Cupra 300 Dyno??
- Thread starter Jordcupra
- Start date
Hard to tell without a dyno but... when speaking with different tuners about the 280. They all simply stated(out of experience) that Golf R, S3 and Cupra 280/290 all had the exact same factory mapping. Meaning they all have around 300hp. Then i believe the gearing on all these cars are slightly different?
Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk
Skickat från min iPhone med Tapatalk
It's a common story with BMW simply because they underrate their engines to an obscene level.
The three main theories behind it are:
* To make the car more affordable due to lower insurance premiums.
* Legal reasons. i.e: Someone doesn't sue them for false advertising.
* To make other products seem better. (i.e Audi/VW Products)
As far as I know, there isn't a concrete/official answer. However, my money is on the first theory of making insurance premiums cheaper as you don't find this sort of underrating with mid spec cars like my 1.4TSI 150. They would rather advertise a higher power rating to entice customers and the insurance wouldn't budge all that much. However, your Cupra sitting just under 300bhp makes it "slower" and therefore cheaper. Meanwhile, enthusists know it's actually packing about 310+.
The three main theories behind it are:
* To make the car more affordable due to lower insurance premiums.
* Legal reasons. i.e: Someone doesn't sue them for false advertising.
* To make other products seem better. (i.e Audi/VW Products)
As far as I know, there isn't a concrete/official answer. However, my money is on the first theory of making insurance premiums cheaper as you don't find this sort of underrating with mid spec cars like my 1.4TSI 150. They would rather advertise a higher power rating to entice customers and the insurance wouldn't budge all that much. However, your Cupra sitting just under 300bhp makes it "slower" and therefore cheaper. Meanwhile, enthusists know it's actually packing about 310+.
Last edited:
The numbers are partly marketing for sure.
The fact that engines seem underrated can depend on several factors, two of which haven't been mentioned:
- Manufacturers want to hit the promised numbers even with low quality fuel. So if you put in high quality fuel like most of us do, our modern engines can sense that over time (knock sensors) and advance ignition timing, resulting in higher power than rated.
- Incorrect correction factors on third party dyno runs: on a dyno, you actually measure power at the wheels. Then you make assumptions for power train loss and air temperature amongst others to correct the number to flywheel power. If the assumptions for drive trail loss are higher than actual drivetrain loss, flywheel power will look higher than it factually was (but you do get good power at the wheels).
Also most dynos will correct for air temp and pressure (usually gets a bit hot in a dyno room). So e.g. if temperature was a bit high, in the old days engines would lose power and these losses were corrected for. However our modern ECU actually adjust boost at higher temps to compensate for power loss due to high temps, so that there is no power loss. But if the dyno program assumes powers was lost, the flywheel power will be corrected to look higher at standard temps.
Even if numbers are 'wrong', it does mean that our cars will put good power to the wheels even on a hot day. Similar things are valid for any modern turbo car though...
I personally don't care too much about numbers, but more on the subjective experience. The butt dyno is thus the one that matters most
The fact that engines seem underrated can depend on several factors, two of which haven't been mentioned:
- Manufacturers want to hit the promised numbers even with low quality fuel. So if you put in high quality fuel like most of us do, our modern engines can sense that over time (knock sensors) and advance ignition timing, resulting in higher power than rated.
- Incorrect correction factors on third party dyno runs: on a dyno, you actually measure power at the wheels. Then you make assumptions for power train loss and air temperature amongst others to correct the number to flywheel power. If the assumptions for drive trail loss are higher than actual drivetrain loss, flywheel power will look higher than it factually was (but you do get good power at the wheels).
Also most dynos will correct for air temp and pressure (usually gets a bit hot in a dyno room). So e.g. if temperature was a bit high, in the old days engines would lose power and these losses were corrected for. However our modern ECU actually adjust boost at higher temps to compensate for power loss due to high temps, so that there is no power loss. But if the dyno program assumes powers was lost, the flywheel power will be corrected to look higher at standard temps.
Even if numbers are 'wrong', it does mean that our cars will put good power to the wheels even on a hot day. Similar things are valid for any modern turbo car though...
I personally don't care too much about numbers, but more on the subjective experience. The butt dyno is thus the one that matters most
Last edited:
Trettiosjuan has a good point. Dynos are for bragging rights and that's about it.
They say you will feel a 10% change in power, nothing less. If you get a remap on your car and can't feel that 10% it wasn't worth it. There is no point in saying "Oh but on the Dyno it's got a 20bhp power boost" if you can't even tell.
They say you will feel a 10% change in power, nothing less. If you get a remap on your car and can't feel that 10% it wasn't worth it. There is no point in saying "Oh but on the Dyno it's got a 20bhp power boost" if you can't even tell.
Dyno's are worth using for the right reason, i.e. Tuning!
My Cupra 290 was custom tuned on the dyno using live data from the gear pulls to ensure each stage of the tune matched the hardware and that changes were positive.
Delta gains are what you need to look at, rather than doing a one off run "just to see what it makes"
My Cupra 290 was custom tuned on the dyno using live data from the gear pulls to ensure each stage of the tune matched the hardware and that changes were positive.
Delta gains are what you need to look at, rather than doing a one off run "just to see what it makes"
Yes and no. Actually by logging the car when driving it hard, you can get all the information you need about temps, pressures, afr, boost, ignition etc. and you'll know if they improved. A dyno only reflects a very specific full throttle run in not fully realistic circumstances. It's more of a final confirmation of the delta but not necessarily a tool needed to fine tune the car. Unless you are really working to adjust specific areas of e.g. the torque curve, but most don't go that deep. Some tuners don't even log the car properly but just look at the delta, it's easy to impress customers not in the know and showing fancy 3D mapping graphs and a dyno, when in reality only a few of several thousands of ecu values are adjusted sometimes. Luckily VAG users are harder to fool with all the experience that exists and the broad tuning base.
I don't know the delta on my car, all I know that my values are healthy and not pushing it compared to what others do (more hardware than software), and that the butt dyno really notices the difference, every time. I still give people number when they ask, but I know its just that and could vary 10hp up or down easily on a given day...
Last edited:
Auto Bild Sportscars claims that Cupra ST 4drive achieved quite remarkable time despite being much heavier than Cupra 280 -- 1:40.16 vs 1:42.30 (fastestlaps.com/tests/t7mbh00av7uj), that's whole 2+ seconds. Likely the tires were supersports.
Not sure how trustworthy or consistent the source is, that 2017/6 print is not even out yet.
Why do you guys think R/S3/Cupra have the same maps? At least they should vary with different gearboxes and FWD/Haldex imho.
Not sure how trustworthy or consistent the source is, that 2017/6 print is not even out yet.
Why do you guys think R/S3/Cupra have the same maps? At least they should vary with different gearboxes and FWD/Haldex imho.
Last edited:
Given that the latest two are irl 200-350kg heavier and relatively down on torque (and not always make their claimed power), and probably on older tyre tech... Not so surprisingFaster than an RS4? I'll take that!
Last edited:
Similar threads
