RE: Skoda Octavia vRS Revo Technik: Driven
Discussion
It's made all the more attractive because it's a Skoda and an estate. No doubt you could do something similar with one of VAG's posher brands but the effect just wouldnt be as extreme, it's sort of zero to hero... I'm an inverted badge snob which partly explains why I'd choose a GTR over an R8 every time.
James Drake said:
Harry Flashman said:
Hell yes. If they did something similarly inappropriate and awesome to a Skoda Yeti, that would be the sensible car for me.
Don't get me started on the Yeti, they are my guilty pleasure!Shame that Skoda never did a 4wd Yeti VRS, nor a petrol 4wd Octavia VRS.
wormus said:
What's the point of making a 2 litre turbo car make over 400hp when for much less, and for less risk, you can buy a 400hp car? VXR8 springs to mind. Then you can add a bolt on supercharger to take it to almost 700hp.
Weight and handling in my case. A 50% kg increase to VXR8 so even with 700bhp doubt it would be quicker round a handling circuit than 1200kg with 400bhp. Then add all the extra running costs.What's the point in 400bhp from a nasty turbo 4, though? No pleasure in revving out something like that, so no joy in actually using the power. Crappy throttle response. Horrid sound. Pub talk car, in my view. The fact that the power is completely unusable because of it being wrong wheel drive just hammers the point home!
amstrange1 said:
James Drake said:
Harry Flashman said:
Hell yes. If they did something similarly inappropriate and awesome to a Skoda Yeti, that would be the sensible car for me.
Don't get me started on the Yeti, they are my guilty pleasure!Shame that Skoda never did a 4wd Yeti VRS, nor a petrol 4wd Octavia VRS.
I'm not convinced about the commercial sense and viability of this car, as not that long ago a certain Mr C. Harris tested his slightly rough Audi S4 with Revo remap etc against an RS4
Iirc the S4 recorded a 0-60 time of 4.17 seconds, and 0-100 in 9.48 seconds
Now, the remap was £1200, rear anti-roll bar £330, Stasis brake kit £3273 and try exhaust was £1800, a not inconsiderable £8403 in total.
However, stack that, plus the cost of a used Audi S4 against this car with its Revo tweeks, and to me the S4 makes more sense, both financially and performance-wise, notwithstanding the advantage it has with quattro 4wd in getting the power down.
Just my six-penneth worth.....
Iirc the S4 recorded a 0-60 time of 4.17 seconds, and 0-100 in 9.48 seconds
Now, the remap was £1200, rear anti-roll bar £330, Stasis brake kit £3273 and try exhaust was £1800, a not inconsiderable £8403 in total.
However, stack that, plus the cost of a used Audi S4 against this car with its Revo tweeks, and to me the S4 makes more sense, both financially and performance-wise, notwithstanding the advantage it has with quattro 4wd in getting the power down.
Just my six-penneth worth.....
Scottie - NW said:
AER said:
If the standard car is running 1.2Bar and you're not running above 2.0 Bar then there simply isn't enough air there to make the power you're claiming
I'm no expert, but I thought you flowed more air from a larger turbo even at the same pressure level, so 1.2 bar on one turbo does not equate to 1.2bar on another?Happy for someone who knows more to explain this better
A larger turbo will spin slower to achieve the same boost pressure than a small one. If it's closer to it's peak efficiency (likely) then it'll be cooler air and possibly also with less exhaust back pressure so internal EGR will be lower by a smidge. Total airflow will be within a very small percentage of each other though.
RevoMichael said:
AER said:
If the standard car is running 1.2Bar and you're not running above 2.0 Bar then there simply isn't enough air there to make the power you're claiming
WHP indeed!
Why? It is on 210bar fuel pressure and flowing 1150kg/h at rev limit.WHP indeed!
Edited by AER on Friday 12th February 13:23
Take that Golf R engine as a higher performance baseline.
At peak torque (280lb-ft @ 4000rpm - say), boost pressure of 115kPa (your figures - that's 215kPa absolute), an inlet temperature of 40°C (typical), a BSAC of about 3.75kg/kWh (again, typical - gets worse the more you push things, generally), the engine will have a delivery ratio (volumetric efficiency, relative to manifold pressure) of around 105%. Total volumetric efficiency will be about 205%. BMEP here is a respectably germanic 24Bar.
If we hold everything constant and wind up the boost to achieve your claimed peak torque of 380lb-ft, the boost pressure needed (even assuming no intake air temperature increase!) will be 190kPa (290kPa absolute). At 10°C more intake air heating, you're cracking the 2Bar boost threshold. At this point, you're alleging a slightly stratospheric BMEP of 32.6Bar - achievable, but not in a garage on pump fuel.
The same calcs can be done at the peak power point. For reference, assuming the Golf R is running the same boost pressure, BMEP is still around 24.2Bar, delivery ratio is 100% and VE is 206%. At 410hp @ 5400rpm, the boost pressure needs to rise to 220kPa (320kPa absolute) for the same delivery ratio. VE is now 291%! Take it to a more realistic 50°C IAT - because you're now compressing a shed load more air to a much higher pressure - it's now 230kPa (330kPaA). In any case, we're at a laughable and highly improbable 34.2Bar BMEP.
All this is assuming combustion efficiency, thermal effiency and friction remain constant (constant BSAC). This is highly unlikely, especially at the power densities you're claiming, meaning the boost pressure would need to be even higher, or you're producing even less power than you're claiming.
The chances of you really making the claimed power if you are running less boost than these numbers is close to zero. The fact that your engines haven't gone pop in the 13k durability miles you've done is exhibit B in the same case.
I rest my case.
Edited by AER on Sunday 14th February 03:51
rtz62 said:
I'm not convinced about the commercial sense and viability of this car, as not that long ago a certain Mr C. Harris tested his slightly rough Audi S4 with Revo remap etc against an RS4
Iirc the S4 recorded a 0-60 time of 4.17 seconds, and 0-100 in 9.48 seconds
Now, the remap was £1200, rear anti-roll bar £330, Stasis brake kit £3273 and try exhaust was £1800, a not inconsiderable £8403 in total.
However, stack that, plus the cost of a used Audi S4 against this car with its Revo tweeks, and to me the S4 makes more sense, both financially and performance-wise, notwithstanding the advantage it has with quattro 4wd in getting the power down.
Just my six-penneth worth.....
And then it blew up its gearbox, if I recall correctly.Iirc the S4 recorded a 0-60 time of 4.17 seconds, and 0-100 in 9.48 seconds
Now, the remap was £1200, rear anti-roll bar £330, Stasis brake kit £3273 and try exhaust was £1800, a not inconsiderable £8403 in total.
However, stack that, plus the cost of a used Audi S4 against this car with its Revo tweeks, and to me the S4 makes more sense, both financially and performance-wise, notwithstanding the advantage it has with quattro 4wd in getting the power down.
Just my six-penneth worth.....
AER said:
You need air with that fuel. More fuel alone does not equal more power.
Take that Golf R engine as a higher performance baseline.
At peak torque (280lb-ft @ 4000rpm - say), boost pressure of 115kPa (your figures - that's 215kPa absolute), an inlet temperature of 40°C (typical), a BSAC of about 3.75kg/kWh (again, typical - gets worse the more you push things, generally), the engine will have a delivery ratio (volumetric efficiency, relative to manifold pressure) of around 105%. Total volumetric efficiency will be about 205%. BMEP here is a respectably germanic 24Bar.
If we hold everything constant and wind up the boost to achieve your claimed peak torque of 380lb-ft, the boost pressure needed (even assuming no intake air temperature increase!) will be 190kPa (290kPa absolute). At 10°C more intake air heating, you're cracking the 2Bar boost threshold. At this point, you're alleging a slightly stratospheric BMEP of 32.6Bar - achievable, but not in a garage on pump fuel.
The same calcs can be done at the peak power point. For reference, assuming the Golf R is running the same boost pressure, BMEP is still around 24.2Bar, delivery ratio is 100% and VE is 206%. At 410hp @ 5400rpm, the boost pressure needs to rise to 220kPa (320kPa absolute) for the same delivery ratio. VE is now 291%! Take it to a more realistic 50°C IAT - because you're now compressing a shed load more air to a much higher pressure - it's now 230kPa (330kPaA). In any case, we're at a laughable and highly improbable 34.2Bar BMEP.
All this is assuming combustion efficiency, thermal effiency and friction remain constant (constant BSAC). This is highly unlikely, especially at the power densities you're claiming, meaning the boost pressure would need to be even higher, or you're producing even less power than you're claiming.
The chances of you really making the claimed power if you are running less boost than these numbers is close to zero. The fact that your engines haven't gone pop in the 13k durability miles you've done is exhibit B in the same case.
I rest my case.
Awaiting Revo reply to this Take that Golf R engine as a higher performance baseline.
At peak torque (280lb-ft @ 4000rpm - say), boost pressure of 115kPa (your figures - that's 215kPa absolute), an inlet temperature of 40°C (typical), a BSAC of about 3.75kg/kWh (again, typical - gets worse the more you push things, generally), the engine will have a delivery ratio (volumetric efficiency, relative to manifold pressure) of around 105%. Total volumetric efficiency will be about 205%. BMEP here is a respectably germanic 24Bar.
If we hold everything constant and wind up the boost to achieve your claimed peak torque of 380lb-ft, the boost pressure needed (even assuming no intake air temperature increase!) will be 190kPa (290kPa absolute). At 10°C more intake air heating, you're cracking the 2Bar boost threshold. At this point, you're alleging a slightly stratospheric BMEP of 32.6Bar - achievable, but not in a garage on pump fuel.
The same calcs can be done at the peak power point. For reference, assuming the Golf R is running the same boost pressure, BMEP is still around 24.2Bar, delivery ratio is 100% and VE is 206%. At 410hp @ 5400rpm, the boost pressure needs to rise to 220kPa (320kPa absolute) for the same delivery ratio. VE is now 291%! Take it to a more realistic 50°C IAT - because you're now compressing a shed load more air to a much higher pressure - it's now 230kPa (330kPaA). In any case, we're at a laughable and highly improbable 34.2Bar BMEP.
All this is assuming combustion efficiency, thermal effiency and friction remain constant (constant BSAC). This is highly unlikely, especially at the power densities you're claiming, meaning the boost pressure would need to be even higher, or you're producing even less power than you're claiming.
The chances of you really making the claimed power if you are running less boost than these numbers is close to zero. The fact that your engines haven't gone pop in the 13k durability miles you've done is exhibit B in the same case.
I rest my case.
Edited by AER on Sunday 14th February 03:51
AER said:
You need air with that fuel. More fuel alone does not equal more power.
Take that Golf R engine as a higher performance baseline.
At peak torque (280lb-ft @ 4000rpm - say), boost pressure of 115kPa (your figures - that's 215kPa absolute), an inlet temperature of 40°C (typical), a BSAC of about 3.75kg/kWh (again, typical - gets worse the more you push things, generally), the engine will have a delivery ratio (volumetric efficiency, relative to manifold pressure) of around 105%. Total volumetric efficiency will be about 205%. BMEP here is a respectably germanic 24Bar.
If we hold everything constant and wind up the boost to achieve your claimed peak torque of 380lb-ft, the boost pressure needed (even assuming no intake air temperature increase!) will be 190kPa (290kPa absolute). At 10°C more intake air heating, you're cracking the 2Bar boost threshold. At this point, you're alleging a slightly stratospheric BMEP of 32.6Bar - achievable, but not in a garage on pump fuel.
The same calcs can be done at the peak power point. For reference, assuming the Golf R is running the same boost pressure, BMEP is still around 24.2Bar, delivery ratio is 100% and VE is 206%. At 410hp @ 5400rpm, the boost pressure needs to rise to 220kPa (320kPa absolute) for the same delivery ratio. VE is now 291%! Take it to a more realistic 50°C IAT - because you're now compressing a shed load more air to a much higher pressure - it's now 230kPa (330kPaA). In any case, we're at a laughable and highly improbable 34.2Bar BMEP.
All this is assuming combustion efficiency, thermal effiency and friction remain constant (constant BSAC). This is highly unlikely, especially at the power densities you're claiming, meaning the boost pressure would need to be even higher, or you're producing even less power than you're claiming.
The chances of you really making the claimed power if you are running less boost than these numbers is close to zero. The fact that your engines haven't gone pop in the 13k durability miles you've done is exhibit B in the same case.
I rest my case.
After reading this post my conclusion is you have a beard and a white overcoat Take that Golf R engine as a higher performance baseline.
At peak torque (280lb-ft @ 4000rpm - say), boost pressure of 115kPa (your figures - that's 215kPa absolute), an inlet temperature of 40°C (typical), a BSAC of about 3.75kg/kWh (again, typical - gets worse the more you push things, generally), the engine will have a delivery ratio (volumetric efficiency, relative to manifold pressure) of around 105%. Total volumetric efficiency will be about 205%. BMEP here is a respectably germanic 24Bar.
If we hold everything constant and wind up the boost to achieve your claimed peak torque of 380lb-ft, the boost pressure needed (even assuming no intake air temperature increase!) will be 190kPa (290kPa absolute). At 10°C more intake air heating, you're cracking the 2Bar boost threshold. At this point, you're alleging a slightly stratospheric BMEP of 32.6Bar - achievable, but not in a garage on pump fuel.
The same calcs can be done at the peak power point. For reference, assuming the Golf R is running the same boost pressure, BMEP is still around 24.2Bar, delivery ratio is 100% and VE is 206%. At 410hp @ 5400rpm, the boost pressure needs to rise to 220kPa (320kPa absolute) for the same delivery ratio. VE is now 291%! Take it to a more realistic 50°C IAT - because you're now compressing a shed load more air to a much higher pressure - it's now 230kPa (330kPaA). In any case, we're at a laughable and highly improbable 34.2Bar BMEP.
All this is assuming combustion efficiency, thermal effiency and friction remain constant (constant BSAC). This is highly unlikely, especially at the power densities you're claiming, meaning the boost pressure would need to be even higher, or you're producing even less power than you're claiming.
The chances of you really making the claimed power if you are running less boost than these numbers is close to zero. The fact that your engines haven't gone pop in the 13k durability miles you've done is exhibit B in the same case.
I rest my case.
Edited by AER on Sunday 14th February 03:51
ToothbrushMan said:
you bought a bloomin Skoda "Yeti" then gave it 305bhp.....cough.
Previous owner commissioned Shark Performance to build it for him - this is their dyno plot:
I had another one done on a 4wd dyno (above run is on a 2wd setup with Haldex disabled) after buying the car, which showed 305PS - probably more realistic given how the car feels on the road.
AER said:
Scottie - NW said:
AER said:
If the standard car is running 1.2Bar and you're not running above 2.0 Bar then there simply isn't enough air there to make the power you're claiming
I'm no expert, but I thought you flowed more air from a larger turbo even at the same pressure level, so 1.2 bar on one turbo does not equate to 1.2bar on another?Happy for someone who knows more to explain this better
A larger turbo will spin slower to achieve the same boost pressure than a small one. If it's closer to it's peak efficiency (likely) then it'll be cooler air and possibly also with less exhaust back pressure so internal EGR will be lower by a smidge. Total airflow will be within a very small percentage of each other though.
I always got told that with a larger turbo because of less pressure on manifold side the air flowed better across the engine, so more power could be produced for a given boost level, apologies for not a very technical explanation!
When I ran a standard T28 at 1.2bar I struggled to make 288bhp, yet when I switched to a Garrett 2871 I only ran this at the same 1.2 bar (hadn't uprated the engine or fitted MHG etc as this point) controlled by an APexi AVCR electronic boost controller along with uprated actuator to hold base level, and at the same 1.2 bar, on the same rolling road, same mapper/operator and so on, even similar weather conditions the 288bhp became 323bhp
I assumed the extra 35bhp came from this more efficient operating range of the turbo?
Once we'd rebuilt a fully strengthened engine and fitted 740 injectors it made 398bhp (343 WBHP) and 378lb/ft at the highest boost we could safely hold. For reference we used the same Dyno Dynamics RR through out to give idea of what effect each upgrade had.
AER said:
You need air with that fuel. More fuel alone does not equal more power.
Take that Golf R engine as a higher performance baseline.
At peak torque (280lb-ft @ 4000rpm - say), boost pressure of 115kPa (your figures - that's 215kPa absolute), an inlet temperature of 40°C (typical), a BSAC of about 3.75kg/kWh (again, typical - gets worse the more you push things, generally), the engine will have a delivery ratio (volumetric efficiency, relative to manifold pressure) of around 105%. Total volumetric efficiency will be about 205%. BMEP here is a respectably germanic 24Bar.
If we hold everything constant and wind up the boost to achieve your claimed peak torque of 380lb-ft, the boost pressure needed (even assuming no intake air temperature increase!) will be 190kPa (290kPa absolute). At 10°C more intake air heating, you're cracking the 2Bar boost threshold. At this point, you're alleging a slightly stratospheric BMEP of 32.6Bar - achievable, but not in a garage on pump fuel.
The same calcs can be done at the peak power point. For reference, assuming the Golf R is running the same boost pressure, BMEP is still around 24.2Bar, delivery ratio is 100% and VE is 206%. At 410hp @ 5400rpm, the boost pressure needs to rise to 220kPa (320kPa absolute) for the same delivery ratio. VE is now 291%! Take it to a more realistic 50°C IAT - because you're now compressing a shed load more air to a much higher pressure - it's now 230kPa (330kPaA). In any case, we're at a laughable and highly improbable 34.2Bar BMEP.
All this is assuming combustion efficiency, thermal effiency and friction remain constant (constant BSAC). This is highly unlikely, especially at the power densities you're claiming, meaning the boost pressure would need to be even higher, or you're producing even less power than you're claiming.
The chances of you really making the claimed power if you are running less boost than these numbers is close to zero. The fact that your engines haven't gone pop in the 13k durability miles you've done is exhibit B in the same case.
I rest my case.
Are you trying to say that Revo publish unrealistic power figures? Take that Golf R engine as a higher performance baseline.
At peak torque (280lb-ft @ 4000rpm - say), boost pressure of 115kPa (your figures - that's 215kPa absolute), an inlet temperature of 40°C (typical), a BSAC of about 3.75kg/kWh (again, typical - gets worse the more you push things, generally), the engine will have a delivery ratio (volumetric efficiency, relative to manifold pressure) of around 105%. Total volumetric efficiency will be about 205%. BMEP here is a respectably germanic 24Bar.
If we hold everything constant and wind up the boost to achieve your claimed peak torque of 380lb-ft, the boost pressure needed (even assuming no intake air temperature increase!) will be 190kPa (290kPa absolute). At 10°C more intake air heating, you're cracking the 2Bar boost threshold. At this point, you're alleging a slightly stratospheric BMEP of 32.6Bar - achievable, but not in a garage on pump fuel.
The same calcs can be done at the peak power point. For reference, assuming the Golf R is running the same boost pressure, BMEP is still around 24.2Bar, delivery ratio is 100% and VE is 206%. At 410hp @ 5400rpm, the boost pressure needs to rise to 220kPa (320kPa absolute) for the same delivery ratio. VE is now 291%! Take it to a more realistic 50°C IAT - because you're now compressing a shed load more air to a much higher pressure - it's now 230kPa (330kPaA). In any case, we're at a laughable and highly improbable 34.2Bar BMEP.
All this is assuming combustion efficiency, thermal effiency and friction remain constant (constant BSAC). This is highly unlikely, especially at the power densities you're claiming, meaning the boost pressure would need to be even higher, or you're producing even less power than you're claiming.
The chances of you really making the claimed power if you are running less boost than these numbers is close to zero. The fact that your engines haven't gone pop in the 13k durability miles you've done is exhibit B in the same case.
I rest my case.
Edited by AER on Sunday 14th February 03:51
Scottie - NW said:
When I ran a standard T28 at 1.2bar I struggled to make 288bhp, yet when I switched to a Garrett 2871 I only ran this at the same 1.2 bar (hadn't uprated the engine or fitted MHG etc as this point) controlled by an APexi AVCR electronic boost controller along with uprated actuator to hold base level, and at the same 1.2 bar, on the same rolling road, same mapper/operator and so on, even similar weather conditions the 288bhp became 323bhp
Several factors here: Firstly, rolling roads are not very repeatable, so there's a large error margin on the power delta you measured. Secondly, a more efficient compressor will yield lower IAT which increases charge density. More air mass equals more power potential. Thirdly, if you can reduce the exhaust backpressure, your internal EGR will be lower, enabling ignition advance to be closer to MBT (optimum) and most probably less enrichment for the same pre-turbine EGT limit. Both are conducive to more power.AER said:
You need air with that fuel. More fuel alone does not equal more power.
Take that Golf R engine as a higher performance baseline.
At peak torque (280lb-ft @ 4000rpm - say), boost pressure of 115kPa (your figures - that's 215kPa absolute), an inlet temperature of 40°C (typical), a BSAC of about 3.75kg/kWh (again, typical - gets worse the more you push things, generally), the engine will have a delivery ratio (volumetric efficiency, relative to manifold pressure) of around 105%. Total volumetric efficiency will be about 205%. BMEP here is a respectably germanic 24Bar.
If we hold everything constant and wind up the boost to achieve your claimed peak torque of 380lb-ft, the boost pressure needed (even assuming no intake air temperature increase!) will be 190kPa (290kPa absolute). At 10°C more intake air heating, you're cracking the 2Bar boost threshold. At this point, you're alleging a slightly stratospheric BMEP of 32.6Bar - achievable, but not in a garage on pump fuel.
The same calcs can be done at the peak power point. For reference, assuming the Golf R is running the same boost pressure, BMEP is still around 24.2Bar, delivery ratio is 100% and VE is 206%. At 410hp @ 5400rpm, the boost pressure needs to rise to 220kPa (320kPa absolute) for the same delivery ratio. VE is now 291%! Take it to a more realistic 50°C IAT - because you're now compressing a shed load more air to a much higher pressure - it's now 230kPa (330kPaA). In any case, we're at a laughable and highly improbable 34.2Bar BMEP.
All this is assuming combustion efficiency, thermal effiency and friction remain constant (constant BSAC). This is highly unlikely, especially at the power densities you're claiming, meaning the boost pressure would need to be even higher, or you're producing even less power than you're claiming.
The chances of you really making the claimed power if you are running less boost than these numbers is close to zero. The fact that your engines haven't gone pop in the 13k durability miles you've done is exhibit B in the same case.
I rest my case.
Nice theory, fortunately we deal with facts based on testing all our cars on road/track at our 2nd office at Bruntingthorpe through extensive datalogging and calibration. This is then replicated on other cars in other countries and once we're happy on the road we will then test on various dynos. What it gets is what it gets, we don't tune for peak power/torque on a dyno.Take that Golf R engine as a higher performance baseline.
At peak torque (280lb-ft @ 4000rpm - say), boost pressure of 115kPa (your figures - that's 215kPa absolute), an inlet temperature of 40°C (typical), a BSAC of about 3.75kg/kWh (again, typical - gets worse the more you push things, generally), the engine will have a delivery ratio (volumetric efficiency, relative to manifold pressure) of around 105%. Total volumetric efficiency will be about 205%. BMEP here is a respectably germanic 24Bar.
If we hold everything constant and wind up the boost to achieve your claimed peak torque of 380lb-ft, the boost pressure needed (even assuming no intake air temperature increase!) will be 190kPa (290kPa absolute). At 10°C more intake air heating, you're cracking the 2Bar boost threshold. At this point, you're alleging a slightly stratospheric BMEP of 32.6Bar - achievable, but not in a garage on pump fuel.
The same calcs can be done at the peak power point. For reference, assuming the Golf R is running the same boost pressure, BMEP is still around 24.2Bar, delivery ratio is 100% and VE is 206%. At 410hp @ 5400rpm, the boost pressure needs to rise to 220kPa (320kPa absolute) for the same delivery ratio. VE is now 291%! Take it to a more realistic 50°C IAT - because you're now compressing a shed load more air to a much higher pressure - it's now 230kPa (330kPaA). In any case, we're at a laughable and highly improbable 34.2Bar BMEP.
All this is assuming combustion efficiency, thermal effiency and friction remain constant (constant BSAC). This is highly unlikely, especially at the power densities you're claiming, meaning the boost pressure would need to be even higher, or you're producing even less power than you're claiming.
The chances of you really making the claimed power if you are running less boost than these numbers is close to zero. The fact that your engines haven't gone pop in the 13k durability miles you've done is exhibit B in the same case.
I rest my case.
Edited by AER on Sunday 14th February 03:51
Above (hopefully) is a graph of the difference from a Stage2 vRS 2.0TSi to Stage3 IS38 at the wheels on a hub dyno. We use a Hub dyno for development as they are very consistent and show up any boost/timing/load deviation in great detail unlike quite a lot of flywheel based dynos. As you can see we are gaining 45whp over a stock turbo vRS running Stage2 software and Shell vPower. This is all on line on our web site.
So... we have a Stage3 IS38 car running ~360whp, then a Stage2 car running ~317whp which is ~20whp over a Stage1 car which gains ~80whp over stock of ~210whp. These runs are from our Dynapak Hub dyno in 4th gear on an 18second pull, with no correction factors, no smoothing, just raw data.
Many other tuners are gaining lots of power on stage1-2 on this engine, in-line with our figures so we are not alone in what we're quoting for Stage1-2, why is it not possible to gain another 45whp with a slightly bigger turbo?
Oh, we went up to Bruntingthorpe to get some performance times last week, they're on-line too now, along with graphs of the differences I mentioned above.
http://www.revotechnik.com/product-details/softwar...
ORD said:
What's the point in 400bhp from a nasty turbo 4, though? No pleasure in revving out something like that, so no joy in actually using the power. Crappy throttle response. Horrid sound. Pub talk car, in my view. The fact that the power is completely unusable because of it being wrong wheel drive just hammers the point home!
Have you actually driven the TSI engine?Because I have. It's a nice engine. Sounds good. Good response. etc.
I suppose you drive a C63 or something?
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff