RE: Skoda Octavia vRS Revo Technik: Driven

[TartanPaint]

My car could be 20-30bhp higher tomorrow without changing anything but the map, and it would be slower and less driveable as a result. But I might win a few more rounds of pub Top Trumps...

Only one measurement should matter: Number of happy customers. How do you set up a dyno to show that metric?

[gigglebug]

What are the legalities of a tuner claiming un-achievable power gains? Do they have disclaimers in place which would cover them for what would essentially be false advertising assuming that the doubters are indeed correct and it is "impossible" that the power figures quoted are correct and are grossly inaccurate? I would have to say that it would be fairly naive for a company to agree to have their product tested by a well respected organisation if they knew that they were indeed mis-selling their product as something it couldn't possibly be. It would be interesting to know what Revo's dyno tested the standard cars at. AER has stated that he believes VAG group's power claims to be accurate so surely they could be used as a control to show any form of discrepancy in the dyno's ability to give an accurate figure?

[xjay1337]

TartanPaint said:

My car could be 20-30bhp higher tomorrow without changing anything but the map, and it would be slower and less driveable as a result. But I might win a few more rounds of pub Top Trumps...

Only one measurement should matter: Number of happy customers. How do you set up a dyno to show that metric?

Have you seen before and after gains of most remaps?
They increase power all along the rev range.

For example



I really wonder how much practical knowledge some people have on this forum.

[Michael_AA]

gigglebug said:

What are the legalities of a tuner claiming un-achievable power gains? Do they have disclaimers in place which would cover them for what would essentially be false advertising assuming that the doubters are indeed correct and it is "impossible" that the power figures quoted are correct and are grossly inaccurate? I would have to say that it would be fairly naive for a company to agree to have their product tested by a well respected organisation if they knew that they were indeed mis-selling their product as something it couldn't possibly be. It would be interesting to know what Revo's dyno tested the standard cars at. AER has stated that he believes VAG group's power claims to be accurate so surely they could be used as a control to show any form of discrepancy in the dyno's ability to give an accurate figure?

We have the stock, stage1, stage2 and stage3 graphs measured on the same dyno (dynapak at hubs) on-line on the link above, from memory the car showed around 210whp when stock. For flywheel figures we use a 4WD Maha LPS3000 dyno in Bletchley - this is the dyno that was/is used as as a championship dyno for the VW Cup and the same make is used by quite a few other companies and tuning companies Europe-wide, this isn't our dyno so figures can be seen by anyone who goes down and asks nicely I'm sure We've had our dynapak hub dyno for a few years now and as previous posts have mentioned this is also widely used in Europe as a means of measuring accurately the power at the hubs.

Hope this helps answer your query.

[RemyMartin]

Michael_AA said:

gigglebug said:

What are the legalities of a tuner claiming un-achievable power gains? Do they have disclaimers in place which would cover them for what would essentially be false advertising assuming that the doubters are indeed correct and it is "impossible" that the power figures quoted are correct and are grossly inaccurate? I would have to say that it would be fairly naive for a company to agree to have their product tested by a well respected organisation if they knew that they were indeed mis-selling their product as something it couldn't possibly be. It would be interesting to know what Revo's dyno tested the standard cars at. AER has stated that he believes VAG group's power claims to be accurate so surely they could be used as a control to show any form of discrepancy in the dyno's ability to give an accurate figure?

We have the stock, stage1, stage2 and stage3 graphs measured on the same dyno (dynapak at hubs) on-line on the link above, from memory the car showed around 210whp when stock. For flywheel figures we use a 4WD Maha LPS3000 dyno in Bletchley - this is the dyno that was/is used as as a championship dyno for the VW Cup and the same make is used by quite a few other companies and tuning companies Europe-wide, this isn't our dyno so figures can be seen by anyone who goes down and asks nicely I'm sure We've had our dynapak hub dyno for a few years now and as previous posts have mentioned this is also widely used in Europe as a means of measuring accurately the power at the hubs.

Hope this helps answer your query.

You won't win, give up.

Because engineering degree
Because not cell dyno
Because you haven't worked in successful transmission/engine company's in manufacturing.

Tbh not point in showcasing anything on this site as there is someone who is better and will rubbish it.

[gigglebug]

RemyMartin said:

Michael_AA said:

gigglebug said:

What are the legalities of a tuner claiming un-achievable power gains? Do they have disclaimers in place which would cover them for what would essentially be false advertising assuming that the doubters are indeed correct and it is "impossible" that the power figures quoted are correct and are grossly inaccurate? I would have to say that it would be fairly naive for a company to agree to have their product tested by a well respected organisation if they knew that they were indeed mis-selling their product as something it couldn't possibly be. It would be interesting to know what Revo's dyno tested the standard cars at. AER has stated that he believes VAG group's power claims to be accurate so surely they could be used as a control to show any form of discrepancy in the dyno's ability to give an accurate figure?

We have the stock, stage1, stage2 and stage3 graphs measured on the same dyno (dynapak at hubs) on-line on the link above, from memory the car showed around 210whp when stock. For flywheel figures we use a 4WD Maha LPS3000 dyno in Bletchley - this is the dyno that was/is used as as a championship dyno for the VW Cup and the same make is used by quite a few other companies and tuning companies Europe-wide, this isn't our dyno so figures can be seen by anyone who goes down and asks nicely I'm sure We've had our dynapak hub dyno for a few years now and as previous posts have mentioned this is also widely used in Europe as a means of measuring accurately the power at the hubs.

Hope this helps answer your query.

You won't win, give up.

Because engineering degree
Because not cell dyno
Because you haven't worked in successful transmission/engine company's in manufacturing.

Tbh not point in showcasing anything on this site as there is someone who is better and will rubbish it.

This is kinda my point. It's a shame that so many threads these day's are either hijacked by the grammar police or individuals vainly trying to prove their own intelligence. Neither add any enjoyment to the website.

Thanks for the reply Michael, it was more aimed for others to reply to than yourselves. Do dyno's have to be regularly calibrated? Are there any industry standards set in place to ensure at least some sort of common ground is adhered to? It just seems bizarre that some would only consider a print out from MIRA as being proof that they would believe.

[Michael_AA]

RemyMartin said:

You won't win, give up.

Because engineering degree
Because not cell dyno
Because you haven't worked in successful transmission/engine company's in manufacturing.

Tbh not point in showcasing anything on this site as there is someone who is better and will rubbish it.

We appreciate that there will always be people questioning our work, especially given how passionate we all are about anything car related. However, we also know it is our job to demonstrate our professionalism and integrity to you all. We hope lots of you will join us and allow us to do that just as soon as we have arranged a Sunday Service with the guys at PH. Even if you leave feeling no different about us, you will at least have got a free bacon sandwich for your troubles.

[SuperchargedVR6]

Michael_AA said:

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;

Just expanding on AER's maths a bit, how does your tuning package make 410 wheel hp from 1.7 bar and AMG's A45 engine makes 381 flywheel hp from 1.8 bar? Just curious really. There must be more to it than turbo sizing? They're both 2.0 engines with VVT, so the flow through them can't be wildy different I wouldn't have thought?

[Michael_AA]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

Just expanding on AER's maths a bit, how does your tuning package make 410 wheel hp from 1.7 bar and AMG's A45 engine makes 381 flywheel hp from 1.8 bar? Just curious really. There must be more to it than turbo sizing? They're both 2.0 engines with VVT, so the flow through them can't be wildy different I wouldn't have thought?

We aren't quoting 410wheel hp, we're quoting 410bhp and ~360wheel hp.

[xjay1337]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

Michael_AA said:

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;

Just expanding on AER's maths a bit, how does your tuning package make 410 wheel hp from 1.7 bar and AMG's A45 engine makes 381 flywheel hp from 1.8 bar? Just curious really. There must be more to it than turbo sizing? They're both 2.0 engines with VVT, so the flow through them can't be wildy different I wouldn't have thought?

Not specifically but in this case things like compression ratio, ignition advance, airflow (by means of intake/exhaust restrictions) can wildly vary across manufacturers.
Some old fords can do crazy BHP like 250bhp from 14psi but you need 24psi from say a Mk4 1.8T to get that sort of power

[amstrange1]

Sunday Service at Revo sounds good - I'll bring the Yeti!

I think a degree of pragmatism is always required in the OEM vs aftermarket type debates that keep cropping up. With no hardware warranty responsibilities; minimal legislative responsibility; low volumes and relatively low D&D/NRE budgets it's hardly surprising that the aftermarket tuning industry doesn't invest anywhere near as much in validation as the OEMs do - it's not commercially viable. The first aftermarket company to do so would be the first to go out of business, I can't see £100k remaps having many takers...

It's good to see the aftermarket being open about the level of testing and validation that they are doing - at least then punters can make a judgement call about whether it's right for them or not. There are plenty of tuners that will happily use your car/project for their own development, rather than making the up-front investment themselves.

As for dyno figures, it's just a number isn't it? Those in the industry will be well aware of the legislation and internal OEM standards which more tightly confine how an engine's power output is certified. They'll also be aware, that OEMs will certify to a power level that's the minimum power they expect even a Friday afternoon engine to produce - get a good one, and it'll produce more. So if you run on your local dyno without tightly controlled test conditions and pre-conditioning etc, it's likely the numbers will be higher than the OEM's claimed figure on a stock car.

Of course it's confusing to the average punter, but unless the aftermarket tuning industry becomes similarly legislated (and how many of us would want that - £3k power and emissions certification test to go with your hardware mods and remap sir?), I can't see how you can get away from such discrepancies. There'll always be the rogue tuners that capitalise on this with quote-me-happy dyno figures, but they normally quickly end up with a reputation as such - when their punters cars get beaten on the track by something with supposedly less power.

[xjay1337]

I don't see the issue

If on the dyno it makes 204bhp and the factory car is rated at 202bhp and then makes 260bhp after some laptop tweaks what's the issue?

You can see the before and afters.

[AER]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

Just expanding on AER's maths a bit, how does your tuning package make 410 wheel hp from 1.7 bar and AMG's A45 engine makes 381 flywheel hp from 1.8 bar? Just curious really. There must be more to it than turbo sizing? They're both 2.0 engines with VVT, so the flow through them can't be wildy different I wouldn't have thought?

You're right!

The AMG engine makes max power at 6000rpm, compared with the claimed 5400rpm of the RevoT Skoda. There's an 11% advantage right there and not in RevoT's favour either! Boost pressure delta on top of that and don't forget pressure is only part of the story. Depending on how good the compressor efficiency is and how well the intercooling is done, temperature plays its part in air density too. All for 30hp less than RevoT is claiming for the EA888.

Then there's knock resistance, lambda, turbine efficiency/exhaust backpressure, burn rate to consider. No engine design is exactly the same as another but they should do very similar things within the same generation/technology.

[neil1jnr]

The figures presented from Revo and other tuners on their sites are to pull you in.

I had my diesel Leon mapped, no modifications and it didn't make anywhere near the claimed figures, if I remember correctly it made the following figures on the dyno pre and post Revo map:

181bhp before and 198bhp after
270lbs ft before and 298lbs ft after

This is from a factory quoted 170bhp and 258lbs ft. The car felt a bit more responsive to drive but wasn't really worth the £400+.

[xjay1337]

neil1jnr said:

The figures presented from Revo and other tuners on their sites are to pull you in.

I had my diesel Leon mapped, no modifications and it didn't make anywhere near the claimed figures, if I remember correctly it made the following figures on the dyno pre and post Revo map:

181bhp before and 198bhp after
270lbs ft before and 298lbs ft after

This is from a factory quoted 170bhp and 258lbs ft. The car felt a bit more responsive to drive but wasn't really worth the £400+.

That's a shame
I'm not sure on the differences between the 170 engines and the 181 engines (is it just mapping?) but the bhp of 198 would be a better gain if you had , 170 to start with.

My Dad has a CR170 Octavia vRS and he had a revo map.
I also at the time had a Darkside map / 194bhp / 350lb ft with a DPF delete and his felt just as quick as mine.
I had a Revo Stage 2 map on my TFSI and that made 258bhp considering the age of the car I was very happy with that.

[SuperchargedVR6]

neil1jnr said:

The figures presented from Revo and other tuners on their sites are to pull you in.

I had my diesel Leon mapped, no modifications and it didn't make anywhere near the claimed figures, if I remember correctly it made the following figures on the dyno pre and post Revo map:

181bhp before and 198bhp after
270lbs ft before and 298lbs ft after

This is from a factory quoted 170bhp and 258lbs ft. The car felt a bit more responsive to drive but wasn't really worth the £400+.

Similar story with my GTI Edition 30, which the previous owner had remapped by Revo.

Stage 1 is quoted as giving 300-315ps & 318-333lbft torque. Mine measured 280bhp & 300lbft.

Knowing from past experience that software tuners blame the customer's hardware and/or petrol choice for the under par results, I replaced the following before the dyno run:-

MAF, air filter, spark plugs, coils, newest revision front and rear PCV valves, all turbo pipework O-rings, newest revision recirc valve, fuel filter....everything and anything that could potentially skew the results. And it was filled with Shell V Power.

I could live with that though as the performance and traffic manners were good, but what I couldn't live with was the cheeky way their code hijacks the ECU to run a dumbed down map if you disconnect the battery. The only way you can reinstate the performance map is via an optional £100 SPS switch, or drive to a Revo dealer. Neither were convenient for me, so I decided to get the map removed for one that stays put if the battery is disconnected.

Edited by SuperchargedVR6 on Thursday 18th February 11:03

[Scottie - NW]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

I could live with that though as the performance and traffic manners were good, but what I couldn't live with was the cheeky way their code hijacks the ECU to run a dumbed down map if you disconnect the battery. The only way you can reinstate the performance map is via an optional £100 SPS switch, or drive to a Revo dealer. Neither were convenient for me, so I decided to get the map removed for one that stays put if the battery is disconnected.

Edited by SuperchargedVR6 on Thursday 18th February 11:03

I've never heard of that before, and I've had multiple tuned cars on the go for 25 years now, I wonder what the reason is?

That alone would put me off a Revo remap.

I'd also like to add that some tuners are very honest and open about power figures, the one I use a lot for my car, will quote a fairly narrow range for each stage and set of modifications, and pretty much every car from the 100's in our club who have used that tuner have been in the range, unless they had a fault/issue, which once rectified but them in the range. So there are some good truthful figures out there.

I had a look on Revo website, and they do quote a range for each stage to be fair, but the bottom of that range is what every car should make unless it has an issue

[neil1jnr]

xjay1337 said:

neil1jnr said:

The figures presented from Revo and other tuners on their sites are to pull you in.

I had my diesel Leon mapped, no modifications and it didn't make anywhere near the claimed figures, if I remember correctly it made the following figures on the dyno pre and post Revo map:

181bhp before and 198bhp after
270lbs ft before and 298lbs ft after

This is from a factory quoted 170bhp and 258lbs ft. The car felt a bit more responsive to drive but wasn't really worth the £400+.

That's a shame
I'm not sure on the differences between the 170 engines and the 181 engines (is it just mapping?) but the bhp of 198 would be a better gain if you had , 170 to start with.

My Dad has a CR170 Octavia vRS and he had a revo map.
I also at the time had a Darkside map / 194bhp / 350lb ft with a DPF delete and his felt just as quick as mine.
I had a Revo Stage 2 map on my TFSI and that made 258bhp considering the age of the car I was very happy with that.

SuperchargedVR6 said:

Similar story with my GTI Edition 30, which the previous owner had remapped by Revo.

Stage 1 is quoted as giving 300-315ps & 318-333lbft torque. Mine measured 280bhp & 300lbft.

Knowing from past experience that software tuners blame the customer's hardware and/or petrol choice for the under par results, I replaced the following before the dyno run:-

MAF, air filter, spark plugs, coils, newest revision front and rear PCV valves, all turbo pipework O-rings, newest revision recirc valve, fuel filter....everything and anything that could potentially skew the results. And it was filled with Shell V Power.

I could live with that though as the performance and traffic manners were good, but what I couldn't live with was the cheeky way their code hijacks the ECU to run a dumbed down map if you disconnect the battery. The only way you can reinstate the performance map is via an optional £100 SPS switch, or drive to a Revo dealer. Neither were convenient for me, so I decided to get the map removed for one that stays put if the battery is disconnected.

Edited by SuperchargedVR6 on Thursday 18th February 11:03

To be fair on Revo, I have just checked online the range they quote , and it is on par with my post map results. I am sure when I had it mapped 3-4 years ago that there wasn't a range quoted and only an 'upto xxxbhp' figure which the car didn't get close to. I still think it wasn't worth the money due to the standard output reading on the dyno higher than what manufacturer claims. My dyno runs were done right before the car was mapped and right after, car had been recently serviced and running v-power diesel.

My Fiesta ST on the other hand was transformed with a map, and was even better after a few hardware changes, a map alone on that car was more than worth the cash.

I guess it depends on the car and probably best to expected the lowest quoted increases in power and torque from a map.

The Octavia with 400+bhp would probably be fun for an hour, having read that the brakes aren't upgraded either seems really stupid.

[SuperchargedVR6]

Scottie - NW said:

SuperchargedVR6 said:

I could live with that though as the performance and traffic manners were good, but what I couldn't live with was the cheeky way their code hijacks the ECU to run a dumbed down map if you disconnect the battery. The only way you can reinstate the performance map is via an optional £100 SPS switch, or drive to a Revo dealer. Neither were convenient for me, so I decided to get the map removed for one that stays put if the battery is disconnected.

Edited by SuperchargedVR6 on Thursday 18th February 11:03

I've never heard of that before, and I've had multiple tuned cars on the go for 25 years now, I wonder what the reason is?

That alone would put me off a Revo remap.

I'd also like to add that some tuners are very honest and open about power figures, the one I use a lot for my car, will quote a fairly narrow range for each stage and set of modifications, and pretty much every car from the 100's in our club who have used that tuner have been in the range, unless they had a fault/issue, which once rectified but them in the range. So there are some good truthful figures out there.

I had a look on Revo website, and they do quote a range for each stage to be fair, but the bottom of that range is what every car should make unless it has an issue

The problem for me was the car was mapped before I bought it, and I didn't know at the time it was a Revo map either.

I replaced the battery as a matter of course and then the car felt like it had lost 30-40% of it's torque. So I looked into it and also spoke to my trusted tuner and that's when I discovered it was Revo'd and I needed the SPS switch. That's fine if you know that upfront I guess, not so good if you don't! They do mention that on their website now, and also the power for each 'stage', so they're not hiding anything.

Why do they do that? It can't be for copyright protection because other tuners don't penalise you for pulling the power, so my guess is it's part of an 'in app purchases' scheme?

I'm not knocking their work, the car did drive nicely and 20hp down on advertised isn't the end of the world. I mean, is 20 more really going to be felt when you've got 280 to begin with? Probably not. But....it's not what was paid for and cutting the power because the battery was pulled.....well, that's just not on! As I said, my particular car was presented to the dyno with the best possible chance of making the numbers, but it didn't. After my tuner redid the map, it soared past 300 immediately, so........

[Scottie - NW]

AER said:

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.

Hi AER,

This is where I get confused. You are saying that a bigger turbo does not make more power at the same pressure level, but it seems a proven fact in car tuning that using a bigger turbo even at the same pressure makes more power.

If you read this thread it seems to be saying that pressure and flow are different things. The two main contributors "Mark" and "Zeppelin" both work on R&D for major motor manufacturers.

http://www.sxoc.com/vbb/showthread.php?585702-How-...

They are saying a bigger turbo will give more power at the same pressure level, and the results of tuning cars seems to bear this out.

If anyone can clear this up would be much appreciated

Cheers,
Scott.