering - various top of the range Mercs, beemers, a 300ZX, Yellow vRS , Audi RS6! 2 Porsche 911s - and a 35mph speed limit... :confused:

I dread to think what I'd have done after Jabba if I couldn't have gone anywhere over 40mph, legally.

Yes Josh that does look similar but I note there's no 1.8Ts in the list at all and the price differential was significant on the speedstechnology one.

Taking it on

I have now managed some rudimentary acceleration times. ie full health warning based on operator error, parallax error etc etc. and they stand at

0-60 6.1 sec 0-100 16.00 sec

I would be very interested to know how that equates to people with properly known power/work figures and accurate recording.According to the box I should be at 215BHP and 254lbs ft , interestingly if you apply the following rule of two thumbs equation then the predicted 0-60 comes out at a remarkably similar figure! Again I would be very interested to know how this fits with other peoples known results . ( I am fully aware that I am mixing Nms with British Thermal units (sic)here but I think it is more than coincidence that the ratios and constants involved provide a seemingly realistic figure)

Total Mass of Vehicle (Kg ) / BHP+lb secs x 0.5 = notional 0-60 in secs

example standard Octy Vrs

1355+ 65Kg / 180+174x0.5 = 8.0sec (7.9 man figs)

here

1355+ 100kg/ 215+254x0.5 = 6.2 sec (100kg is for one medium and one small person)

Clearly gearing etc gives lots of variation potential but trying the equation over a range or manufacturers figures gives a reasonable fit 'spooky or what?'

I look forward to destructive critisism on this one.

Regards

Tony