-
Hey Guest👍👎 We're looking for reviews of your local CUPRA or SEAT Dealership - it's quick and easy to do: Leave a review now
JabbaSport Remap for 1.4 TSI(Take Two!)
- Thread starter Jay1990
- Start date
I think whatever tuner you go with you will just get a slightly different slice of the same thing. A Good steak is a good steak no matter where its from- You will still enjoy it, if that makes sense. Revo have done a lot of R&D with thier own development car but in effect it is still a gerenic map I belive that is then flashed onto your car where as the Jabba one im not sure if they will just flash the map they have done on my car or will edit all the values to make sure its running as well as it can on other customers cars. I asked RSTuning about remaping and the difference between RST remap and REVO.
RSTuning said:
Last edited:
well Something like an air intake the ecu would account for anyway so with the revised maps even a revo would take advantage of things like induction. I was thinking more turbo mods and intercoolers as colder intake temps allow you to mess a bit harsher with things.
jabbasport
Guest
Hi Jason.
Thanks for the kind words, I've only just noticed this topic otherwise I'd have been on here earlier to answer people's queries regarding which gear to perform the run in and torque level output.
Usually all FWD cars run in 4th gear because this is as close to a 1:1 ratio as possible.
Our rolling road, unlike dyno dynamics also performs a coast down measurement which measures the losses through the transmission and driveline.
We can also adjust the amount of "load" on the vehicle from our eddy brakes.
After running the car in 4th gear i felt as if the standard torque figure of near 220ft-lb i was achieving was a bit of a false figure, the vehicle was accelerating quickly on the rollers which also gave a bit of an initial over boost which may have caused the higher torque figure. Seat also quote around 180ft-lb so a 40ft-lb gain as standard was a little hard to believe.
I changed the run to 5th gear which looking at the ratio was closer to 1:1 than 4th gear (shorter gearing because of 7speed DSG) and applied more load through our eddy brakes. This offered a longer run time, with more precise measurement and a much better boost curve. I was then happy with the readout of 205ft-lb to be true of the engine.
By no means am i trying to discredit DD rolling roads, I'm just providing my justification for my actions.
After using a DD rolling road just this weekend, I'd say they're great for power runs and continuity between other DD rolling roads but they offer very little in the way of roller inertia and load applied to the vehicle.
There's also an issue with the measurement of drive line / transmission losses, when you're on the throttle you're driving the supercharger from the engine, which creates a loss as you're using power to drive the supercharger, but as it disconnects off the throttle you can't measure the losses from driving the supercharger.
After lengthy discussion with Jason we agreed that we'd leave the torque figure very much the same for clutch longevity but maintain the torque figure for longer and offer an increase in horsepower. This is what we achieved.
I feel i may have opened a can of worms, but debate is healthy.
Kevin
Thanks for the kind words, I've only just noticed this topic otherwise I'd have been on here earlier to answer people's queries regarding which gear to perform the run in and torque level output.
Usually all FWD cars run in 4th gear because this is as close to a 1:1 ratio as possible.
Our rolling road, unlike dyno dynamics also performs a coast down measurement which measures the losses through the transmission and driveline.
We can also adjust the amount of "load" on the vehicle from our eddy brakes.
After running the car in 4th gear i felt as if the standard torque figure of near 220ft-lb i was achieving was a bit of a false figure, the vehicle was accelerating quickly on the rollers which also gave a bit of an initial over boost which may have caused the higher torque figure. Seat also quote around 180ft-lb so a 40ft-lb gain as standard was a little hard to believe.
I changed the run to 5th gear which looking at the ratio was closer to 1:1 than 4th gear (shorter gearing because of 7speed DSG) and applied more load through our eddy brakes. This offered a longer run time, with more precise measurement and a much better boost curve. I was then happy with the readout of 205ft-lb to be true of the engine.
By no means am i trying to discredit DD rolling roads, I'm just providing my justification for my actions.
After using a DD rolling road just this weekend, I'd say they're great for power runs and continuity between other DD rolling roads but they offer very little in the way of roller inertia and load applied to the vehicle.
There's also an issue with the measurement of drive line / transmission losses, when you're on the throttle you're driving the supercharger from the engine, which creates a loss as you're using power to drive the supercharger, but as it disconnects off the throttle you can't measure the losses from driving the supercharger.
After lengthy discussion with Jason we agreed that we'd leave the torque figure very much the same for clutch longevity but maintain the torque figure for longer and offer an increase in horsepower. This is what we achieved.
I feel i may have opened a can of worms, but debate is healthy.
Kevin
Last edited by a moderator:
jabbasport
Guest
Hi.
This development work is to basically give us a baseline for our generic and custom maps.
We'll be able to offer this both as custom and generic, both we'd be able to tailor to vehicles. Not a load and go as such.
Thanks
jabbasport
Guest
Pricing hasn't been confirmed yet, but i'm expecting around £340 inc VAT Generic and £440 Custom.
Thanks
Thanks
I reckon it is another of those famous VAG misprints. 4th is definitely a shorter gear than 5th.?
Heres the graph in 5th. Awaiting the other graphs to be sent to me. I asked for tourqe outputs to be kept around 200-210ftlbs so while Its not the most aggressive or biggest number remap the results are still great as seen with the reduction in 0-60 times, I anticipate slightly better times once I get the start right and have a dry road to test on. The BUM-Dyno approves.
I was just looking through your graph and comparing it to mine and many other stage 1/2 cars.
I can now see why your torque isnt as high as ours.
For example
at 3000rpm mine is making +35-40hp over the jabba map
at 3500rpm mine is making nearly 50Hp more than the jabba map
at 4000rpm mine is making +40hp over the Jabba map
less power = less torque. It just happens that where the power is lower in the midrange is where rthe peak torque normally is found on our cars. FWIW the differences between mine and yours are neigh on identical to the revo vs jabba midrange results.
However, at peak RPM you are maintaining the same amount of torque as us because your power has built up to the same level.
Id imagine your in gear performance will not be as strong as ours, but yours is alot more friendly to the drive train, and probably alot more tractable. You'll just need rev yours higher to meet the same performance.
In fairness to Jabba. You asked for a lower torque map, and they have given you exactly what you asked for, whilst still maintaining the peak figures. That speaks volumes of their abilities IMO. They could easily have just upped the power to match the rest of the market, and gave you something you never asked for.
Id like to see their full fat option. Im changing tuner, originally had APR or REVO as the option because i want to switch between different octane maps for when im running water meth injection, but id let Jabba have a smash at mine as well. 211hp stage 1 would equate to some pretty good figures at stage 2 with an IC, intake and exhaust id imagine.
Id like to go Hybrid eventually and my tuner wont provide me a map, it seems revo have taken the same approach to the 1.4TSi as well. They are no longer providing any further stages than stage 2.
Last edited:
Good input there, your car/s were ran in 4th so by your own previous comments this doesnt really show the same in gear response as your graphs? I did ask them for a "lighter" map so I could make sure the car would run okay with it and what not and for longevity as the car is still under a year old. Im happy with it, and the guys at Jabba have a lot of real info for them so they could map a 1.4 tsi just how anyone would want it I would imagine. I mean if you guys have so much more pull on your maps then why is my car doing similar 5.x second 0-60's (best was a 5.6 in the wet its not really been dry or warm enough- freezing roads/tyres just as bad as scorching heat I would imagine.
May once Ive put a few more months testing on it I will go back to them and see what they can really do. Still awaiting the 4th gear graphs to get a better comparison for you guys but comparing two dynos isnt really all that valuble what with dyno lottery ect?
Jay
May once Ive put a few more months testing on it I will go back to them and see what they can really do. Still awaiting the 4th gear graphs to get a better comparison for you guys but comparing two dynos isnt really all that valuble what with dyno lottery ect?
Jay
Similar threads
