RE: Skoda Octavia vRS Revo Technik: Driven
Discussion
A lot of fair criticisms of me. I acknowledge that I had a little fit and apologise., including to Giggle.It is, though, tiresome when people engage in point-scoring rather than discussing the topic at issue. My comments about the Skoda, although not expressed in terribly clever or nice terms, reflect my views on the car. That is very different from all the "He said this. But I am right and he cannot take it!" kind of nonsense that fills lots of threads, including this one.
That's cool, can't say fairer than that. I'll take back anything unpleasant I said.
The original question still stands though. If the well educated and scientifically backed evidence can highlight that in reality a production turbocharged engine is going to struggle to get to 200Bhp per litre without either massive development, massive stress on components or just plain massive exaggeration how has a manufacturer like Mitsubishi ended up turning out a product claiming 220Bhp per litre? I know full well that if I was spending 50K on an official product from a relatively large corporation I'd sure as hell want any performance claims to be as accurate as possible.
As I have said though there doesn't seem to be any sort of real world data to look at online. I appreciate that there weren't many examples so in reality info might be hard to come across but was hoping someone on here might know something.
As for the Revo VRs? I really like the styling of the original car, more so than it's competition and the wheels Revo have chosen look perfect to me. I'd have a saloon in the blue personally. If the car and modifications comes out at around the same outlay as either the Seat or VW equivalent it would be what I would go for even if it's power claims are even remotely optimistic. I'm sure that 350Bhp would be more than enough for me if it was all it actually could produce and would still be able to outgun the competition for the same price. Makes you wonder what other components would start to chew themselves up though with that sort of power? Would things like the standard drive shafts etc be able to take the extra punishment?
The original question still stands though. If the well educated and scientifically backed evidence can highlight that in reality a production turbocharged engine is going to struggle to get to 200Bhp per litre without either massive development, massive stress on components or just plain massive exaggeration how has a manufacturer like Mitsubishi ended up turning out a product claiming 220Bhp per litre? I know full well that if I was spending 50K on an official product from a relatively large corporation I'd sure as hell want any performance claims to be as accurate as possible.
As I have said though there doesn't seem to be any sort of real world data to look at online. I appreciate that there weren't many examples so in reality info might be hard to come across but was hoping someone on here might know something.
As for the Revo VRs? I really like the styling of the original car, more so than it's competition and the wheels Revo have chosen look perfect to me. I'd have a saloon in the blue personally. If the car and modifications comes out at around the same outlay as either the Seat or VW equivalent it would be what I would go for even if it's power claims are even remotely optimistic. I'm sure that 350Bhp would be more than enough for me if it was all it actually could produce and would still be able to outgun the competition for the same price. Makes you wonder what other components would start to chew themselves up though with that sort of power? Would things like the standard drive shafts etc be able to take the extra punishment?
It's very well known of many VAG cars doing 350-400bhp from a 2.0 Turbo on standard internals. These maintain good driveability with spools from 3000+ onwards as opposed to a 5k spool from the Evo.
So no I don't think that 400bhp from a 2.0 engine is particularly difficult and nor do I think it particularly compromises reliability.
Times have changed from the late 80s when people were blowing Renault 5 engines up left right and center :-)
So no I don't think that 400bhp from a 2.0 engine is particularly difficult and nor do I think it particularly compromises reliability.
Times have changed from the late 80s when people were blowing Renault 5 engines up left right and center :-)
Yeah I'm not massively up on the aftermarket scene but do read about different tuned cars on occasion. I do like tinkering in general though so always do a few little mods on the cars I have, be it cosmetic, minor performance or something like I have done in my little fun car and changed the drivers seat to get a more comfortable driving position. I like the fact that some folks try and make something better over a period of time within a budget they can afford. I also like the fact that some can afford to go out and buy something very good in the first place too.
I don't think I'd ever risk something like a Revo package on anything that was still in warranty though but can see it's appeal on something that hasn't. If you can't stretch to a new Golf R, Cupra, or even a vRS then a decent condition second hand vRS with something like a Revo upgrade could make a compelling package at a lower price point.
As for the arguments for and against the validity of any claims I'll always err on the side of the scientific evidence but to be fair but I've never taken any offence to any slight exaggeration from a tuner. It's always been the case that the figures have been scrutinized but for me it doesn't detract from what can be a useful service for some. I had a Saab remapped for the lowly cost of £80 by a well known person in the Saab community and the difference was pretty epic really. Decent torque gains and available lower down the rev range and a very modest upping of BHP, it made a massive difference to how the car drove though.
I don't think I'd ever risk something like a Revo package on anything that was still in warranty though but can see it's appeal on something that hasn't. If you can't stretch to a new Golf R, Cupra, or even a vRS then a decent condition second hand vRS with something like a Revo upgrade could make a compelling package at a lower price point.
As for the arguments for and against the validity of any claims I'll always err on the side of the scientific evidence but to be fair but I've never taken any offence to any slight exaggeration from a tuner. It's always been the case that the figures have been scrutinized but for me it doesn't detract from what can be a useful service for some. I had a Saab remapped for the lowly cost of £80 by a well known person in the Saab community and the difference was pretty epic really. Decent torque gains and available lower down the rev range and a very modest upping of BHP, it made a massive difference to how the car drove though.
I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that turbo cars can benefit from re-maps and relatively modest hardware changes. The only issue here was that the claimed power was very hard to believe.
I also find the focus on headline power figures a bit of a distraction from the question of how the car drives. All that power through the front wheels is simply not a good idea at all for actually driving the car, rather than talking about it in the pub. Skodas are pretty inert to drive, too. You won't be getting much fun from the chassis. So I guess the appeal is simply knowing that the car would be fast if only it could put its power down, which seems pretty academic to me.
(FWIW I think the same about some RWD cars with huge power. It's all a bit pub talk once the power is unusable for traction reasons.)
I also find the focus on headline power figures a bit of a distraction from the question of how the car drives. All that power through the front wheels is simply not a good idea at all for actually driving the car, rather than talking about it in the pub. Skodas are pretty inert to drive, too. You won't be getting much fun from the chassis. So I guess the appeal is simply knowing that the car would be fast if only it could put its power down, which seems pretty academic to me.
(FWIW I think the same about some RWD cars with huge power. It's all a bit pub talk once the power is unusable for traction reasons.)
xjay1337 said:
as opposed to a 5k spool from the Evo.
Sorry, but that is SO misinformed. A stock Evo IX spools at around 3200rpm and at stage 1 is perfectly happy at 400hp/400lbft - I'd say the 4G63 is tougher than any VAG blown 4 pot in stock form. My Evo spools before 5k rpm and that has a GTX35 turbo!This thread has gone all over the place, but as a professional engineer there have been some gross oversights along the way that I think needs some clarity. First of all is boost. I have no doubt at all that Revos claims of 400hp is genuine based on a remap of the stock engine plus some bolt ons (Stage 1). I think Revo mentioned peak boost of around 1.7 bar tapering to around 1.4 at redline. The boost taper is generally typical on stock turbos that are optimised for mid range power. This is exactly the same as a Stage 1 Evo IX, and that engine technology is over 10 years old in comparison to the VAG unit which no doubt has various modern technologies to make it more efficient e.g. direct injection etc etc. Also, the engine's mechanical efficiency needs to be factored in - manifold pressure is not necessarily equal to cylinder pressures on intake due to the pressure gradient between the inlet manifold and the cylinders during the intake stroke - this can significantly skew basic calculation of what is going on inside the engine which I suspect AER was trying to do.
Ref longevity, again if using the Evo as a comparator, then over approx 400hp it is generally accepted that the engine needs to be forged to cope with the temperatures and pressures experienced - all engines are different but in many cases the stock rods are the weakest link. Forged engine components are expensive, hence it is fairly rare that stock engines come forged from the factory.
Although I am not a VAG fan, I think REVO have had a hard time here - from what I've seen they are leaders in their field and have done some great project cars - I love what they did with the TTRS GTX3076R for example. This car will appeal to some, but I'll say it again that I suspect the novelty of 400hp through the front wheels will wear off pretty quickly.
You can see how it can get a bit confusing for someone trying to pick up the basics!
So the Evo blocks are pretty tough naturally then? The natural strength of the old Skyline blocks have been regularly mentioned over the years as well. Are there any modern engines that are known for being over engineered and good candidates for extra power?
The Saab I had would have had 280BHP max when I had it, probably less though. It was still too much for the front tyres to handle if you booted it in the first two gears from low speeds so having any more power wouldn't have made it any quicker from that point of view (Eagle F1's as well so the tyres were as good as you could get at the time). Where it was really useful and where I appreciated it was the mid range punch for accelerating out of corners and especially for overtaking etc. The handy swell of extra torque and the fact it came in lower down in the rev range post remap saw to that.
Good luck to Revo I say. It's good that they have engaged with us on the forum even if they might be wishing they hadn't bothered!
So the Evo blocks are pretty tough naturally then? The natural strength of the old Skyline blocks have been regularly mentioned over the years as well. Are there any modern engines that are known for being over engineered and good candidates for extra power?
The Saab I had would have had 280BHP max when I had it, probably less though. It was still too much for the front tyres to handle if you booted it in the first two gears from low speeds so having any more power wouldn't have made it any quicker from that point of view (Eagle F1's as well so the tyres were as good as you could get at the time). Where it was really useful and where I appreciated it was the mid range punch for accelerating out of corners and especially for overtaking etc. The handy swell of extra torque and the fact it came in lower down in the rev range post remap saw to that.
Good luck to Revo I say. It's good that they have engaged with us on the forum even if they might be wishing they hadn't bothered!
longbow said:
...as a professional engineer there have been some gross oversights along the way that I think needs some clarity. First of all is boost. I have no doubt at all that Revos claims of 400hp is genuine...
...I think Revo mentioned peak boost of around 1.7 bar tapering to around 1.4 at redline.
...manifold pressure is not necessarily equal to cylinder pressures on intake due to the pressure gradient between the inlet manifold and the cylinders during the intake stroke - this can significantly skew basic calculation of what is going on inside the engine which I suspect AER was trying to do.
No, not at all. The pressure gradient you speak of is entirely factored into the volumetric efficiency (delivery ratio actually) which, for all my calcs presented, is assumed to remain constant with increasing boost. The reality is 1.7Bar, even across the entire rev range, simply isn't enough air mass to make the claimed power without something else substantial changing. VE/delivery ratio isn't going to change without new cams, porting etc. BSAC isn't going to change without friction reduction, air charge motion improvements etc. The reality is, all of these parameters are generally going to get worse - not better - with increasing boost....I think Revo mentioned peak boost of around 1.7 bar tapering to around 1.4 at redline.
...manifold pressure is not necessarily equal to cylinder pressures on intake due to the pressure gradient between the inlet manifold and the cylinders during the intake stroke - this can significantly skew basic calculation of what is going on inside the engine which I suspect AER was trying to do.
xjay1337 said:
It's very well known of many VAG cars doing 350-400bhp from a 2.0 Turbo on standard internals. These maintain good driveability with spools from 3000+ onwards as opposed to a 5k spool from the Evo.
So no I don't think that 400bhp from a 2.0 engine is particularly difficult and nor do I think it particularly compromises reliability.
Oh dear. Evo's circa 350-450bhp spool at 3000+rpm (with a standard turbo), not the 5000rpm you are stating. Why bother saying something like that when it is completely untrue?So no I don't think that 400bhp from a 2.0 engine is particularly difficult and nor do I think it particularly compromises reliability.
It is also well known that the 4G63 engine found in Evo's up to the IX can take up to 400bhp on standard internals. I can't see what point you are trying to make? Achieving 400bhp from 2 litres isn't particularly difficult but it definitely does compromise reliability. The components will just not last as long as the would with 400bhp rather than 300bhp for example.
The question is though, how accurate are the claimed figures? How accurate is the dyno that has measured the power? How much more power does the standard car produce over manufacturers claimed figures before modification/map? I think the calcs from AER show in theory it is not possible that the Octavia is pushing over 400bhp with just a larger turbo, intercooler and map. The same theory would apply to a modified Evo, however, a full 3" decat turbo back exhaust would probably help make achieving that true 400bhp figure a more realistic prospect, something most claimed 400bhp Evo's have and that the Octavia doesn't.
Regardless of all that, if you put a standard Octavia VRS on a dyno and it spat out figures which equalled the manufacturers claims, and them put the Revo Octavia on the same dyno and it made 400+bhp, wouldn't that be proof enough? I don't know the answer to that.
neil1jnr said:
Oh dear. Evo's circa 350-450bhp spool at 3000+rpm (with a standard turbo), not the 5000rpm you are stating. Why bother saying something like that when it is completely untrue?
It is also well known that the 4G63 engine found in Evo's up to the IX can take up to 400bhp on standard internals. I can't see what point you are trying to make? Achieving 400bhp from 2 litres isn't particularly difficult but it definitely does compromise reliability. The components will just not last as long as the would with 400bhp rather than 300bhp for example.
The question is though, how accurate are the claimed figures? How accurate is the dyno that has measured the power? How much more power does the standard car produce over manufacturers claimed figures before modification/map? I think the calcs from AER show in theory it is not possible that the Octavia is pushing over 400bhp with just a larger turbo, intercooler and map. The same theory would apply to a modified Evo, however, a full 3" decat turbo back exhaust would probably help make achieving that true 400bhp figure a more realistic prospect, something most claimed 400bhp Evo's have and that the Octavia doesn't.
Regardless of all that, if you put a standard Octavia VRS on a dyno and it spat out figures which equalled the manufacturers claims, and them put the Revo Octavia on the same dyno and it made 400+bhp, wouldn't that be proof enough? I don't know the answer to that.
My apologies. I was looking here.It is also well known that the 4G63 engine found in Evo's up to the IX can take up to 400bhp on standard internals. I can't see what point you are trying to make? Achieving 400bhp from 2 litres isn't particularly difficult but it definitely does compromise reliability. The components will just not last as long as the would with 400bhp rather than 300bhp for example.
The question is though, how accurate are the claimed figures? How accurate is the dyno that has measured the power? How much more power does the standard car produce over manufacturers claimed figures before modification/map? I think the calcs from AER show in theory it is not possible that the Octavia is pushing over 400bhp with just a larger turbo, intercooler and map. The same theory would apply to a modified Evo, however, a full 3" decat turbo back exhaust would probably help make achieving that true 400bhp figure a more realistic prospect, something most claimed 400bhp Evo's have and that the Octavia doesn't.
Regardless of all that, if you put a standard Octavia VRS on a dyno and it spat out figures which equalled the manufacturers claims, and them put the Revo Octavia on the same dyno and it made 400+bhp, wouldn't that be proof enough? I don't know the answer to that.
http://www.tdi-plc.com/mitsubishi-lancer-evo-8-fq4...
Shows full power to be had from 5k.
At 4500rpm it's barely making 200bhp. So my point still stands.
Well yes, you are right if a given set of components have to deal with less stress then they will last longer, generally.
What I'm saying is that many VAG engines over the last ~10 years have used the TFSI engine and later the TSI (found in the Octavia) and have reliably for many years across many owners been running north of 360bhp without any issues.
I have seen no calculations from AER (as I don't particularly pay attention to him) but you simply cannot calculate power of an engine without first measuring what that engine can do and what it's capable of on a dyno.
At 212bhp or whatever it is standard, will be tuned to run with little timing advance, on s
te 95 fuel, absolutely no excess fuel, tuned for economy and emissions.Generally with using better fuel alone you will slightly exceed the power stated from factory. Cars making a few BHP over standard is not a new thing and has been going on for a long time.
My old 1.9 TDI did 109bhp as stock (it had 100k on it), 105bhp claimed.
Aside from the turbo the Octavia engine is identical to that of the Golf R.
Using TUNING BOXES (not even a bespoke, optimised ecu recalibration but a plug in piggygback box) you can get 370-380bhp from a Golf R.
Using bespoke software, and an intercooler (timing pull caused by high inlet temperatures, causing power loss is a big power sap in turbo cars) can easily make up the 15-20bhp deficit.
In answer to your last point, If that wasn't proof enough, I really, really don't know what would be proof enough in the eyes of some people. Because instead of looking to the tuning markets and seeing what the cars are doing, if power figures are not to be believed, look at 1/4 mile times, in gear acceleration, etc - some people think they know better than tuning companies who understand the nitty gritty elements of a cars ECU. And unfortunately like Jesus of Nazareth, someone all knowing comes along and talks a good game and the uneducated crowd follow.
Knowing the science is great but you can't be scientific when it comes to an engine because there are SO many variables.
Any time any small underdog (whether that be a diesel merc or a tuned skoda) comes along the same small group of people say "NEIN - ITZ IMPOSSIBRU!" .
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Why does no-one go onto this guys thread and say "your claims are ste mate it's only doing 400bhp"?
Funny that.
(aside from Max_Torque who is trolling as per usual).
Why does no-one go onto this guys thread and say "your claims are s
te mate it's only doing 400bhp"?Funny that.
(aside from Max_Torque who is trolling as per usual).
neil1jnr said:
Regardless of all that, if you put a standard Octavia VRS on a dyno and it spat out figures which equalled the manufacturers claims, and them put the Revo Octavia on the same dyno and it made 400+bhp, wouldn't that be proof enough? I don't know the answer to that.
I'd thought exactly the same thing myself earlier in the thread as the exchange below begged the obvious question.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
So I asked the question and Michael from Revo was happy to answer;
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.
And further to that I did a remap on a Golf R I used to own (not a Revo map, but they have a good name).
I went to an independent dyno operator, and used a hand held flash tuner.
Stock (well, it had an intake), it put down 155.7kw at the wheels. With the remap alone, and with sensible boost levels it was 187kw at the wheels.
I paid for it out of my own pocket, at a dyno that was independent.
I went to an independent dyno operator, and used a hand held flash tuner.
Stock (well, it had an intake), it put down 155.7kw at the wheels. With the remap alone, and with sensible boost levels it was 187kw at the wheels.
I paid for it out of my own pocket, at a dyno that was independent.
The concern I have with all this rolling road power measurement is a) you're beginning with a baseline that relies on a huge fiddle factor to correct to flywheel power and b) you're extrapolating without any indication of the linearity of the test method.
From my experience, getting reliable and repeatable data from an engine dyno takes quite a bit of effort, so comparing that to a quick rip up the speed axis on a chassis dyno followed by a fiddle factor to make it a number you're going to believe makes climate modelling look like a paragon of precision!
From my experience, getting reliable and repeatable data from an engine dyno takes quite a bit of effort, so comparing that to a quick rip up the speed axis on a chassis dyno followed by a fiddle factor to make it a number you're going to believe makes climate modelling look like a paragon of precision!
AER said:
The concern I have with all this rolling road power measurement is a) you're beginning with a baseline that relies on a huge fiddle factor to correct to flywheel power and b) you're extrapolating without any indication of the linearity of the test method.
From my experience, getting reliable and repeatable data from an engine dyno takes quite a bit of effort, so comparing that to a quick rip up the speed axis on a chassis dyno followed by a fiddle factor to make it a number you're going to believe makes climate modelling look like a paragon of precision!
I was more concerned with tracking the AFR and making sure I had no boost spikes than the numbers. From my experience, getting reliable and repeatable data from an engine dyno takes quite a bit of effort, so comparing that to a quick rip up the speed axis on a chassis dyno followed by a fiddle factor to make it a number you're going to believe makes climate modelling look like a paragon of precision!
But, it was an independent test that showed a gain in power.
AER said:
.
From my experience, getting reliable and repeatable data from an engine dyno takes quite a bit of effort, so comparing that to a quick rip up the speed axis on a chassis dyno followed by a fiddle factor to make it a number you're going to believe makes climate modelling look like a paragon of precision!
My car did 194.2bhp over 3 months between runs before I went back for a bigger turbo.From my experience, getting reliable and repeatable data from an engine dyno takes quite a bit of effort, so comparing that to a quick rip up the speed axis on a chassis dyno followed by a fiddle factor to make it a number you're going to believe makes climate modelling look like a paragon of precision!
Is that consistent enough for you?
I had bought a better intercooler which didnt make any extra power but it did help keep the power for longer at the top end.
So the company had every reason to fudge the numbers and yet, no.......
You have a valid before run and rhen after software tweaks you do an after run. That gives an indication of the improvements.
Surely that is enough.
Irrespective i take dyno figure before and after, physical, real results, over your conjecture
xjay1337 said:
My car did 194.2bhp
LOL - even on an engine dyno you'd rarely, if ever, quote power figures to 1 decimal place like that. If you can repeat within +/-1% on an engine dyno, you're doing really well. That's +/-2hp in your case - not +/- 0.2You're not being very convincing about your ability to get things measured...
AER said:
LOL - even on an engine dyno you'd rarely, if ever, quote power figures to 1 decimal place like that. If you can repeat within +/-1% on an engine dyno, you're doing really well. That's +/-2hp in your case - not +/- 0.2
You're not being very convincing about your ability to get things measured...
How about we all just stop bothering, and fly you in to do anything to do with cars because that is the only way of guaranteeing any form of quality? You're not being very convincing about your ability to get things measured...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff