tdi sport 130 remaped no difference? Remap reviews please

[SteveC123]

Ah..okay. Well I disagree. Both cars are failry similar in terms of pace and okay, you might have to put a little more effort into the Clio to get to the power but that's half the fun. It's certainly not any slower day to day.

Could it be that diesel drivers are lazy?

I'm not lazy... well, ok, maybe I am, but not when it comes to how my car drives.

If I were that lazy, I'd buy an automatic.

No, I just happen to like the power delivery of a diesel... and the fact I get 55mpg+ when I'm not ragging it to death.

That, and I'm one of the old school who come from the era when diesels were slow / smelly compared to diesels, and so the idea of something that's come as far as these have now, still amuses me (sad, I know).

 

[SteveC123]

Well how can I put this…. ill use a example a car with similar weight and bhp

Leon 2.0 tdi 140bhp 0-60 9sec 1520kg
Leon 2.0 16v petrol 147bhp 0-60 8.5 1472kg

Now the tdi may be 50 kg heavier and slightly down on bhp however it has 80lbs torque more which is a huge difference ?????
Now by your theory why oh why is the tdi SLOWER to 60, is it to do with the tdi hits 60 in third gear and the petrol in 2nd lol
Of course it would be faster if it did hit 60 in second.

*sigh*

Look... I'll make it more simple for you.

You *might* change gear more in certain diesels than the petrol equivalent, and yes, you will lose time when changing gear... but the diesel has *more* torque, and you make up for the temporary lag when changing gear, with the extra stomp when you're hard on the throttle.

*More* torque means *more* power to pull a car through higher gears.

A remap equates to even more torque.

The biggest problem I find with my Ibiza, (given it has a lot more torque than standard and it appearing that the TCS on it is set to be expecting less torque), is getting it to launch without spinning up... but even when it does spin up, it's still pulling away quickly, and then once I'm in second / third and so on and so forth, it has more *power* available at lower revs than a petrol equivalent, to pull through the higher gears.

You don't appear to be able to acknowledge the losses from changing up a gear are offset by the extra power available to pull through the subsequent higher gear?

Going back to your previous comments regarding weight, IIRC you said about loading petrol / diesel cars up with passengers and then seeing which is quicker... 300kg equates to three or four passengers in a car.

Therefore, even dismissing me not perhaps clearly underlining my Passat was mapped earlier in the thread, this illustrates exactly why the extra weight of the Passat is not necessarily as much of a factor in how quick it would be compared to other cars, including my Ibiza... that and my comments about the two related to outright top speed, but regardless, the Passat was no slouch by comparison...

Read into this what you will: my quickest lap on a trackday in the Passat was 55.2 seconds... the Ibiza (which also has *much* better brakes, an area where a 312mm TT and less weight *does* really help), 53.7 seconds... and I had a passenger in the Passat, a much heavier, so therefore unlikely to handle as well, car?

I've added the FMIC to the Ibiza since - this will improve the times more, but then so would have fitting a FMIC to the Passat.

Oh, and I'm not your son.

 

[beeko85]

its going to be pretty hard to make up for 2 gear changes in a diesel compared to the one gear change in the petrol he was talking about, whats a good gear change, between 0.5-1.0 seconds all in? yes youll be straight back on the turbo and onto peak torque again, but the petrol will still be in its optimal power range, changing gear round 6000rpm, into what, around 4000-45000 in 2nd, so till able to pull as quick as it was?

 

[Arnoldo]

its going to be pretty hard to make up for 2 gear changes in a diesel compared to the one gear change in the petrol he was talking about, whats a good gear change, between 0.5-1.0 seconds all in? yes youll be straight back on the turbo and onto peak torque again, but the petrol will still be in its optimal power range, changing gear round 6000rpm, into what, around 4000-45000 in 2nd, so till able to pull as quick as it was?

Thats a good theory!

 

[beeko85]

Thats a good theory!

why thanks arnoldo! appreciate that.
by the way stevec hope you dont think im just being argumentative or having a go or anything, this just interests me, and im just sharing my own opinion while hoping to learn from other's at the same time

 

[jaz205gti]

Ok steve I think we got to a point were we are both talking about the same thing, yes diesel will come back hard in lets say top end 2nd to 3rd gear! I’m basically saying same sort of thing as beeko about gear change will take more time off 0-60 from diesel.

300 kg didn’t change your lap times much however in theory and with all the cars iv owned putting 5 people in the car make the car slower , ( even in my old 850 t5 lol)

Can I just ask a question Steve, your car has 167k how is it running?



Just like to say thanks digby for the only person answering the original question!
8sec 0-60 thought it would have been more , there’s company who claim around 7sec 0-60 called angel tuning.

 

[majesty78]

Oh, and dont forget, quoted numbers like 0-60 and so on, given by manufactures are only CALCULATED! And not tested on track.

 

[beeko85]

Just like to say thanks digby for the only person answering the original question!
8sec 0-60 thought it would have been more , there’s company who claim around 7sec 0-60 called angel tuning.

about right for what i said in my first comment jaz, that +30bhp per ton = about 1 sec 0-60
yeah angel claim a 1.3 second improvement on the 130 ibiza 0-60, again its probably right, they map it to approx 180bhp. so if digby's 130 is mapped to somewhere around the 170 range then thats exactly what youd expect.
And yeah, i think your totally right about the 0-60 limits with a diesel, so the benifits of 20mph+ are going to be more impressive again. theyre definately worth the money and if your even half considering it then just go it, i always enjoyed my megane and now my leon in standard form, they were both a step up performance wise, but once they were mapped they were so much better, i just find driving a lot more fun with them. a 130 tdi in a small cars always going to be suprisingly quick when your on the turbo, but mapped theyre soo much better

 

[SteveC123]

its going to be pretty hard to make up for 2 gear changes in a diesel compared to the one gear change in the petrol he was talking about, whats a good gear change, between 0.5-1.0 seconds all in? yes youll be straight back on the turbo and onto peak torque again, but the petrol will still be in its optimal power range, changing gear round 6000rpm, into what, around 4000-45000 in 2nd, so till able to pull as quick as it was?

Depends on just how much torque you've got really, doesn't it?

Like I said, if you've *that* much torque, you'll be making up for any losses from changing up earlier, by way of having that much more stomp in the upper gears as you shift up the box.

Going back to something I said before (but which a certain person didn't appear to pick up on), is a hot hatch vs a cooking version of a car with the same engine (they do exist).

The hot hatch will normally have a closer ratio box, meaning you have to change up more often than in the cooking version when nailing it off the mark... and yet the hot hatch will invariably be slightly quicker off the mark.

Why?

Because you might be changing up more, but you're using the available power to pull through the gears quicker.

My Passat was a perfect example of how a diesel can turn things around in its favour when it comes to sprinting off the mark and gear changes.

It had 173bhp and 273 lb/ft of torque.

On a couple of occasions I had other stuff launch slightly quicker off the lights, and they would get the initial jump on it... but once I was out of first and into second and then third, it more than made up for the initial lull and reeled them in / went past them.

This is what is seen in the Clio vs Cupra TDI video further up the thread.

The Ibiza is better than the Passat in this respect bar, as I've mentioned elsewhere, it tends to defeat the traction control a lot easier in first, and so you get more spinnage unless you're a bit more delicate with the clutch / throttle.

Higher speed 'roll on' sprints, both the Passat and the Ibiza have held their own, but yet again the Passat proved the importance of gearing (and aerodynamics tbh), because it pulled through in top at silly speeds better than the Ibiza does, despite being a bigger, heavier car, mostly thanks to the much longer top gear the Ibiza has.

 

[thePHILosipher]

i have got a quick question here, if i remapped my fr tdi to the same bhp and ft/lb as the cupra tdi would the performance figures be the same (ie 0-60) or would it depend on other factors like the transmission etc etc???

 

[SteveC123]

Ok steve I think we got to a point were we are both talking about the same thing, yes diesel will come back hard in lets say top end 2nd to 3rd gear! I’m basically saying same sort of thing as beeko about gear change will take more time off 0-60 from diesel.

Ok... but it really does depend on the car in question, and how the gearing relates to the available spread of torque.

Especially when it comes to tuned TDIs - the Ibiza seems to have a lot more power than standard but within the same sort of ballpark figures as the standard power curve, whereas the Passat ended up with a bit more power at the top end of its rev range - if I can get the torque to stretch up another 200rpm in the Ibiza in fifth, it should pull through in sixth a lot better IMHO.

300 kg didn’t change your lap times much however in theory and with all the cars iv owned putting 5 people in the car make the car slower , ( even in my old 850 t5 lol)

Ah well... you see on the track it's also down to stuff like handling, and the Passat is a much more composed car than the Ibiza... and the Ibiza has a strut brace *and* much newer FR suspension, plus better brakes.

IMHO, this is due to the following: The Passat has better front weight distribution engine wise, equal (or rather more equal) length driveshafts, and it had this funky 'push pull' arrangement on the front legs which meant you didn't get any torque steer as such, all of which added up to it being able to get its power down better coming out of bends.

The Ibiza is a much looser car by comparison when pushed to its limits, and this is reflected in the pictures I had taken of both when I was slinging them around the track, with the Passat looking far more composed on bends etc. than the Ibiza.

Great car, the Passat... not as edgy as the Ibiza, but I just knew it was always going to make it round a bend or whatever, whereas the Ibiza leaves me with a feeling I'm going to end up in a field if I really push it down bumpy country lanes.

Had I not needed a hatchback, I'd have kept the Passat no question.

Can I just ask a question Steve, your car has 167k how is it running?

It's 164k at the mo, but yes, runs spot on.

Gearbox feels fine, no knocking or tapping from the engine from cold (which is what I've seen on leggy Golf TDIs in the past, mapped or otherwise), and nothing to suggest it'll imminently suffer an 'epic fail' either.

I've had other people say 'ooh, you must be mad tweaking something that leggy', but it's a VAG TDI at the end of the day, and whilst the rest of it may well fall to bits in due course, the engine should be good for a while yet.

In its defence, it's had one previous owner and doesn't appear to have been tweaked in the past bar chassis wise, and from what the local Seat dealer who originally supplied and looked after the car in its early days told me the other day that it spent its life going back and forth to London all the time, so it really is a case of 'motorway mileage' in the main.

I get bored with cars quite easily and having had this one for a few months I'm beginning to get the itch again... and truth be told, I'd prefer a Mk4 Golf again or maybe something a bit bigger... but this car is so reliable, I'm not sure I can be bothered to change it.

 

[SteveC123]

i have got a quick question here, if i remapped my fr tdi to the same bhp and ft/lb as the cupra tdi would the performance figures be the same (ie 0-60) or would it depend on other factors like the transmission etc etc???

Transmission would be a factor, not sure how much (if at all), the FR and Cupra TDI boxes differ in this respect.

It wouldn't make as much difference as you probably think though.

Another factor will be just how your car then makes its power compared to a Cupra, as your car has a smaller turbo etc.

Intercooler wise, you'd be seeing a lot more heat soak in yours compared to a Cupra due to the fact yours has a small side mount intercooler and the Cupra has a much bigger front mount, and this can really take the edge off the performance once they get a bit hot.

 

[thePHILosipher]

gotcha nice one mate, i keep forgetting that frs are side mounted and cupras are front mounted (i shouldnt seeing how often im on here ), the cupras also have bigger intakes alllow better air feed to the engine,

cheers for that tho mate

 

[SteveC123]

gotcha nice one mate, i keep forgetting that frs are side mounted and cupras are front mounted (i shouldnt seeing how often im on here ), the cupras also have bigger intakes alllow better air feed to the engine,

cheers for that tho mate

No worries.

I binned my side mount and fitted a Forge FMIC earlier this month - it's made enough of a difference to justify itself.

 

[thePHILosipher]

No worries.

I binned my side mount and fitted a Forge FMIC earlier this month - it's made enough of a difference to justify itself.

hhmmm thats what i didnt need to here another for the mods to do list, how much was it in total with all the pipe work?? about £600 all in aint they??

 

[SteveC123]

hhmmm thats what i didnt need to here another for the mods to do list, how much was it in total with all the pipe work?? about £600 all in aint they??

So they tell me.

Picked this up complete with a modded front cross member for £100

A lot of people reckon the Seat Sport FMIC is better, plus you don't need to chop the front bumper to make it fit on the later bumpered cars such as yours, and some have worked out a way to get one for around £450 with all the pipework, so a bit better and a bit cheaper if you're going down the new route.

 

[thePHILosipher]

nice cheers bud, the SEAT sport one is very popular on here so i think that i certainly have food for thought especially if the SS doesnt require bumper mods.

You got a bit of a bargain there £150 all in. I believe alot of people purchase them from seremotors through here or ted Johnson using the discount.

Im still goin 2 get my remap done, bit of extra poke not expecting great shakes but enough to make a difference, this car is becoming a money pit but its all good

 

[beeko85]

Depends on just how much torque you've got really, doesn't it?

Like I said, if you've *that* much torque, you'll be making up for any losses from changing up earlier, by way of having that much more stomp in the upper gears as you shift up the box.

Going back to something I said before (but which a certain person didn't appear to pick up on), is a hot hatch vs a cooking version of a car with the same engine (they do exist).

The hot hatch will normally have a closer ratio box, meaning you have to change up more often than in the cooking version when nailing it off the mark... and yet the hot hatch will invariably be slightly quicker off the mark.

Why?

Because you might be changing up more, but you're using the available power to pull through the gears quicker.

My Passat was a perfect example of how a diesel can turn things around in its favour when it comes to sprinting off the mark and gear changes.

It had 173bhp and 273 lb/ft of torque.

On a couple of occasions I had other stuff launch slightly quicker off the lights, and they would get the initial jump on it... but once I was out of first and into second and then third, it more than made up for the initial lull and reeled them in / went past them.

This is what is seen in the Clio vs Cupra TDI video further up the thread.

The Ibiza is better than the Passat in this respect bar, as I've mentioned elsewhere, it tends to defeat the traction control a lot easier in first, and so you get more spinnage unless you're a bit more delicate with the clutch / throttle.

Higher speed 'roll on' sprints, both the Passat and the Ibiza have held their own, but yet again the Passat proved the importance of gearing (and aerodynamics tbh), because it pulled through in top at silly speeds better than the Ibiza does, despite being a bigger, heavier car, mostly thanks to the much longer top gear the Ibiza has.

Yeah thats a great example, two cars exactly the same, both hot hatches but with different engines, eg the current model civic s types.
Same power output 138 bhp. identical 0-60 times, 8.6 according to what car mag.Yet the diesel has 320nm of torque, as opposed to the petrol which only has 174. Therefore, even with all its extra torque, it still cant beat the petrol to 60mph, they would be side by side in a race at this point. Why would this be? The diesel will surely out perform the petrol mid range, and from a rolling start, say 20 or 30mph on, the diesel will always win, yet it is the same 0-60. Would the time taken to change up the extra gear that the diesel requires to stay in its optimum power range not be the main factor in this?
Now, obviously this the part where you say, but the 0-60 times are the same so it does make up for this, but yet if you remap the diesel (as you keep talking about a remapped car with all that extra torque making up for it) you get around the 192bhp mark depending on the map, im using celtic tuning here for referance. Now, with this diesel mapped to 192, you can expect the 0-60 time to drop to around 7.5/7.4 secs.
Why then does the type r still have a noticably faster 0-60 time at 6.6 seconds? yes it has 5 more bhp, but it only has 142lb-ft of torque, compared to the remapped diesel's massive 316lb-ft, and as you keep saying, the extra torque will make up for a gear change right? no it wont. The torque cant make up for it, yes it makes it close, and diesels can hold their own performance wise, no ones disputing that, but you cant get those 0-60 times down to those of a proper na petrol hatch simply because the gears on the diesel dont allow it-a difference of around 1 sec 0-60 between the remapped diesel and a standard type r- say the diference between a well executed gear change perhaps- 1 second? thats really the only difference between the two, and it happens to be the deciding factor.
Gearing is what it always comes down to, changing gear makes too much of an impact on the cars acceleration. theres a video on you tube of two identical mark 5 gti's racing, one with dsg, the other with a guy who has a full quick shift set up installed in the manual version, and the difference between them is still staggering, because it just takes too much time.

 

[Gaz44]

i have got a quick question here, if i remapped my fr tdi to the same bhp and ft/lb as the cupra tdi would the performance figures be the same (ie 0-60) or would it depend on other factors like the transmission etc etc???

Gearing is one of the biggest factors.

 

[CJRamze]

Jesus Christ one of these topics again.
Can a standard 130 beat a mapped 130 if both are operating normally.
No

Stop arguing about Dervs and Petrol.
I'm a Petrol 1.8T Cupra and I miss my Derv! Its all personal preference! Both have their own advantages.
I just liked boy racers loosing to cloud of black smoke!