RE: Skoda Octavia vRS Revo Technik: Driven
Discussion
xjay1337 said:
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?
RevoMichael said:
Nice theory, fortunately we deal with facts based on testing...
Well, your "facts" are nothing more than measurements and dubious quality measurements at that. If you want to compare with VW's measurements then stick your work on a reputable engine dyno and post the results, just like VW do.Of course, that's expensive. The reality though is you're just winging it, both on power testing and with your incredibly "modest" durability program.
You dismiss as theory what you don't actually understand. If you did, you could explain where I was in error, or at least where the discrepancy lay. Unfortunately for you, engines are relatively well understood by those who develop as their bread and butter. Less so those in the "chip tuning" industry and for obvious reasons. The conflict of interest against being honest here is obvious.
AER said:
Well, your "facts" are nothing more than measurements and dubious quality measurements at that. If you want to compare with VW's measurements then stick your work on a reputable engine dyno and post the results, just like VW do.
Of course, that's expensive. The reality though is you're just winging it, both on power testing and with your incredibly "modest" durability program.
You dismiss as theory what you don't actually understand. If you did, you could explain where I was in error, or at least where the discrepancy lay. Unfortunately for you, engines are relatively well understood by those who develop as their bread and butter. Less so those in the "chip tuning" industry and for obvious reasons. The conflict of interest against being honest here is obvious.
Oh well, as has been mentioned earlier, and as seems to be the case on this forum, you can't please all of the people some of the time.Of course, that's expensive. The reality though is you're just winging it, both on power testing and with your incredibly "modest" durability program.
You dismiss as theory what you don't actually understand. If you did, you could explain where I was in error, or at least where the discrepancy lay. Unfortunately for you, engines are relatively well understood by those who develop as their bread and butter. Less so those in the "chip tuning" industry and for obvious reasons. The conflict of interest against being honest here is obvious.
Power figures from tuners are always b
ks. They know that; we know that. No big deal. Just knock off 10-50% of any supposed gain and you'll be about right.
But big gains are of course possible for turbo-charged cars. Crank up the turbo, remap the throttle, maybe improve the breathing a bit, eat up some safety margin in the design, etc.
If you want a turbo monster, I can see the sense in buying cheap and turning up the turbo. Why pay a manufacturer £10-20k more for the same car with the turbo cranked up? That's the bonkers part of modern performance cars - that anyone is prepared to pay so much to have a shopping car with a shopping car engine just because the boost has been turned up to 'Go fast'.
ks. They know that; we know that. No big deal. Just knock off 10-50% of any supposed gain and you'll be about right. But big gains are of course possible for turbo-charged cars. Crank up the turbo, remap the throttle, maybe improve the breathing a bit, eat up some safety margin in the design, etc.
If you want a turbo monster, I can see the sense in buying cheap and turning up the turbo. Why pay a manufacturer £10-20k more for the same car with the turbo cranked up? That's the bonkers part of modern performance cars - that anyone is prepared to pay so much to have a shopping car with a shopping car engine just because the boost has been turned up to 'Go fast'.
Edited by ORD on Tuesday 16th February 10:04
xjay1337 said:
Sorry that a mid £20k estate with less than £5k of bolt on parts has better in gear performance than nearly anything this side of a Lambo.
I suppose you really can't please all of the people some of the time.
Or you could buy and tune a Stagea, Forester, Legacy... for around 30% of that and they'd be quick off the line too.I suppose you really can't please all of the people some of the time.
RevoMichael said:
AER said:
Well, your "facts" are nothing more than measurements and dubious quality measurements at that. If you want to compare with VW's measurements then stick your work on a reputable engine dyno and post the results, just like VW do.
Of course, that's expensive. The reality though is you're just winging it, both on power testing and with your incredibly "modest" durability program.
You dismiss as theory what you don't actually understand. If you did, you could explain where I was in error, or at least where the discrepancy lay. Unfortunately for you, engines are relatively well understood by those who develop as their bread and butter. Less so those in the "chip tuning" industry and for obvious reasons. The conflict of interest against being honest here is obvious.
Oh well, as has been mentioned earlier, and as seems to be the case on this forum, you can't please all of the people some of the time.Of course, that's expensive. The reality though is you're just winging it, both on power testing and with your incredibly "modest" durability program.
You dismiss as theory what you don't actually understand. If you did, you could explain where I was in error, or at least where the discrepancy lay. Unfortunately for you, engines are relatively well understood by those who develop as their bread and butter. Less so those in the "chip tuning" industry and for obvious reasons. The conflict of interest against being honest here is obvious.
If the product is as good as you say then why wouldn't you want to give more information ? Personally I'd be very interested in this modification, perhaps not to a Skoda but an Audi A4 SE without the S-Line Sport hard as nails suspension but with 350-400 bhp would be great.
George111 said:
So why don't you give more information ? Right now you've got several pages of people questioning your product and the integrity of your company, which Google will show for all to see unless you persuade Haymarket to pull the thread. I think you also have to expect questions like this on a car forum where there are people who are clearly very clued up on engine design.
If the product is as good as you say then why wouldn't you want to give more information ? Personally I'd be very interested in this modification, perhaps not to a Skoda but an Audi A4 SE without the S-Line Sport hard as nails suspension but with 350-400 bhp would be great.
I will happily give information out, as I have in earlier posts, but when someone is questioning the whole aftermarket tuning industry as whole, and not this particular car, then it move away from the point of PH testing the car in the first place and that isn't something I can answer here, not enough hours in the day If the product is as good as you say then why wouldn't you want to give more information ? Personally I'd be very interested in this modification, perhaps not to a Skoda but an Audi A4 SE without the S-Line Sport hard as nails suspension but with 350-400 bhp would be great.
Also, answering a post at 1am when you've been up with little people is never a good idea
I'll have a look through my release information and get something up later on with some data.
V8RX7 said:
xjay1337 said:
Sorry that a mid £20k estate with less than £5k of bolt on parts has better in gear performance than nearly anything this side of a Lambo.
I suppose you really can't please all of the people some of the time.
Or you could buy and tune a Stagea, Forester, Legacy... for around 30% of that and they'd be quick off the line too.I suppose you really can't please all of the people some of the time.
Absolutely shocking.
Not only that but you'd have to drive something JDM which means you'll need to make references to Mighty Car Mods every 5 seconds.
Just like people who say "well you get can get a Nissan R34 GTST to 500bhp for half what this Octavia costs".
well that's because the Octavia isn't made of cheese and it has an interior that you can actually spend time in.
They're fast cars and great as a second vehicle perhaps but I wouldn't want to live with a Stagea (as much as I love them) or a Forester as a daily car. The point being this Octavia can be a genuine fast car and live with it every day.
I'm also suprised certain members of the forum haven't come in to call "BS" on the power like they do whenever it's a diesel engine. :-)
kambites said:
V8RX7 said:
Or you could buy and tune a Stagea, Forester, Legacy... for around 30% of that and they'd be quick off the line too.
A used car is cheaper than a new car?!? Who'd have thought it? xjay1337 said:
V8RX7 said:
xjay1337 said:
Sorry that a mid £20k estate with less than £5k of bolt on parts has better in gear performance than nearly anything this side of a Lambo.
I suppose you really can't please all of the people some of the time.
Or you could buy and tune a Stagea, Forester, Legacy... for around 30% of that and they'd be quick off the line too.I suppose you really can't please all of the people some of the time.
Not only that but you'd have to drive something JDM which means you'll need to make references to Mighty Car Mods every 5 seconds.
Just like people who say "well you get can get a Nissan R34 GTST to 500bhp for half what this Octavia costs".
well that's because the Octavia isn't made of cheese and it has an interior that you can actually spend time in.
They're fast cars and great as a second vehicle perhaps but I wouldn't want to live with a Stagea (as much as I love them) or a Forester as a daily car.
The point being this Octavia can be a genuine fast car and live with it every day.
I've never heard of Mighty Car Mods
I'd rather have a Jap interior (they are absolutely fine) than a FWD that can't get off the line - I simply can't live with a car that can't get it's power down - it's why I sold my 420bhp V8 RX7 and now have the Forester.
You do realise this is a car forum not Home Interiors ?
xjay1337 said:
V8RX7 said:
xjay1337 said:
Sorry that a mid £20k estate with less than £5k of bolt on parts has better in gear performance than nearly anything this side of a Lambo.
I suppose you really can't please all of the people some of the time.
Or you could buy and tune a Stagea, Forester, Legacy... for around 30% of that and they'd be quick off the line too.I suppose you really can't please all of the people some of the time.
Absolutely shocking.
Not only that but you'd have to drive something JDM which means you'll need to make references to Mighty Car Mods every 5 seconds.
Just like people who say "well you get can get a Nissan R34 GTST to 500bhp for half what this Octavia costs".
well that's because the Octavia isn't made of cheese and it has an interior that you can actually spend time in.
They're fast cars and great as a second vehicle perhaps but I wouldn't want to live with a Stagea (as much as I love them) or a Forester as a daily car. The point being this Octavia can be a genuine fast car and live with it every day.
I'm also suprised certain members of the forum haven't come in to call "BS" on the power like they do whenever it's a diesel engine. :-)
Modern Jap stuff is a lot better, but cars from the 80s and 90s especially were absolutely awful.
I worked on an Evo 8 for a while and it was quite possibly the WORST interior I had ever sat in.
I am not a jap hater, I love Supras, R34 GTRs (dream car) , appreciate scoobs and Evos are a barrel of laughs (would love an Evo X) but they focus more of performance/handling and less on livability , refinement , quality of interior etc.
Those things which matter to me.
I'd rather have the Octavia than a 400bhp Evo because a) if you're going fast enough on the road to warrant the 4wd / ayc then you're just being a dick and b) everyone expects an Evo to be fast where as the Evo won't know what's happening when a middle aged man in an otherwise bog standard looking Octavia blats past. :-)
I worked on an Evo 8 for a while and it was quite possibly the WORST interior I had ever sat in.
I am not a jap hater, I love Supras, R34 GTRs (dream car) , appreciate scoobs and Evos are a barrel of laughs (would love an Evo X) but they focus more of performance/handling and less on livability , refinement , quality of interior etc.
Those things which matter to me.
I'd rather have the Octavia than a 400bhp Evo because a) if you're going fast enough on the road to warrant the 4wd / ayc then you're just being a dick and b) everyone expects an Evo to be fast where as the Evo won't know what's happening when a middle aged man in an otherwise bog standard looking Octavia blats past. :-)
AER said:
RevoMichael said:
Nice theory, fortunately we deal with facts based on testing...
Well, your "facts" are nothing more than measurements and dubious quality measurements at that. If you want to compare with VW's measurements then stick your work on a reputable engine dyno and post the results, just like VW do.Of course, that's expensive. The reality though is you're just winging it, both on power testing and with your incredibly "modest" durability program.
You dismiss as theory what you don't actually understand. If you did, you could explain where I was in error, or at least where the discrepancy lay. Unfortunately for you, engines are relatively well understood by those who develop as their bread and butter. Less so those in the "chip tuning" industry and for obvious reasons. The conflict of interest against being honest here is obvious.
Why are Dynapack hub dynos not reputable? What examples do you have to support this claim? Most tuners I know would love hub dynos but they are expensive. Surely Revo investing that much into a dyno ought to suggest they take engine calibration seriously? Who is to say VW's dyno results are accurate, and accurate against what benchmark or measurement standard?
You and others are calling BS on Revo's claims, but so far, nothing. Not a shred of evidence to back up your own claims.
SuperchargedVR6 said:
What is a fact if not a measurement of something? Where are YOUR facts to prove Revo are lying? Have you taken this particular engine and put it on an industry standard dynamometer yourself? No, you have not, because it's impractical and expensive. Therefore you do not have tangible evidence to support your claims of BS either, do you?
Why are Dynapack hub dynos not reputable? What examples do you have to support this claim? Most tuners I know would love hub dynos but they are expensive. Surely Revo investing that much into a dyno ought to suggest they take engine calibration seriously? Who is to say VW's dyno results are accurate, and accurate against what benchmark or measurement standard?
You and others are calling BS on Revo's claims, but so far, nothing. Not a shred of evidence to back up your own claims.
It's one thing to measure something. It's quite another thing to measure something accurately and then have someone else check your results.Why are Dynapack hub dynos not reputable? What examples do you have to support this claim? Most tuners I know would love hub dynos but they are expensive. Surely Revo investing that much into a dyno ought to suggest they take engine calibration seriously? Who is to say VW's dyno results are accurate, and accurate against what benchmark or measurement standard?
You and others are calling BS on Revo's claims, but so far, nothing. Not a shred of evidence to back up your own claims.
My claims are based on VW's certification test results which will have been witnessed repeat testing. Now, of course VW haven't done themselves any favours in their credibility lately, but why would they under-represent their products? If there's any error with VW's data, especially in Golf R territory, surely it'd be optimistic as well?
In any case, Revotechnik's numbers turn every calculated parameter known to engine developers off the dial and into fantasy land. They make even famous F1 engines look a bit pedestrian on some scales. I'm not necessarily asserting they can't make their power claims - just that the data is wildly inconsistent. If they admitted the engines were running over 2Bar boost, I'd still be somewhat skeptical, but I wouldn't be wasting my time adding to this thread. As it is, RevoMichael has admitted that the engines will melt at 2Bar or more boost. On this point, he's most probably right! But if their engine isn't running near these boost levels, their power claims are a work of fiction!
Edited by AER on Tuesday 16th February 23:58
AER said:
SuperchargedVR6 said:
What is a fact if not a measurement of something? Where are YOUR facts to prove Revo are lying? Have you taken this particular engine and put it on an industry standard dynamometer yourself? No, you have not, because it's impractical and expensive. Therefore you do not have tangible evidence to support your claims of BS either, do you?
Why are Dynapack hub dynos not reputable? What examples do you have to support this claim? Most tuners I know would love hub dynos but they are expensive. Surely Revo investing that much into a dyno ought to suggest they take engine calibration seriously? Who is to say VW's dyno results are accurate, and accurate against what benchmark or measurement standard?
You and others are calling BS on Revo's claims, but so far, nothing. Not a shred of evidence to back up your own claims.
It's one thing to measure something. It's quite another thing to measure something accurately and then have someone else check your results.Why are Dynapack hub dynos not reputable? What examples do you have to support this claim? Most tuners I know would love hub dynos but they are expensive. Surely Revo investing that much into a dyno ought to suggest they take engine calibration seriously? Who is to say VW's dyno results are accurate, and accurate against what benchmark or measurement standard?
You and others are calling BS on Revo's claims, but so far, nothing. Not a shred of evidence to back up your own claims.
My claims are based on VW's certification test results which will have been witnessed repeat testing. Now, of course VW haven't done themselves any favours in their credibility lately, but why would they under-represent their products? If there's any error with VW's data, especially in Golf R territory, surely it'd be optimistic as well?
In any case, Revotechnik's numbers turn every calculated parameter known to engine developers off the dial and into fantasy land. They make even famous F1 engines look a bit pedestrian on some scales. I'm not necessarily asserting they can't make their power claims - just that the data is wildly inconsistent. If they admitted the engines were running over 2Bar boost, I'd still be somewhat skeptical, but I wouldn't be wasting my time adding to this thread. As it is, RevoMichael has admitted that the engines will melt at 2Bar or more boost. On this point, he's most probably right! But if their engine isn't running near these boost levels, their power claims are a work of fiction!
Edited by AER on Tuesday 16th February 23:58
The engines are, for all intensive purposes ( just came from mis-quotes that made you lol ) the same between the TSI in the Octavia and normal Golf GTI as they are in the R, aside from the turbo.
It's well known that without any other modifications, just a remap, you can unleash between 360 and 380bhp from these Golf R engines.
It's also well known that intake, exhaust and intercooler changes, when mapped, can easily gain you a further 20-50bhp (each car being different).
I have a friend who has a previous shape Octavia with the TSI engine from a Mk6 Golf. He's running over 440bhp and that hasn't blown up once!
I'm with SuperchargedVR6 on this.
There is dyno evidence as well as subjective test driving feedback which all back up the claims that it's 400bhp+ fast. But it can't possibly be doing that because you don't think it can.
So it's only been on one dyno. How many will it take before some people are certified? 2? 3? 300? Or is it only going to be verified if it's done on the same engine dyno that a manufacturer users (which are all open to interpretation / variables anyway so that point is irrelevant!!!)
There are a certain number of cock-wombles on Pistonheads these days who think they literally can out-measure a dyno with a fag packet because they have an engineering background and they aren't familiar with some elements of the world.
Right then, to clarify the Revo stance on recent posts:
Revo has 25 employess, we have two main offices in the UK in Daventry, one which houses our Dynapack Hub dyno facility, with an additional base at Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground, another office in USA at Summit Point Raceway which has a Mustang Dyno, where we also have access to either of the on-site tracks. Our calibration and hardware testing is done at these venues and developed on our own fleet vehicles where possible. In addition to our own testing we have over 300 awesome dealers worldwide often in much less favourable conditions than the UK or USA with many passionate customers who aid us in development and testing before anything is released to the public.
Our VRS is just one of our cars used for calibration development of the chosen stage3 hardware specification. It’s a great road car and has a bucket load of power that given the limited modifications to the rest of the car is very useable. Those ‘pesky revo stickers’ are not to everyone’s taste, but hey it’s a company car and someone on the internet said stickers give more power! This is one of six vehicles in our possession that either have or can run this turbo and equivalent level of ‘tune’, not to mention the test vehicles we’ve been running with our beta test distributors around the globe in Russia, Korea, South Africa, and US to name a few. So 13,000 miles on one vehicle is relatively modest when being compared to manufacturer testing, however it’s not just one vehicle we’ve been testing on and in context of the aftermarket tuning industry I would hazard a guess it’s pretty comprehensive.
The S3, G7R, TTS, and Cupra all run this setup at factory performance levels, there’s a market for us looking at factory upgrade turbos; not so much in the UK but certainly for other regions around the world.
We aren’t running any internal transmission upgrades (dare I type ‘diff’), the suspension alterations are minimal and the brakes are stock. Why? Well, this isn’t a track car, it’s used daily and is actually a great car to drive in this spec. We could have gone the whole hog, our R and S3 are running more extensive brake and suspension upgrades and our little staff track toy has a fully built engine, transmission, etc, etc. This car doesn’t need any of that. If we were talking about an older 1.8t from the gen1 VRS then it would be loony to expect anywhere near this level of performance without a large build list and huge amount of investment, but things have moved on.
From a data point of view we’re not running 2.0bar of boost as mentioned before, it peaks at 1.7bar runs 1.4-1.5bar at the red line on +1150kg/h of flow; Lambda is 0.78/.79 throughout on over 200bar rail pressure and a low side of around 5bar depending on rpm. We have lower torque files for Manual cars running a stock clutch as part of the patented Revo Switching this car comes with; Rev limits are by in large stock as there is no need to over-rev the car, power is tailing off by the rev limit anyway; speed limit is removed; left foot braking enabled and as mentioned in the OP there is a safety precaution on boost from the Oil temperature as the car warms up.
In regards to the question of the transmission, it’s a wet clutch DSG setup which is much more durable than the weak 7speed dry clutch boxes but isn’t quite the same as the RS3 transmission.
Depending on the performance mode being tested this car sees between 340 and 365whp on our little dynapack setup, as per the graphs on our product info page: http://www.revotechnik.com/product-details/softwar...
This is an OE turbo upgrade that has a lot of capability, there are many out there trying to push similar setups much harder with very little development time or regard to drivability. We’re not interested in chasing a peak number, it’s all about giving our customers a vehicle that’s more enjoyable to drive whether they want to run a stage1 car or a fully built stage5 car.
We’re all enthusiasts just like you guys, it just happens we can make the most of our enthusiasm at work as well. Building Q cars is always fun, the 1.8T yeti mentioned earlier in the thread sounds great! One of my colleagues just built a K04 2.0TFSI Altea Freetrack which is of similar appeal but slightly more ugly and the 4wd 2.0TSI Transporter that’s been bolted on the dyno for the past few days is even more amusing.
I’m off to look at our little baby S1 now, soon to be sporting its very own IS38 turbo just like the VRS…
…that one I’m looking forward to!
If you have any further questions, we are working on a date to host a Sunday service with PH here at our Uk HQ in Daventry, we would be delighted to talk you through our development program and answer any further questions you may have.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff