# Quattro Sport Remap



## Guest (Feb 4, 2010)

Hi.

I've read a lot of posts where people have had various stages of remap done on 225 PS coupes and are delighted with the results of ca 40 bhp gains, but has anyone bothered with a remap on their QS? If so, which stage and what did bhp & torque did that give you?

Thanks in advance.

Doug


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

I have the APR stage 2 mapon my qS it is giving out 270 bhp at the moment but it could be heading for a bit more


----------



## Dance171 (Feb 8, 2009)

as the only difference in the engine department between a QS and a 225 is the Ecu map when you have a remap the QS gives the same figures as a remapped 225 mate


----------



## Guest (Feb 4, 2010)

Dance171 said:


> as the only difference in the engine department between a QS and a 225 is the Ecu map when you have a remap the QS gives the same figures as a remapped 225 mate


That's kind of what I thought. Are there any significant downsides to the re-map, such as dramatic increases in fuel consumption, erratic low speed behaviour, or is it all beer & skittles? I recall Andy at Awesome showing me graphs of their re-map. I can't remember which stage, but I was pleased to see that neither the power or torque curve shape were affected, just translated up the way.

Could you point me to threads on here or websites which discuss the differences in the stages in any technical detail?

Doug


----------



## Nick225TT (Oct 13, 2004)

Dance171 said:


> as the only difference in the engine department between a QS and a 225 is the Ecu map when you have a remap the QS gives the same figures as a remapped 225 mate


I thought the QS had slightly different internals? (lower comp ratio)


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

All beer and skittles mate no down side the mpg will get better if you take it easy but weres the fun in that :twisted:


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

yellow, can you honestly say the qs is a better car to drive now than before with the remap? was it really worth it?

ive never drove a 225 so wouldnt know the difference between the two standard cars


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

chrishumes said:


> yellow, can you honestly say the qs is a better car to drive now than before with the remap? was it really worth it?
> 
> ive never drove a 225 so wouldnt know the difference between the two standard cars


Yes mate defo better with the APR map you can switch back to standard also has a fault reset/throttle body alignment and anti theft all in with the standard price at the moment


----------



## *JP* (Jan 19, 2009)

YELLOW_TT said:


> chrishumes said:
> 
> 
> > yellow, can you honestly say the qs is a better car to drive now than before with the remap? was it really worth it?
> ...


But yours is a stage 2 map isn't it?So are we saying that a stage 1 map is pointless on a QS?
How much did your map cost,by the way?


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

*JP* said:


> YELLOW_TT said:
> 
> 
> > chrishumes said:
> ...


Stage one is still worth it bigsyd had one on his before getting the stage 2 not sure I think I paid £375


----------



## DAVECOV (Apr 23, 2009)

Sav has also had his QS remapped I think Wak sorted him out.

He told me it was a little more difficult to get it just right .

But end result is well worth it


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

yellow, where did you get yours done?


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

chrishumes said:


> yellow, where did you get yours done?


Got mine done at Awesome in Manchester


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

Tesiboo said:


> Sav has also had his QS remapped I think Wak sorted him out.
> 
> He told me it was a little more difficult to get it just right .
> 
> But end result is well worth it


I would agree, having driven Savs car, the power delivery is similar, but with a little more kick in your back.

I am getting mine done at APS towards the end of the month. 8)


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2010)

I've enquired at Star Performance about having a remap done at the same time as the MOT & cambelt package replacement next Monday (15 Feb). On their price list, they only quote the 150, 180 & 225 PS Mk1 models. Jim's response was "if we have a map available for your car, we can do it". Price is £299. Maybe the 225 PS map will suffice, but they quote 250-260 PS.I thought 262 PS was the minimum? Maybe they can tweak it as required.

As an aside, due to bad planning and living in the sticks, I had to fill up with 95 RON supermarket fuel on Sunday evening. The car is noticeably slower when accelerating through the gears. It would be interesting if I had a liquid TT (which, sadly I don't) to see just how much difference it's made :-( That's the first and last time I'll be doing that if I can help it.

Worse still, someone in a 10 year old BMW 3 series coupe decided to have a race on the way home last night. I took the bait and we caned it. I don't know what engine he had in 'cos it was dark and which, if any, engine mods he'd had done, but accelerations were pretty much matched. I got ahead after a roundabout but not by much. Why did he have to pick the one week in 52 when I've fuelled the car with treacle instead of rocket fuel? Naughty boys :wink:

I also reaffirmed how scarily abominable the standard brakes are on the car by nearly not being able to slow down to 30 mph for a roundabout.

We'll see what happens.


----------



## Super Josh (May 29, 2009)

Doug Short said:


> I also reaffirmed how scarily abominable the standard brakes are on the car by nearly not being able to slow down to 30 mph for a roundabout.


Quite Shite aren't they? And you must have V6 brakes on your QS, imagine how us 225 owners feel with our pushbike brakes 

Josh


----------



## GEM (Jun 21, 2007)

Super Josh said:


> Doug Short said:
> 
> 
> > I also reaffirmed how scarily abominable the standard brakes are on the car by nearly not being able to slow down to 30 mph for a roundabout.
> ...


Josh, 
AFAIK when put into production the QS got the 225 brakes and not the promised *V6* brakes.
John.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

GEM said:


> Super Josh said:
> 
> 
> > Doug Short said:
> ...


Correct, hence why I put a set of Brembos on mine.

Back to the original question, my first TT was remapped/chipped when I bought it and was putting out about 245bhp (I found out later) on the rollers. When I changed to the qS I was afraid that all I was doing was buying a newer TT. However IMO the qS is a totally different beast with loads more torque. I believe some remaps do retain the "qS feel", however I am reluctant to remap and effectively become just a remapped 225 rather than a pukka qS.


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

SimonQS said:


> Tesiboo said:
> 
> 
> > Sav has also had his QS remapped I think Wak sorted him out.
> ...


Oh I can t wait to Italy, I wish I had you on tape saying " I wont map my QS the power delivery is better than a mapped car, its all about the torque" :lol:


----------



## *JP* (Jan 19, 2009)

Doug Short said:


> I also reaffirmed how scarily abominable the standard brakes are on the car by nearly not being able to slow down to 30 mph for a roundabout.
> 
> We'll see what happens.


Doug,I don't doubt that big brake mods are the best thing if you want to spend that sort of money but when I got my QS a year ago I was also unhappy with the brakes.I had it serviced by Awesome and they reported " will need new front discs and pads at next service".this surprised me a bit because the discs appeared Ok,but I decided to do the job myself.When I got the old discs off I was surprised because the inner faces, which are hard to inspect unless the discs are off, were badly corroded at only 23k miles!!!
Anyway,I replaced the discs front and rear (although TBH the rears were not too bad) and fitted Mintex 1144 pads all round which are a respected "fast road" upgrade.
I now think the brakes are more than adequate for fast road use,maybe they would fade with multiple high speed stops,I don't know ,but for one stop from 70+ to 0 they are good and noticeably better than they were...so any desire to empty my wallet on big brake conversions has now gone.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

*JP* said:


> Doug Short said:
> 
> 
> > I also reaffirmed how scarily abominable the standard brakes are on the car by nearly not being able to slow down to 30 mph for a roundabout.
> ...


Doug,I don't doubt that big brake mods are the best thing if you want to spend that sort of money but when I got my QS a year ago I was also unhappy with the brakes.I had it serviced by Awesome and they reported " will need new front discs and pads at next service".this surprised me a bit because the discs appeared Ok,but I decided to do the job myself.When I got the old discs off I was surprised because the inner faces, which are hard to inspect unless the discs are off, were badly corroded at only 23k miles!!!
quote]
Mine discs were in the same state arter only 8k miles :?


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

Bikerz said:


> SimonQS said:
> 
> 
> > Tesiboo said:
> ...


 :roll:

Ed has assured me the remap will retain the same characteristics as the OEM map, just enhanced, producing 21psi rather than the standard 17 - couldn't care less about what BHP that is to be honest.

As an aside, picking up on Richard's comment, a standard QS drives so much nicer than a mapped 225 - I have owned both as well. When I test drove the QS I couldn't believe how different they could be.

As an aside, standard QSs always run what they should on rolling roads, mapped 225s come out with all sorts of figures, don't think anyone has got to the bottom of that, other than blaming the heldex. Will be interested if a mapped QS delivers properly on the rollers.


----------



## Harv3y (Jun 2, 2008)

Doug Short said:


> I've enquired at Star Performance about having a remap done at the same time as the MOT & cambelt package replacement next Monday (15 Feb). On their price list, they only quote the 150, 180 & 225 PS Mk1 models. Jim's response was "if we have a map available for your car, we can do it". Price is GBP299. Maybe the 225 PS map will suffice, but they quote 250-260 PS.I thought 262 PS was the minimum? Maybe they can tweak it as required.
> 
> When they say "Jim's response was "if we have a map available for your car, we can do it". What do they mean if they have a map??
> 
> ...


----------



## Sutty (Dec 9, 2009)

Hi Guys

Very interesting reading this. I'm new to TT's and have recently bought an 06 qs and assumed to have it mapped. In fact I've got my 3" turbo back pipewerx exhaust in preparation, and that has made a difference already! After digesting these comments I'm now not sure whether to get it mapped or not. I wouldn't want to get a "poor" map giving minimal results over standard. Hmmmm....... more homework required, or even a ride in a mapped 225!

Sutty


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2010)

Blimey guys, much food for thought there! Thanks for some interesting responses.

I'm keeping an open mind about the braking issue and what to do about it in the longer term. I was thinking that maybe the previous owner was heavy on the brakes and the pads are like a well-sucked bon bon, so perhaps new upgraded performance pads would suffice. But then again, if I could garner some additional cash together, I might eventually go for a big brake upgrade. However, the price (what, maybe £1,500 to £2,000?) causes me consternation. Other posters have said that they prioritise brake upgrades. For me, it's not about shaving off seconds from my 18 minute commute, but giving me confidence in the car if I misjudge something. I'll see what comes out of the MOT on Monday. Maybe the lads at Star could give me an expert opinion on the state of the discs and pads then so when it goes back for a service later in the year, I could just go for some reasonably-priced upgraded drilled discs and performance pads but retain the OEM calipers. That would be the sensible option then my family could still eat.

As for maps, my preference would be for a custom APR re-map at Awesome but after some thinking and reading, I just decided that since I was doing the 110 mile round trip to Kirkcaldy next week, why not just bite the bullet and have them re-map it at the same time? I presume that they will carry out a similar procedure as Vagcheck and Awesome with rolling road sessions before, during (if tweaks are made) and after, starting with the 225 PS map as a basis and customise it so that the torque and power curves end up broadly the same shape but translated up the y-axis if you like! That's the objective isn't it... do a dynamometer check before to determine the shape and then adjust the parameters as necessary. I'm sure as hell not shelling out £299 for a 30 minute 225 PS-specific upload. I think Jim's crew are better than that anyway since they are multiple award-winning tuners and probably every bit as good as Awesome, else I'd have no hesitation in going down the M6 to them.

Doug


----------



## skiwhiz (Feb 17, 2008)

Sutty said:


> Hi Guys
> 
> Very interesting reading this. I'm new to TT's and have recently bought an 06 qs and assumed to have it mapped. In fact I've got my 3" turbo back pipewerx exhaust in preparation, and that has made a difference already! After digesting these comments I'm now not sure whether to get it mapped or not. I wouldn't want to get a "poor" map giving minimal results over standard. Hmmmm....... more homework required, or even a ride in a mapped 225!
> 
> Sutty


this one comes up ;ots and if you do a search you should get a number of threads some of which go into detail re torque etc. and don't forget the QS is lighter so will never be just another remapped 225


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2010)

Quick update then:

MOT o.k. except they didn't like LED indicator bulbs due to fast flashing and as I mentioned in another thread, a partially faulty red tail light bulb. Because of faffing with getting bulbs changed, bent contacts and a retest, there was no time to get any work done on the brakes (front discs in poor condition advisory which confirmed what I thought) or a re-map so the point remains moot for the time being.

I think they were gritting the roads with diamonds in Fife as the sound was horrendous going past a gritter lorry on the way back. Aaargh.

I'll probably make a date with Awesome GTi at some point and maybe get the discs and pads upgraded and an APR remap done at the same time to share out the work.

What's next? A liquid TT and a Carmine Red armrest possibly, although I really fancy a Mk2 steering wheel. Overtime beckons.

Doug


----------



## JNmercury00 (May 22, 2007)

*JP* said:


> Doug Short said:
> 
> 
> > I also reaffirmed how scarily abominable the standard brakes are on the car by nearly not being able to slow down to 30 mph for a roundabout.
> ...


here here!!


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2010)

Well, no big brake conversions on the horizon, I'm getting the clear message that upgraded pads & discs are more than adequate, so that's great.

On topic, but off-marque: We had another MOT advisory on the condition of the front discs on our Corolla today (same as last year) but Western Toyota (Old Dalkeith Road) were quoting £282 to replace the FRONT ONLY and a further £70 to deglaze or clean the rear pads. I think not. I've asked my wife to get prices for front and rear discs and pads and we'll have them slotted on a reliable independent. I think we'll look to get rid of the car next year anyway if funds permit.

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

toyota disks always rust mate, had that on my mr2 a few times, even when the car was under warranty toyota would fail it on the disks - and when i said how come they are not covered under warranty, they just said it didnt impair the performance. so my question was why should it fail the mot then!

anyway, go for aftermarket pads and disks, like ebc and greenstuff. cheaper than OEM and dont rust as badly.

hurry up and get the remap as well, i want to hear what you think!


----------



## skiwhiz (Feb 17, 2008)

Doug there are lots of posts re brakes and the conclusion appears to be paiget are as good as anything unless you want to spend lots and steer clear of drilled and grooved, you lose performance


----------



## Guest (Feb 17, 2010)

skiwhiz said:


> Doug there are lots of posts re brakes and the conclusion appears to be paiget are as good as anything unless you want to spend lots and steer clear of drilled and grooved, you lose performance


O.k., thanks for that. I'd seen the discussion elsewhere about losing performance on standard sized drilled & grooved discs... Some very interesting threads.

Doug


----------



## Bikerz (Aug 23, 2008)

NOT TRUE!

Drilled ones may crack unless you get very expensive cast ones (Even these crack on lambos after a few track days, read latest EVO)

Grooved high quality disks, havent heard of these cracking EVER!


----------



## golfmadeasy (Aug 22, 2005)

I had mine remapped then tested

Results "see my signature"



Doug Short said:


> Hi.
> 
> I've read a lot of posts where people have had various stages of remap done on 225 PS coupes and are delighted with the results of ca 40 bhp gains, but has anyone bothered with a remap on their QS? If so, which stage and what did bhp & torque did that give you?
> 
> ...


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

golfmadeasy said:


> I had mine remapped then tested
> 
> Results "see my signature"
> 
> ...


Which rolling road did you use?


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2010)

I'm just about to get a Liquid TT so I'll measure the calculated bhp using that. I'm curious to see what difference 95 to 99 RON fuel makes and how much more bhp I've eked out by fitting the hi-flow cats and performance air filter. I'm not expecting much.

Anyway, the question: I'll have a search for threads today, but does anyone with a Liquid TT have bhp figures from that and a dynamometer? I was wondering what the difference is as a guide.

Doug


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

Doug Short said:


> Dance171 said:
> 
> 
> > as the only difference in the engine department between a QS and a 225 is the Ecu map when you have a remap the QS gives the same figures as a remapped 225 mate
> ...


It's not quite clear what you saying, but isn't a QS rated at 240BHP? Cos a stage 1 remap on a 225 gives around 260BHP. Hardly the same.

Stage 1 is basically for otherwise unmodded cars. Stage 2 is done when you have completed other performance enhancing mods such as upgraded exhaust systems, induction, FMIC, that sort of stuff. Stage 3 is for when you're getting into serious modding such as big turbo, engine mods etc. In each case the remap takes account of the abilities of the car to produce more power.


----------



## Guest (Feb 18, 2010)

Dance171 wrote:
as the only difference in the engine department between a QS and a 225 is the Ecu map when you have a remap the QS gives the same figures as a remapped 225 mate.

I understand Dance171's comment to mean that he believes remapping the BFV engine would give the same end result as remapping the BAM engine, all other factors being equal.

Doug


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

Doug Short said:


> Dance171 wrote:
> as the only difference in the engine department between a QS and a 225 is the Ecu map when you have a remap the QS gives the same figures as a remapped 225 mate.
> 
> I understand Dance171's comment to mean that he believes remapping the BFV engine would give the same end result as remapping the BAM engine, all other factors being equal.
> ...


Exactly my point - it wasn't clear. But if that's case, yes I agree.


----------



## Dance171 (Feb 8, 2009)

ttsteve said:


> Doug Short said:
> 
> 
> > Dance171 wrote:
> ...


Sorry for confusing you mate  this is exactly what i meant


----------



## golfmadeasy (Aug 22, 2005)

It was somewhere in essex, it was a long time ago. Ide have to fish out the results, ill get back to you on that one



SimonQS said:


> golfmadeasy said:
> 
> 
> > I had mine remapped then tested
> ...


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2010)

I've just installed a Liquid TT gauge and taken the car out for some test runs.

I obtained reproducible data on gauge and dyno plots as below. [Post edited 27 Feb]. Interesting to note that there is no significant difference in peak power and torque with the V-Power but the profile is quite different with a steeper increase in power and torque from lower revs and a broader maximum torque band. I am, of course, presuming that all other factors remain the same as near as makes no difference.

Should I believe the data? (see later post for info on commanded & delivered boost check). The ECU map is stock/OEM. Physical mods are only a Powerflow SL-1 induction kit and Millteck hi-flow cats + catback system.

Doug


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

Mine has been on two rolling roads, both said 241bhp and 250 lb ft


----------



## alcanTTara (Nov 12, 2008)

Would be very surprised if those figures were accurate.

Doug - Did you buy the car from new? If not how do you know the previous owner didn't have it remapped?


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

alcanTTara said:


> Would be very surprised if those figures were accurate.
> 
> Doug - Did you buy the car from new? If not how do you know the previous owner didn't have it remapped?


Thing is the lb ft is spot on, but the bhp is high


----------



## alcanTTara (Nov 12, 2008)

SimonQS said:


> alcanTTara said:
> 
> 
> > Would be very surprised if those figures were accurate.
> ...


 lt figure is too high for a standard car. By 13lt


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

cannot remember exactly, but mines a standard car and said 244bhp on the liquid, not sure on the lbs


----------



## alcanTTara (Nov 12, 2008)

Well the official figures im looking at say 237 BHP & 237lt.

Not know any 1.8t product make over the official claims.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Back in 2004 I was at a rolling road day at the now defunct AMD Bicester where cars were producing pretty much the BHP that was expected, however one standard 225 which had been owned from new and was not remapped was found to be putting out 239BHP.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2010)

I suspected the readings were too good to be true so I checked my commanded boost versus delivered boost on the way in to work tonight and under steady acceleration in sixth gear I saw 1.15 bar peak commanded boost on acceleration and 1.40 bar peak delivered boost on the next acceleration - some discrepancy. I had read on here that boost leaks can cause false high readings on the liquid TT. Should I believe the readings in light of this or start looking for a boost leak?

If there is a boost leak, I presume that I shouldn't simply be scaling these figures down by the ratio 1.15/1.40 (82%) to get back to true readings as that only yields 211 bhp & 205 lbsft? There were no standing fault codes on the ECU.

The car does feel lively enough, even on the supermarket juice, so I'm not keen to simply dismiss the figures. I am the second owner, so I don't know whether the first owner had it remapped or not, but I would be surprised if he did. I'll do some searches as I'm sure I've seen other threads discussing boost discrepancies.

Doug


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

QS standard is running 17psi which is 1.17 bar - I have been talking to APS about a remap, Ed advised that it would take it to 21 psi which is 1.44 bar.

Not sure is the TT has an "overboost" facility which kicks in when changing gear quickly?


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2010)

O.k., Jim/freegeek has confirmed in another thread that the manufacturer's figures are quoted at 25 degC ambient air temperature. A 'back of envelope calculation' does seem to indicate that the temperature difference between 25 degC and 0 degC would account for the difference:

0 degC; 1.292 kg/m^3
+5 degC; 1.269 kg/m^3
+10 degC; 1.247 kg/m^3
+15 degC; 1.225 kg/m^3
+20 degC; 1.204 kg/m^3
+25 degC; 1.184 kg/m^3

I don't know what the oxygen content is, but assuming it varies proportionally with density, you're looking at 9.1% denser air at 0 degC than 25 degC. Scaling up from 237 bhp gives 258 bhp.

Still doesn't explain why I'm measuring 1.40 barg boost pressure though...

Doug


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

Doug Short said:


> O.k., Jim/freegeek has confirmed in another thread that the manufacturer's figures are quoted at 25 degC ambient air temperature. A 'back of envelope calculation' does seem to indicate that the temperature difference between 25 degC and 0 degC would account for the difference:
> 
> 0 degC; 1.292 kg/m^3
> +5 degC; 1.269 kg/m^3
> ...


You are positive its not remapped, have you owned since new?


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2010)

No Simon, no idea. I've drafted a letter to the first registered keeper, so in the absence of any better ideas, I'll fire it off tomorrow and see if he can shed some light on it.

I measured the boost pressures during a wide open throttle run in 3rd gear from just sub 1,000 rpm to over 6,500 rpm and posted up the plot below.

Ta.

Doug


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Hi Doug,

If your QS is believed to be stock, & actual pressure is above command its quite likely the N75.

For some reason quite a high number of QS's I have reviewed have had a faulty N75, its almost like there may have been a bad batch fitted to some of them during the production run.

Requested/actual boost under full load is ~1.2bar with a correctly functioning stock QS.

Regards
Morgan


----------



## Guest (Mar 8, 2010)

I checked the N75 position versus boost this afternoon (09 March) and all seemed to be well. The N75 opened up to 95% to control the initial boost spike and then dropped back. Every time I blipped the throttle, the boost kicked in along with the N75 opening then closing in what appeared to be a normal cycle.

I also plotted commanded boost on the graph with the delivered boost line and it seemed to match reasonably well with the expected delay in response.

I still measured a peak power of 257 bhp with ambient air temperature of +8 degC giving an intake air temperature of +16 degC. I didn't manage to achieve a peak boost of 1.40 barg again, 1.29 barg was the biggest I saw this time.

Doug


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2010)

A follow up to previous posts.

Ambient air temperature finally rose above 10 degC today, so I've taken another set of peak power and torque readings to test the air density effect on power:

Ambient air temperature: +10.5 degC.
Air intake temperature: +17 degC.
Peak power: 253 bhp
Peak torque: 247 lbft

So down a bit from the readings at 0.5 degC as expected. Scaling up the air density data from +25 degC to +10 degC would give 250 bhp/250 lbft. I'll take another set when the temperature is +20 degC (probably about 4 months time) :wink:

Doug

Update 31st March 2010. The previous owner confirmed that the car was never remapped.


----------



## Guest (Mar 29, 2010)

An update:

I bought the TT Forum group buy disks and pads, i.e. Brembo front disks, Zimmerman rear discs and Textar pads and had these fitted for £82.20 inc VAT at Star Performance last week. The seem o.k. and was pleased to see some sort of coating (zinc passivation?) on the non contact surfaces so hopefully unwanted corrosion will be kep to a minimum. When I got the Toyota ones fitted, there seemed to be a shiny black coating on the non-contact surfaces which was different and more robust looking to the ones fitted from first manufacture. However, the guy in the local HiQ said I could have saved half the money on the parts cost by getting Japanese made 'blueprint' equivalents from a local motor factor. You live and learn.

No prospect of a remap just yet as out of money now so looks like Chris will be leading on this one. Morgan at Vagcheck talks confidently about remapping QS's on other threads, so might have to plan a trip to Staines later in the year when my finances recover.

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

hopefully mine will be by awesome sometime during april (money permitting!).


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

doug, an update.

ive been pm'ing bigsyd and asked him if he thought it would be worth remapping mine with the standard exhaust. he confirmed my thoughts as to a waste of cash, and said wait until i get a sports cat etc and go straight for a stage 2.

so im gunna get saving up instead and hope my exhaust falls off so i am forced to spend a grand on a new one!


----------



## bigsyd (Jul 9, 2008)

i am running (untill next week) from awesomes RR bhp @ wheels 252 and Max Torque 326


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2010)

chrishumes said:


> doug, an update.
> 
> ive been pm'ing bigsyd and asked him if he thought it would be worth remapping mine with the standard exhaust. he confirmed my thoughts as to a waste of cash, and said wait until i get a sports cat etc and go straight for a stage 2.
> 
> so im gunna get saving up instead and hope my exhaust falls off so i am forced to spend a grand on a new one!


O.k., good call. I couldn't afford the full sports system in one go so went for the cat back first to resolve tatty tailpipe issues (only to swap for contaminated Milltek ones soon to be replaced under warranty) then got 200 cps cats later. I'm still hanging on for a remap trying to ascertain whether to bother at all and if I do, would it be Awesome or a long long round trip to Vagcheck. Coilovers to cure bouncy ride might be a more prudent next move if I have the spare cash.

bigsyd: I am running (untill next week) from awesomes RR bhp @ wheels 252 and Max Torque 326.

Any chance of uploading a dyno plot? That is superb.

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

doug, i think both syd and yellow tt (andy) can vouch for the stage 2 maps etc. so if your in that area anyway ?

think when im down that way i will get the free trial and the cruise fitted. so i guess i can post up what the free trial felt like


----------



## freegeek (Aug 26, 2005)

Doug, can you post up a 3rd gear wot run from 1krpm with comand and actual boost superimposed.


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

bigsyd said:


> i am running (untill next week) from awesomes RR bhp @ wheels 252 and Max Torque 326


Syd, assuming that 326 is lb ft, thats a great figure! Hope thats not putting too much pressure on your turbo, I thought the rule of thumb was at the 300 / 320lb ft point you would need a hybrid?


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2010)

freegeek said:


> Doug, can you post up a 3rd gear wot run from 1krpm with comand and actual boost superimposed.


O.k., I'll see what I can do but might not be getting the car out for a few days. I presume that's just a standard graph of actual boost or command boost with the other parameter selected and then me freezing the screen by pushing the joystick to the right immediately after the run is complete?

Doug


----------



## bigsyd (Jul 9, 2008)

Doug Short said:


> chrishumes said:
> 
> 
> > doug, an update.
> ...


there you go Doug


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2010)

Boost pressure plot with command boost superimposed (white line) as requested:










Earlier post also updated with this plot.

The possibility of a faulty N75 valve rears is head again, but the duty cycle seems normal and although there's some overshoot of delivered versus commanded boost, it's not a bad correlation. Also, dyno runs are giving consistent power and torque with a smooth power curve and a nice flat torque curve. I don't know the nature of the fault Morgan is referring to, but I would expect a faulty valve to behave inconsistently. I have consulted ELSAwin and checked the internal resistance of the valve. It's 30 Ohms against specification of 25-35 Ohms.

One other point: in an attempt to assess the N75 duty cycle, I carried out a series of boost requests at a steady 70 mph in 6th gear by flooring the throttle at progressively quicker rates to see how well the delivered boost correlated with the commanded boost. The answer was extremely well unless I literally stamped on it and came off immediately. Only in this case did the boost overshoot so, again, I don't believe there is any indication that the N75 valve is faulty. It produced a lovely little plot with different width spikes but there's no use uploading it because it wouldn't be possible to assess the rate of throttle depression and release from the relatively coarse time scale on the abscissa.

When I'm seeing consistent behaviour and I'm gaining power, not losing it, I'm hardly motivated to go get a new N75 valve, but hey...

Doug


----------



## Guest (Apr 28, 2010)

New dyno run & timing correction plots with 175 miles worth of 99 RON Tesco super unleaded run through and the three ECU fuses pulled for 15 minutes immediately after refuel. Ambient temperatures were up significantly from previous efforts and, as you can see, we're back to the regular 257 bhp, a bit down on torque and the timing correction has changed significantly. Given the boost curve, it looks like its the N75 characteristic giving me the extra bhp then, not low ambient temps. Case solved this time?


----------



## sixohsixone (May 31, 2009)

SimonQS said:


> bigsyd said:
> 
> 
> > i am running (untill next week) from awesomes RR bhp @ wheels 252 and Max Torque 326
> ...


Will be interested Simon when you`ve had yours done @ Aps? and how it feels to the original QS map.Am interested after speaking with Ed about there remap.Been there twice in 3 months for some essentials brakes 1st then cam belt.
Long way to go but a good drive and great service there.


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

I will write a feedback after my 70 mile drive home on Friday afternoon! 8)


----------



## sixohsixone (May 31, 2009)

Have a Safe one


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

well, well, well... really happy with the map!  Pulls much harder than the standard QS map but does feel like it has the same profile. and has a delicious roar in 2nd gear :twisted: No figures yet other than it is holding 21 up from 17psi boost and overboosting at 25psi.


----------



## sixohsixone (May 31, 2009)

Nice one  great drive home then.


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

sixohsixone said:


> Nice one  great drive home then.


Not really too much traffic, really impressed though, more so than I thought I would be.


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2010)

Have you got any more details Simon? Peak bhp & torque? Which map is it? Do you have before and after dyno plots?

Cheers,

Doug


----------



## davidkoulakis (Jul 21, 2008)

Doug, my old QS is at Coulson Audi at the mo, with only 600 miles more than when I p/x'd it 2 years ago (??)

Im assuming its still got the AMD map on it, take it for a test drive !


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2010)

David,

Do you mean Coulsdon Audi in Surrey (5 Gateway Business Park, A23 Coulsdon Bypass, Coulsdon, Surrey, CR5 2AR)?

I'd love to take it for a drive, but that would be a 842 mile round trip for me :lol: Not dissimilar to what I'd have to do if I wanted a Vagcheck remap, so keen to evaluate the different maps available for the BFV engine.

Doug


----------



## davidkoulakis (Jul 21, 2008)

LOL...sorry, didnt realise you were in bonny scotland !

still, any excuse for a drive eh !


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2010)

Being only about 20 miles/25 mins from the centre of Edinburgh, I don't feel that cut off from civilisation, but when it's well over 400 miles driving to get to the home counties, it sure brings it home how geographically detached we actually are up here.

I've certainly got the time at the moment, but neither the petrol money nor the will to put 850 miles on my QS to find out. Simon will divulge all the craic, I'm sure.

That would be funny though as your ex car and mine have (if we believe it) nearly identical mileages so I could just drive down, give it a test drive and in theory at least do a straight swap, but it doesn't work like that does it?!

Doug


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

No details, although would like to get it on some rollers to see. Ed at APS did say there is no reason why I shouldn't see 270bhp and 280lb ft


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2010)

SimonQS said:


> No details, although would like to get it on some rollers to see. Ed at APS did say there is no reason why I shouldn't see 270bhp and 280lb ft


That would do me: +13 bhp and +35 lbft on my Liquid TT figures but would be interested in the torque profile.

Doug


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

Very liniar power delivery, lots of torque, feels exactly like the standard map, but will more punch, exactly what I wanted


----------



## Guest (Apr 30, 2010)

SimonQS said:


> Very liniar power delivery, lots of torque, feels exactly like the standard map, but will more punch, exactly what I wanted


Just what I wanted to hear. Interesting, very interesting. How long did it take to get done and was it straightforward?

Wak & Morgan at Vagcheck won't divulge any details of course, but they claim to be able to correct an inherent flaw in the QS map which sets me thinking what it is and do any other tuners know about it. Good though theirs may be, there's no way I would be prepared to travel that kind of distance unless I know enough to be able to compare the different remaps available.

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

right guys, i know i said id do this a while back, but this friday im booked in for a remap and cruise control at awesome. car is standard apart from the cda bmc induction. i dont see the point throwing a grand at an exhaust. ive got a liquid tt so i guess i will take figures from that before the remap and afterwards. the cruise can switch between the remaps so can prob get any info people want on the before and after stuff. hopefully this will help people to see if its really worth remaping a standard qs!


----------



## SAVTT240 (Mar 29, 2009)

chrishumes said:


> right guys, i know i said id do this a while back, but this friday im booked in for a remap and cruise control at awesome. car is standard apart from the cda bmc induction. i dont see the point throwing a grand at an exhaust. ive got a liquid tt so i guess i will take figures from that before the remap and afterwards. the cruise can switch between the remaps so can prob get any info people want on the before and after stuff. hopefully this will help people to see if its really worth remaping a standard qs!


I'd say its is worth it 100 % - with the right guys of course - wak & morgan (vagcheck).


----------



## golfmadeasy (Aug 22, 2005)

I have a turbochip remap to 261 bhp and 300 lbs torque


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2010)

chrishumes said:


> right guys, i know i said id do this a while back, but this friday im booked in for a remap and cruise control at awesome. car is standard apart from the cda bmc induction. i dont see the point throwing a grand at an exhaust. ive got a liquid tt so i guess i will take figures from that before the remap and afterwards. the cruise can switch between the remaps so can prob get any info people want on the before and after stuff. hopefully this will help people to see if its really worth remaping a standard qs!


Hi Chris.

Very much looking forward to results, especially before and after 3rd gear dyno plot runs via Liquid TT so I can compare with mine!

Doug


----------



## Devil (Mar 12, 2010)

I was also thinkng about this remapping.

Mines totally standard 225 2000 reg i changed the water pump and cam belt few months ago so i know their ok.
Do i need to worry about anything having this done ?
I mean is there ANY THING AT ALL negative about having your car or an older car mapped ?

Cheers


----------



## TT51 (Feb 28, 2009)

Devil said:


> I was also thinkng about this remapping.
> 
> Mines totally standard 225 2000 reg i changed the water pump and cam belt few months ago so i know their ok.
> Do i need to worry about anything having this done ?
> ...


I had mine remapped by Vagcheck in March last year when it had 117k miles on the clock. Its a 2001 car. Morgan carried out all the usual tests to give the car a thorough health check before applying a map. One of the tests checks the cylinders for signs of wear by way of a leak test and my car showed no different results to a car with 40k on the clock according to him.

As long as your car has been serviced well and cared for then you should not have any problems. But after a remap then if things like your coil packs are near the end of their life they can die sooner. Also if your clutch has seen better days remapping can help end its life a little sooner. But these things are going to fail one day anyway, the remap can just speed up that process a little.

Very few negatives apart from your insurance will go up but huge positives.

So what are you waiting for go see Vagcheck 

If you are going to the Essex meet on Sunday you are wellcome to be a test pilot in mine it has a stage2 :roll:


----------



## Devil (Mar 12, 2010)

ah that'll be cool m8 defo interested to see the difference.. I'll be there anyways so yh were do that.


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

got my remap done on friday (6 hour free trial) at awesome. they forgot to give me the switchable map, so i couldnt switch between the two to see what i thought of it compared to the standard one. i will try to have a play about today, but think i only have about half an hour of the 6 hours left as the wife drove it for 3+ hours. the driving that i have done have been on the M6 so couldnt do much as the traffic was terrible, and was stuck in a jam for most of the time!

to be honest it does feel a bit quicker, but when i first drove it, it seemed that the power delivery wasnt as linear as before. there seemed to be a initial boost, then another one at around 5k. the liquid tt shows that bhp has jumped from approx 245, but only up to 255ish. the torque has went from approx 230 to 260 i think.

talking with one of the guys at awesome he agreed that it probably wouldnt be noticeable on the qs, saying the only way to get more would be to get the exhaust changed, which im not prepared to do as the cost/extra bhp/torque I cannot justify.

so I will post back after a quick play today, but at the moment im happy to go back to the nice standard qs map, which seems to be a decent try by audi compared to the non-linear one ive got now.

anyone any thoughts on this?

ps. the guys at awesome were superb, great professional place to go and would happily return and get work done.


----------



## SimonQS (Jul 21, 2008)

chrishumes said:


> to be honest it does feel a bit quicker, but when i first drove it, it seemed that the power delivery wasnt as linear as before. there seemed to be a initial boost, then another one at around 5k.


Sounds like your free trial was a remap for a 225, and not an enhanced version of the QS map.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2010)

Hi Chris.

Ach well, I was looking forward to seeing some Liquid TT dyno plots to compare, but it does sound like, as Simon says, they've given you a 225 PS map not one that's specific to the QS.

I was also looking forward to seeing some power & torque data from your Liquid TT so maybe we could get a handle on how much these readings are offset compared to manufacturer's data which I presume are wheel horsepower. I was thinking maybe around 5-7 bhp? over based on 'rule-of-thumb' crankshaft-to-wheel losses, but hey. I saw someone else reporting 237 bhp against 222 for the standard car which is something like 6.7% over.

Never mind.

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

yeah doug i dont think it was a specially developed qs map (even thought they knew i had a qs). just been out to see if it was still mapped, but the 6 hours must be up as its went back to standard. i have taken a picture of 3rd gear from the liquid on the normal map if you want it emailed, its showing what i had before the map, ie peak of 245, and 229ftlb.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2010)

Cheers Chris,

Photo a bit blurred but good enough. I was obviously interested in what mine might have been putting out before exhaust & induction mods. Looks like I might have added about 12 bhp & 15 lbft to stock which is not a lot (5.0 to 6.5%), but quite reasonable I think and well in line with manufacturers' claims.

Many thanks for that.

Back to the drawing board then with "whether a remap on a QS is worth it" eh? Looks like only APS & Morgan & Wak have a real handle on BFV engine remapping but I can't justify an 800 mile round trip :-(

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

mines standard apart from the cda induction. but to be honest before i had the cda im sure it was putting out the same!

so for the exhaust and induction you only have an extra 12bhp and 15ftlb of torque? for the cost of these do you really think its worth it?


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2010)

Easy answer Chris. Definitely not worth it, but there were other reasons for going with the exhaust for me. Cosmetic for the cat back then completeness for the 200 cps cats + longevity. As you've found out, it's a precursor to Stage 2 remaps anyway.

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

yeah, i guess thats the answer if your getting a remap anyway. let me know when you do, and id love to see what it puts out. wish i had spare cash to do it all, but if i had a spare ~£1500 i'd prob put it towards a cayman!


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2010)

I think from what I can glean on QS remaps on here, I think 270 bhp & 280 lbft is possible with only induction kit & sports exhaust mods with a careful Stage 2 remap, but a minor issue for me is changing a fairly flat torque curve to a more peaky one. I dunno; the jury's therefore still out for me because I'm fairly happy with 'around 250 bhp/250 lbft' on the basis that (a) this is on a par with the V6 and (b) is not _too far_ behind the bespoke sports cars such as Z4 3.0i, Boxter, 350Z etc. (c) retains flat torque characteristic.

Doug


----------



## lego man (Nov 9, 2008)

Doug Short said:


> I think from what I can glean on QS remaps on here, I think 270 bhp & 280 lbft is possible with only induction kit & sports exhaust mods with a careful Stage 2 remap, but a minor issue for me is changing a fairly flat torque curve to a more peaky one. I dunno; the jury's therefore still out for me because I'm fairly happy with 'around 250 bhp/250 lbft' on the basis that (a) this is on a par with the V6 and (b) is not _too far_ behind the bespoke sports cars such as Z4 3.0i, Boxter, 350Z etc.
> 
> Doug


Hi Doug,

I have been following this thread. I found this on the Seat Copra.net forum.

http://www.seatcupra.net/forums/showthread.php?t=263948&page=3

A guy on there has manage to get 300 bhp out of his 1.8 T bam using a k04, but I am afraid it running JBSs VVT software. If this is true, this is a massive thumb up for your guys.

I have not heard anything on here about this, but its the same engine and ECU i think.

Lego


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2010)

Interesting Lego.

The last poster when I checked were asking whether it will be available for other 1.8T engines including TT 8N, so I'll keep an eye on the thread. The power is held beautifully right up the rev range and it would be kicking my 250 or so bhp into the dust from about 4,500 rpm!

I have yet to digest the 16 page locked "Mental Big Turbo Build" disaster thread though! :wink:

Cheers for the heads-up.

Doug


----------



## lego man (Nov 9, 2008)

Doug Short said:


> Interesting Lego.
> 
> The last poster when I checked were asking whether it will be available for other 1.8T engines including TT 8N, so I'll keep an eye on the thread. The power is held beautifully right up the rev range and it would be kicking my 250 or so bhp into the dust from about 4,500 rpm!
> 
> ...


Lol.

Is it me on this one, look at the date on the dyno 5/12/2003


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2010)

Yeah, I would guess that it's maybe just be a default option inserted by the software (e.g. maybe software installation date?) that the technician doing the logging simply hasn't bothered to change?

Doug


----------



## lego man (Nov 9, 2008)

Doug Short said:


> Yeah, I would guess that it's maybe just be a default option inserted by the software (e.g. maybe software installation date?) that the technician doing the logging simply hasn't bothered to change?
> 
> Doug


 :lol:

every dyno I have seen shows the date when the dyno was ran, not the date of software installation. [smiley=bigcry.gif]

Lego


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2010)

What's going on then? :? Summat suspicious?

Doug


----------



## lego man (Nov 9, 2008)

Doug Short said:


> What's going on then? :? Summat suspicious?
> 
> Doug


Although I don't post much, I read alot of you 225s-240s with remap and the normal hop-up stuff like exhausts/down-pipe air filter etc etc. I have been through all the stages with a k04 but never had it dyno'd.

You guys never seem to pass the 280 mark with going hybrid turbo. Read that thread today and I cant see any difference between engines etc up to yet. Maybe they can, but if so then you guys are in!

Then I saw the date on the dyno which looked really impressive till I saw the date 2003! He only had it dyno'd a few weeks ago.

Dunno dude, I alway smell a rat whenever I purchase something even from Currys ! Unless the computers date is wrong and when dyno was taken the dynos software populated the incorrect time. :-|

What do you think ?


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2010)

Aye, wrong date on the computer I think. Something simple like that.

Thankfully, I have no desire or cash to hit 300 bhp with or without a different turbo. If I wanted big horsepowers with 4x4 I guess I'd go for one of them Mitsubushy Evo X Flipping Quick 300s or something, although it looks worse than an Austin Allegro inside and a Morris Ital in a pretty frock outside. :lol:

Seriously, If I was gonna plump for a remap, I'd be happy with the theoretical maximum 280 nagpowers & torques or so.

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

right guys, just to keep this thread up to date. just had a milltech catback put on, so along with me cda induction i got this out.......this is 3rd gear up to about 6500rpm. so does show an extra 5bhp from the exhaust, and the same kin of results from the torque. maybe a bit more if id held the revs?


----------



## IainF (Jul 1, 2010)

Hi 
I am new to TT's and new to this forum. I've recently bought a 2006 Quattro Sport and yesterday by accident found a local Audi specialist offering a remap for £300 + vat. I previously didn't even know what a remap was but my simple understanding is that it boosts bhp from 239 to 280.

For £300 it seems a reasonable punt but as everything else on the car is standard is it worth going ahead. I've tried to follow the technical chat on this thread but it is way over my head.

Any advice would be most welcome
regards Iain


----------



## GEM (Jun 21, 2007)

Hi Iain and welcome  
Whereabouts are you?
This often helps with any advice/recommendations that the members make.
Who were the Audi specialists you found?
John.


----------



## IainF (Jul 1, 2010)

Hi John

I am in Strathclyde area, near Glasgow and the Audi specialist is A4Audi in Clydebank

Iain


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

I think they do generic maps. Maybe Celtic Tuning.
They have done some work on mine mechanically and workmanship is ok.
Save your money for now until the APR cupra map is sorted for the TT via Awesome.
Steve


----------



## IainF (Jul 1, 2010)

Hi Steve

Many thanks for the info, much appreciated but at risk of sounding thick, which I am as far this subject is concerned, what is the APR Cupra and who is/are awesome?

I just know I am asking stupid questions here but if you don't ask you don't learn!

Iain


----------



## egg (Jun 28, 2010)

IainF said:


> Hi Steve
> 
> Many thanks for the info, much appreciated but at risk of sounding thick, which I am as far this subject is concerned, what is the APR Cupra and who is/are awesome?
> 
> ...


Awesome are VAG tuning specialists. APR is who writes the software, and cupra as in the car from seat  which uses same 1.8T engine I believe.

SOmeone please correct me if im wrong


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

egg said:


> IainF said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Steve
> ...


All true.
The Cupra map seems to be a better map option for the TT as Power levels are higher and for longer, i believe.
If you Google Awesome GTI give them a bell and enquire..
Steve


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

any indication when the better map will be available tho?


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

should have a full milltek system on by the end of next week, then im tempted to get a remap at awesome. has this seat one been released yet, or any news??


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

chrishumes said:


> should have a full milltek system on by the end of next week, then im tempted to get a remap at awesome. has this seat one been released yet, or any news??


Not released offically, dont know if you ask them for one from under the counter whether they will do it.
Steve


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

chrishumes said:


> any indication when the better map will be available tho?


They told me at there open day that the Seat map was ready to go for the TT


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

Are you getting yours updated then? What sort of figures is yours putting out?


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

chrishumes said:


> Are you getting yours updated then? What sort of figures is yours putting out?


Yes going to get mine updated next week I hope it is putting out 268 BHP at the moment that is stage 2 with 3in down pipe 100 cell cat Blueflame exhaust wak box full Forge hoses in DV relocation and DV007p I also have a Forge front mount to fit when I get round to it


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

YELLOW_TT said:


> chrishumes said:
> 
> 
> > Are you getting yours updated then? What sort of figures is yours putting out?
> ...


Hope your getting the Forge on before the map!!
Steve


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

if you could post up before and after data mate it would be appreciated. along with torque figures! cheers


----------



## Sutty (Dec 9, 2009)

Hi Guys. Just to put it out there my qs now has a Pipewerx cat back system, cotton green panel filter in original box, 007 dv and a Custom Code Phase 2 map courtesy of PSi Tuning. Nothing complicate, unnecessary or particularly expensive and is now running 282 bhp with 285 lbft torque figure. It's very smooth and holds until red line as the power delivery doesnt drop off. I dont have a liquid gauge so cant post anything on here. I did have reservations about losing the qs map, but am well happy with the results and it's so much more fun to drive. It's as a TT should be.


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

cheers sutty, good results from a cat back by the sounds of it. would like to see some graphs or proof. can you really notice the extra power then? and has it changed the characteristics of the qs at all? can i ask how much?


----------



## Sutty (Dec 9, 2009)

Graphs of proof..........what ya sayin like!!!!! Ha Ha. I'll try and post the graph from the rolling road after it was done but I'll need help with that. Im more at home with spanners than a keyboard. Yes you can notice the extra. It needs a 7th gear. As long as the turbo is spooling it just keeps pulling. Doug Short wrote some time ago "if you could move the 240 power curve up the y axis..." That makes sense and from memory I think I am close to it, albeit with more power. Full stainless Exhaust £900, Turbo inlet pipe (forgot that before) £122, Cotton green filter £47, Forge DV £70 and Custom Code St 2 remap £390. It is very smooth and Im well happy. I was concerned about losing the qs map and did research remaps. I dont care for red lining and power profiles that peak and the result is great. I dont have to scream the motor to get the power and it doesnt drop off until red line.
Go one..... you know you want to!


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

i will be soon i reckon! cheers sutty.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2010)

Yeah, sounds good Sutty. I'd like to see your power and torque curves too. We need to start getting some comparisons together on remapped QS dyno plots. Bigsyd's uploaded his.

I don't know how we can help (what form is your output data in? A text file or some sort or a paper printout) but shout if there's anything we can do for you.

Doug


----------



## Sutty (Dec 9, 2009)

Hi all.
I now have a pdf of the A4 printout from the garage. One of you kind soles could PM me a real email address thus enabling me to send the pdf to you for uploading. Yes I know it's very lazy but I'm not that computer savvy!
Any offers? Doug?
Al.


----------



## Sutty (Dec 9, 2009)

Hi Guys

I've finally uploaded my graph....and big thanks to Doug Short for the assistance........Cheers Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

Excellent mate, looks good, I don't know much about tuning but I though just with a catback exhaust you wouldn't get them sort of figures. Yellow tt has a full system and achieves less. Am I missing something?

Just got my hiflow cat fitted so a remap is next! Hope I can get similar results!


----------



## Sutty (Dec 9, 2009)

Sutty said:


> Graphs of proof..........what ya sayin like!!!!! Ha Ha. I'll try and post the graph from the rolling road after it was done but I'll need help with that. Im more at home with spanners than a keyboard. Yes you can notice the extra. It needs a 7th gear. As long as the turbo is spooling it just keeps pulling. Doug Short wrote some time ago "if you could move the 240 power curve up the y axis..." That makes sense and from memory I think I am close to it, albeit with more power. Full stainless Exhaust £900, Turbo inlet pipe (forgot that before) £122, Cotton green filter £47, Forge DV £70 and Custom Code St 2 remap £390. It is very smooth and Im well happy. I was concerned about losing the qs map and did research remaps. I dont care for red lining and power profiles that peak and the result is great. I dont have to scream the motor to get the power and it doesnt drop off until red line.
> Go one..... you know you want to!


Not just a cat back exhaust. See previous post (quoted). Stage 2 (ish)


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

Ah ok, I read about 4 posts up where it said cat back! As I say, if I get those gains I'd b happy! Enjoy

In fact, get yourself a liquid tt and see what 0-60 times and what figures that gives you, me you and doug can then compare


----------



## Sutty (Dec 9, 2009)

Ah, I did say cat back in my earlier post before. My bad. Comparisons would be good, especially of we had different maps too.


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

andy, i hear youve been to awesome today. how come the results are not posted up yet?! :lol:

you mention above about the forge intercooler. it says on their webpage that this is not a direct fit for the 240 qs, have you fitted it?


----------



## bigsyd (Jul 9, 2008)

Not a straight forward fit on a QS... But it will go on, here is mine


















Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

chrishumes said:


> andy, i hear youve been to awesome today. how come the results are not posted up yet?! :lol:
> 
> you mention above about the forge intercooler. it says on their webpage that this is not a direct fit for the 240 qs, have you fitted it?


Its not a QS issue its an issue for anyone with a 3.2/QS Front bumper, the lower central grill sits further back than a 225 bumper.

The outer edges need to have around an inch of depth cut back off the bumper and grill ( at the back inside edges) to clear the lower edges of the endtanks.

Apart from that its straight forward to install.


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

cheers wak and syd.

syd - did awesome fit yours?


----------



## bigsyd (Jul 9, 2008)

Yes m8

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2010)

Hi guys.

I started this thread as a newbie on 4th February 2009 and haven't stopped asking questions about remaps since. I guess I've become a bit of a remap-sceptic, but I've finally turned and booked into Awesome for Thursday, 28th October to have a full service and APR remap.

One of the main issues for me was the value proposition of spending money on the 'standard' 265 bhp remap but not seeing a significant increase in power and/or torque from the stock BFV map with the usual popular modifications of a sports exhaust and induction kit.

However, the car was getting ready for a service (14k and 20 months since taking ownership) and Awesome had a great deal on both the service at £117 and remap price had dropped to £299. Another persuading factor is the switchability back to stock via the cruise control stalk if I wanted to or have to run 95 RON fuel due to price or availability considerations.

I've already uploaded a load of Liquid TT dyno runs at various temperatures and with various fuels to this thread and others. so I'll obviously upload 'after' map Liquid TT dyno runs along with before and after rolling road dyno runs so we can all get some objective data on applying this map to a QS.

Thanks for all your advice guys and for contributing interesting and useful information to this thread. We all know who does the best maps in TT land, but they're too far away for me!

Place your bets here on how different the peak output figures from the Liquid TT gauge are to the rolling road figures before and after!

Regards,

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

Yip doug, I will post up results also once mine is done.


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

Just to let u know my trip to awesome isn't gunna happen on 21st as work meeting was cancelled over that way. Let me know how u get on. I'm eager to do it but need an excuse to make the journey.

Would like to know the diff between a stage 1 and 2 and cost


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2010)

After a bit of horse trading via e-mail with Mike at Awesome, I've managed to get a bit of a deal on the service and rolling road sessions to offset about half the increased cost of the Revo Technik Stage 1 remap (£410.08 inc. VAT) over the APR Stage 1 offer price of £299 inc. VAT.

I'll be down there on October 28th and will give a full report on the before and after results including comparison with Liquid TT gauge figures after that.

Many thanks to Mike for negotiating.

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

Doug

You sure the stage 1 is the best option for your 'stage 2' ready qs??


----------



## Guest (Oct 18, 2010)

chrishumes said:


> Doug
> 
> You sure the stage 1 is the best option for your 'stage 2' ready qs??


No, not really, but 18 months of prevarication have to end somewhere! :wink: I can't afford a Stage 2 and I reckon that the 260 bhp/285 lbft Stage 1 map is a decent enough hike in torque particularly.

Lack of torque compared to many modern 2.0 turbodiesel cars is a bit shameful so I should appreciate the advantage there.

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

did they give you a price for stage 2?

im really on the fence here.....£300ish is ok, but over £400 just doesnt seem worth it. thats nearly half a grand towards a cayman im after! :?


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2010)

How things change in a few days... :roll:

After reading this thread, Mike at Awesome GTi suggested that I should consider a Stage 2 remap. I was already down for a discounted full service, two discounted RR dyno runs and full price of £349 + VAT for the Revo Technik Stage 1 remap. He's an awesome deal broker.

The extra £50 + VAT for the Stage 2 has now been offset by a further discount on a RR dyno session, so I'll be paying £560 or something thereabouts all in which sees me raiding our joint account monthly float to the tune of £130. 

I suppose it had to be done! To be fair, he recommended a FMIC to get the best results out of the Stage 2. I'll pencil it in for next year.

If you want the Cayman Chris, don't let anything put you off. Just how much of a dent is that £500 going to put in the price difference though? :wink:

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

When u getting it done doug? Will await your results! What's a fmic?


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

chrishumes said:


> When u getting it done doug? Will await your results! What's a fmic?


Front mount inter cooler I have one in my garage if I ever get round to fitting it


----------



## Charlie (Dec 15, 2006)

chrishumes said:


> When u getting it done doug? Will await your results! What's a fmic?


A Front Mount Intercooler mate, I do Forge ones for around £100 less than Forge 

 beat me to it Andy 

Charlie


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Charlie said:


> chrishumes said:
> 
> 
> > When u getting it done doug? Will await your results! What's a fmic?
> ...


Just 1 second to slow mate :wink: :lol:


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2010)

Still booked in for next Thursday, 28th October.

After the length of this saga and my remap scepticism, I'm genuinely looking forward to the results too. Part of me feels like I'm paying the entrance fee to gawp into Pandora's Box though. (No schoolboy humour please).

Full analysis and discussion next week.

If I was to go for a Forge FMIC, I would be getting it fitted at the supplier Charlie I think. I think I'll save up and try to go for coilovers and FMIC sometime next year.

Doug


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

JUut make sure all you qS owners check your front inner wings for rust have a look at my post 
"its Audi what did I expect " :evil:


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2010)

A few questions guys. Charlie first. How do you manage to sell Forge FMICs for £100 less than Forge?!

Don't answer if it's commercially sensitive!

Andy: rust in inner wings? I thought most, if not all of the monocoque and steel panels are fully galvanised? I admit, I have missed the story here. Can you elaborate or provide a link?

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

if a FMIC is as much as i think (£500+), i see that as a step to far for you doug, if you were happy (like me) with say 270bhp and 300 lb/ft +torque for a few hundred, i dont see the point in the FMIC unless you get one cheap/money to burn. would you need another remap to see the benefits? did awesome mention about a uprated actuator??


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Doug Short said:


> A few questions guys. Charlie first. How do you manage to sell Forge FMICs for £100 less than Forge?!
> 
> Don't answer if it's commercially sensitive!
> 
> ...


Link mate I know of at least 2 other qS TTs with rust in the same place viewtopic.php?f=2&t=184985


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2010)

YELLOW_TT said:


> Link mate I know of at least 2 other qS TTs with rust in the same place viewtopic.php?f=2&t=184985


Thanks Andy. Found it on login anyway. Not a good state of affairs. In my mind, der TT ist rostfrei. I might have a look next week. I haven't had any of the wheels off yet.

Chris: I agree, a FMIC does indeed seem a step too far for ordinary modders like us who are happy to be mixing it with the Boxter S and Z3 3.0 boys in the 270 bhp/300 lbft seats for less than £500. I'll look at it next year, but there was a major step change in my disposable income last August when I went from being able to mod in a carefree and eager fashion, to having to plan and ration out the spondulicks.

Doug


----------



## Guest (Oct 27, 2010)

As a prelude to getting the Revo Technik Stage 2 remap put on at Awesome GTi tomorrow, I decided that the only objective way to compare the improvement in driveability was to measure in gear acceleration times before and after.

I measured these times today (Wednesday, 27 October 2010). The ambient temperature approximately 10-12 degC. Liquid TT dyno run indicated peak power of 262 bhp and 252 lbft. This is slightly higher than the previous values of 257 bhp and 244 lbft that I had reported. I thoroughly cleaned my MAF sensor and air filter last week which might account for the improvement.

Here are the times for the stock ECU map with the 'Stage 2 ready' physical modifications specified in my garage and signature:

30-50 mph (3rd gear): 3.3, 3.3, 3.7 s (average 3.4 s). Audi Driver July '05 test (OEM): 3.2 s
30-50 mph (4th gear): 4.7, 5.0, 5.3 s (average 5.0 s).
30-50 mph (5th gear): 7.7, 7.9 s (average 7.8 s).
50-70 mph (4th gear): 4.3, 4.3 s (average 4.3 s). Audi Driver July '05 test (OEM): 4.0 s
50-70 mph (5th gear): 5.1, 5.1, 5.3, 5.6 s (average 5.3 s). Audi Driver July '05 test (OEM): 4.5 s
50-70 mph (6th gear): 7.6, 7.6, 7.7, 8.3 s (average 7.8 s). Audi Driver July '05 test (OEM): 7.0 s
40-80 mph (4th gear): 8.1, 8.5 s (average 8.3 s).
40-80 mph (5th gear): 10.3, 10.7 s (average 10.5 s).
40-80 mph (6th gear): 14.4, 14.7, 14.8 s (average 14.6 s).

I'm confident that these times are reproducible to +/- 0.3 s. I used my iPhone stopwatch and stamped on the accelerator at the same time as pressing the screen. In some cases, I did more runs and times were similar. Runs were done on a long, straight, quiet stretch of road in the Scottish Borders. It was windy today but I don't think I had a consistent head or tail wind and runs were done in both directions (approximately east/west).

Some results just in (8th Nov. 2010, 5-7 degC ambient, foul weather and very windy and not on the same roads as the first set but in both easterly and westerly directions of travel)

30-50 mph (3rd gear): not enough data to get a meaningful average but sub 3 s looked easily achievable
30-50 mph (4th gear): 4.7, 4.9, 4.9 s (average 4.8 s)
30-50 mph (5th gear): 6.8, 7.3, 6.9, 7.1 s (average 7.0 s)
50-70 mph (4th gear): 3.7, 3.8, 4.0, 4.2 s (average 3.9 s)
50-70 mph (5th gear): 5.0, 5.2, 5.2 s (average 5.1 s)
50-70 mph (6th gear): 6.7, 7.0, 7.2, 7.3 s (average 7.1 s)
40-80 mph (4th gear): 7.2, 7.4 s (average 7.3 s)
40-80 mph (5th gear): 9.4, 9.7 s (average 9.6 s)
40-80 mph (6th gear): not enough data to get a meaningful average but looked about the same as pre-remap.

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

it should be good to see what figures the liquid pumps out after the map, if your figures of 262 bhp and 252 lbft are a starting point (understood these are not accurate with the liquid), i would be a bit dissipointed if you didnt get 290bhp and 300lbft from the liquid.

i cannot wait to see it mate


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2010)

Here is the lowdown on the Revo Stage 2 on the Quattro Sport then:

First of all, the 'before' rolling road session. This showed a peak clutch power of 254 bhp and peak clutch torque of 279 lbft. We reckoned that these are pretty healthy figures for a stock map and I think reflect well on the Milltek exhaust system coupled with the Powertec SL-1 induction kit. Further, you will note that the Liquid gauge power reading is pretty close and it was UNDER-estimating torque (by 9.7%) which is an acceptable position I suppose.










Right, now the figures after the remap. I will make the graphs available this weekend. I asked Awesome to e-mail me the raw data so if I get that, I'll upload that plus a chart. This shot, taken on my iPhone is the best I can do until I get raw data that I can plot out and upload as separate charts.


















The 'pub figures' after are curious. Peak power has hardly changed at 256 bhp but the chart shows healthy increases across the rev range with a much flatter power curve. Peak torque has massively increased to 359 lbft and the area under the torque curve has correspondingly increased dramatically bearing out the success of the philosophy of 'safe optimisation of torque' that Vagcheck and other tuners promote for their remaps.

I did a Liquid TT gauge dyno run this morning once the oil was up to temperature and saw 263 bhp and 'only' 287 lbft. So the Liquid is still underestimating torque compared to the dynamometer but the error (20.0%) is double what it was before the remap. Which do I believe? I'm tempted to believe that somewhere well over 300 lbft is real because I find that flooring the throttle in 3rd or 4th will now induce very pronounced but nevertheless manageable torque steer... and that's with a blue Haldex sending more power to the rear than standard. Acceleration in 5th or 6th when cruising at motorway speeds in the 3,500-4,000 rpm region is instantaneous and meaty. Peak boost is now 1.58 bar compared to 1.38 bar before.










I will repeat in gear acceleration tests in due course so we can analyse just how that extra oomph translates to real world go, but suffice to say that the car has more urge in 4th, 5th and 6th gears and feels smoother, which I didn't really expect.

The journey back was done at pretty healthy speeds up the motorway and A7 and after refuelling at Lancaster Forton with BP Ultimate at an eye-watering £1.319, I saw a DIS economy figure of 33.1 mpg which immediately is better than anything I've seen on steady dual carriageway commutes for a long time.

Many thanks to Mike, the technician whose signature I can't make out and the guys at Awesome for being flexible on prices and accommodating me today when they were busy and understaffed.

Updates to follow when I can upload dyno runs and do in gear acceleration tests...

Doug


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

cheers doug, i await results. suprised the bhp isnt 20 or so more, but that torque is superb.

how does it feel to drive?

whats your opinion on 'is it worth it'?

could you pm my the cost of the stage 2!


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2010)

Cost was £399 + VAT Chris. Sadly can't even upload the picture I took of the printed dyno runs as reception on outskirts of Hawick is abysmal so will have to wait until I get home. Too early to tell whether its worth it though. I now have £37 spending money left this month and a quick car that's now a bit quicker. If you've got £468 to blow and you are fed up feeling inadequate against modern diesel engined cars, then I wouldn't hesitate. I admit that, in the end, my primary motivator was pure curiosity.

Doug


----------



## SAVTT240 (Mar 29, 2009)

Doug Short said:


> Here is the lowdown on the Revo Stage 2 on the Quattro Sport then:
> 
> First of all, the 'before' rolling road session. This showed a peak clutch power of 254 bhp and peak clutch torque of 279 lbft. We reckoned that these are pretty healthy figures for a stock map and I think reflect well on the Milltek exhaust system coupled with the Powertec SL-1 induction kit. Further, you will note that the Liquid gauge power reading is pretty close and it was UNDERestimating torque which is acceptable.
> 
> ...


359 lbft TORQUE

WOW !!  

That must be one hell off a kick???
Thats what some of the big turbo boys achieve & i'd be well happy with that ??

I have a wak map on my qs & it achieves a little more bhp but only about 302 torque & thats a pretty good kick, so 359 must be awesome ??
Figs are from the liquid on mine.

SAV.


----------



## Guest (Oct 29, 2010)

Thanks Sav. It certainly feels a lot more lively. As I said, once I get some free time, I'll repeat the in-gear acceleration times after the remap and we'll see what the real-world effect is.

A tribute to Awesome and their decision to change to Revo I suppose. Only time will tell whether it blows up prematurely or fries my weedy OEM clutch! :wink:

Doug


----------



## bigsyd (Jul 9, 2008)

I don't think you have any worries doug about it blowing up, me& Tony are running similar torque and more bhp, and our cars survived the Italy run and mine just recent the holland trip all without a problem

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chrishumes (Jun 16, 2008)

sav

if you results is from the liquid, is it no worth a rolling road to see if the liquid is as way off as dougs?


----------



## SAVTT240 (Mar 29, 2009)

chrishumes said:


> sav
> 
> if you results is from the liquid, is it no worth a rolling road to see if the liquid is as way off as dougs?


Yep, will do as soon as next stage done, i will log results off liquid & then get rolling road results to see if or how much liquid is out !!


----------



## Grahamstt (Jul 22, 2008)

Hi Doug, They are impressive results, as for the BHP figures although peak may be almost unchanged look at the increase between 50 and 70mph, graph shows 20 to 30 bhp more  .
That is useable bhp right in the midrange with a good kick up the jacksee from the boost   
After all your worries before the remap I bet you're now glad you took the plunge :wink:


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2010)

Hey guys. Technical post warning...

I've been thinking about what Graham has said and that there must be a more appropriate way of quantifying the increase in engine power and torque for comparison purposes (e.g. between two different vehicles or for the same car before and after a remap) that better represents an increase in the spread across the usable rev range, especially where the peak power is similar.

I have spent a literally painstaking hour enlarging the rolling road data graphs and taking measurements off the screen to digitise the information. (see attached Excel 2003 workbook) I convinced myself that a weighted mean of the power (or indeed torque) over a nominal engine speed range (say 1000 + warm idle RPM) to (redline RPM - 1000) would be a meaningful additional statistic. So here's the statistics applied to my rolling road runs:


















To quantify the 'peakiness' or 'flatness' of the curve, I have taken a simple ratio of the peak to the weighted mean (PMR).

A theoretically ideal car would produce the peak power all the way across the rev range so the PMR would be 1.00. In an extreme case (say a 2.0 turbo rally car), the power would most likely come in a relatively narrow rev band (say a peak of 450 bhp with the same weighted mean power of 200 bhp). This would yield a PMR of 2.25. So a PMR closer to 1.00 indicates a relatively flat power/torque curve and further away from one indicates a peaky curve.

It's unfortunate that Awesome don't seem to be able to supply a raw data file so I could just pull the numbers straight into Excel then we could all analyse our rolling road graphs and quantify and compare the changes.

Doug
A timing correction plot after the remap. See earlier posts for 'before' remap version.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2011)

VCDS wide-open throttle (WOT) logging runs done this morning on blocks 002, 020 & 120. Excel spreadsheet attached.

*Fuelling & Ignition Angle Parameters in Third Gear WOT Logging Run.*

Elapsed Time/ms·········RPM······Load/%····IPW/ms····IDC/%····°KW/1····°KW/2····°KW/3····°KW/4
···········0.86················1480········27.1··········2.72··········3.4···········0············0············0············0
···········1.76················1560········80.5··········7.48··········9.7···········0············0············0············0
···········2.67················1840········96.2··········8.50·········13.0··········0············0············0············0
···········3.58················2240·······128.6········11.90········22.2··········0············0············0············0
···········4.48················2760·······188.2········17.00········39.1··········0············0············0············0
···········5.39················3520·······191.7········21.08········61.8··········0············0············0············0
···········6.30················4280·······191.7········21.42········76.4··········0············0············0············0
···········7.20················5000·······191.7········20.74········86.4··········0············0···········3.0··········0
···········8.11················5640·······191.7········19.72········92.7··········0············0···········3.0··········0
···········9.01················6200·······186.5········18.02········93.1··········0············0···········2.3··········0
···········9.92················6680·······174.4········16.66········92.7··········0············0···········2.3··········0
··········10.83···············7040·······167.7········16.66········97.7··········0············0···········2.3··········0

*Fuelling & Ignition Angle Parameters in Fourth Gear WOT Logging Run.*

Elapsed Time/ms·········RPM······Load/%····IPW/ms····IDC/%····°KW/1····°KW/2····°KW/3····°KW/4
···········0.01················1000········14.3··········1.70··········1.4···········0············0············0············0
···········0.91················1080········77.4··········7.48··········6.7···········0············0············0············0
···········1.81················1200········85.0··········7.82··········7.8···········0············0············0············0
···········2.72················1320········88.7··········8.16··········9.0···········0············0············0············0
···········3.63················1480········93.2··········8.84·········10.9··········0············0············0············0
···········4.54················1640·······100.0·········9.52·········13.0··········0············0············0············0
···········5.44················1880·······108.3·········9.86·········15.4··········0············0············0············0
···········6.35················2080·······129.3········11.90········20.6··········0············0············0············0
···········7.24················2360·······164.7········15.30········30.1·········3.0·········3.0·········3.0··········0
···········8.15················2720·······191.7········19.38········43.9·········3.0·········3.0·········3.0··········0
···········9.05················3160·······191.7········20.40········53.7·········3.0·········2.3·········2.3··········0
···········9.96················3600·······191.7········20.74········62.2·········3.0·········2.3·········2.3·········3.0
··········10.87···············4040·······191.7········21.08········71.0·········3.0·········2.3·········2.3·········3.0
··········11.78···············4400·······191.7········20.74········76.0·········2.3·········1.5·········5.3·········3.0
··········12.68···············4800·······191.7········20.40········81.6·········2.3·········1.5·········5.3·········3.0
··········13.59···············5160·······191.7········20.74········89.2·········1.5·········1.5·········4.5·········2.3
··········14.49···············5440·······191.7········20.40········92.5·········1.5·········0.8·········4.5·········2.3
··········15.40···············5760·······191.7········20.40········97.9·········1.5·········3.8·········3.8·········2.3
··········16.30···············6000·······189.5········19.72········98.6·········1.5·········3.8·········3.8·········1.5
··········17.21···············6240·······184.2········20.06·······104.3········0.8·········3.0·········3.8·········1.5
··········18.11···············6480·······179.7········22.78·······123.0········0.8·········3.0·········3.0·········0.8
··········19.02···············6640·······177.4········23.12·······127.9········0.8·········2.3·········3.0·········0.8
··········19.92···············6840·······172.9········23.46·······133.7·········0···········2.3·········2.3·········0.8
··········20.83···············7000·······157.9········22.44·······130.9·········0···········2.3·········2.3·········0.8
··········21.73···············7160·······169.9········24.82·······148.1·········0···········2.3·········2.3·········0.8

A couple of points to ponder:

1. More timing correction on the 4th gear run. Why?
2. The dip at around 3000-3250 rpm. N249 behaviour or something else?

_"Cam changeover effect on requested boost
Motronic likes to change requested boost depending on cam position. While it may seem like a good idea in theory, in practice, abrupt changes in requested boost near the MAP limit can make the boost PID unhappy. When logging, you may see an odd notch in requested boost between 3000 and 4000 RPM. These maps are what is causing that notch."_
(http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning)

I couldn't see any reference to variable cam timing in the SSPs but sure enough it is there in ElsaWin: 

_"Checking variable valve timing - vehicles with engine code BAM, BEA, BFV 
The timing of the inlet camshaft is controlled according to engine load and engine speed. Oil pressure is fed to the mechanical camshaft adjuster via the inlet camshaft control valve N205."_

Doug

Edit (10th January 2011). Spreadsheet updated to calculate injector duty (IDC).


----------



## tony_rigby_uk (Nov 27, 2008)

Ah doug Your a super star Matey !!!!

So are you saying correction Factors are more prominant in 4th gear? In some ways that makes me feel so much better with what mine was throwing out in 4th gear. The initial measure was to reduce the timming setting Via the SPS revo Switch. This reduced the CF factors.. I therefore cam across a interesting peice regaring correction factors being directly related to Fuel Air ratio.. Now with having a adjustable actuator with a big strong blue spring, was very good tweaked on the APR map. It had the turbo pre tensed and ready for use.. drasticly reducing lag.. once the revo went on the boost levels were through the roof, (off the boost gage 30psi plus).. so obviously a winding off off the actuator to reduce the boost has increased the lag somewhat.. but the power band has increased and peak figures were higher.

3000 to 6000 RPM hits correction Factors. My view on this from my research is that the demand boost is too high meaning airflow is too great for the fueling allowed.. Whilst fueling isn't adjustable on the SPS switch i have found some annomolys. On les's car the fueling is set to 6, on mine it's set at 4, and on spen's it's set at 2... no matter what you do you cannot change the figure... but it's perhaps something to take up with revo as to why the settings are not comming out as a constant number on all cars when it is not ADJUSTABLE via SPS (maybe it's adjustable via revo on a rolling road tune?? To maintain the boost i love, and reduce the correction factors i found a 4bar fuel reg helped.. it hasn't had any bad effect on the car lower down in the revs and the correction factors have reduced. I have heard the pump cannot take the 4bar, but the chap who convinced me has a 4bar on his fitted by Vagcheck.. (Matt Rodinson) and i must admit hesitation at the line has reduced.

Another possability is the Fuel pump it's self. I belive john H had a new one fitted due to the fueling backing off in a certain rev range it was tested with logs ect. and ended up being the fuel pump struggling at a certain point. so maybe this could be an attributing factor to the CF's and the fuel pressure reg has only reduced the Cf's by putting a higher demand on a already failing pump.. Who knows.?? :?

On your sheet doug i can't see where you have got torque from? Usually it's :-

(Calculated BHP x 5252)/ Rev Range the BHP Calculated was at. This would give Lb/ft Torque... Not sure where you have NM from? or what you used to get it?

AS for the Dip's at 3000RPM, well you know my view. i can't see every map getting it wrong.. However i do know bikerz had his N249 mapped out by Vagcheck (i think) therefore it might be the same as removing it to not allow it to have an effect on the engine... Not sure only going off what Bikerz (Sheldon) has told me...

Good work Matey.. and happy new year.. some interesting Guru conversation to have here !!


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2011)

Cheers Tony. I'm on my eight days off just now so some serious work to be done on understanding how the TT's Motronic ECU works and digesting the amateur tuning on the S4 wiki. [smiley=book2.gif]

Just a quick reply for the time being then while I ponder your input.



tony_rigby_uk said:


> On your sheet doug i can't see where you have got torque from? Usually it's :-
> 
> (Calculated BHP x 5252)/ Rev Range the BHP Calculated was at. This would give Lb/ft Torque... Not sure where you have NM from? or what you used to get it?


What I was trying to do was compare calculated power & torque with the rolling road data. We can get:

1. A rough calculated power from MAF/0.8
2. Torque used/measured by the ECU. It turns out that this is available on block 120, but I'm afraid I don't understand how the ECU is arriving at that figure, just that it doesn't look correct because if it's engine torque, it's lower than the clutch torque derived from the rolling road! Some more thought required on that, unless it's incorrectly labelled as Nm and is in fact lbft. [Unlikely I reckon  ]
3. A calculated engine power from the ECU torque figure by rearranging the quoted equation.

Interesting stuff indeed! 

Doug

PS. The tuning section of the S4 wiki is very interesting indeed. I learned the reason why there was no noticeable change in output with ambient air temperature (see earlier posts in this thread):

_"IAT effect on requested boost
ME7.1 will adjust the specified load limit depending on IATs. As IAT's go up, ME7.1 brings the max boost up a bit so that the driver can't tell that the car is slow in hot weather. It can do this because the stock boost curve is relatively conservative, and there is plenty of headroom. At some point, if IATs go high enough, max specified load is pulled to prevent knock."_
(http://s4wiki.com/wiki/Tuning)

I presume the ME7.5 in our TTs has the same feature.


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

tony_rigby_uk said:


> I have heard the pump cannot take the 4bar, but the chap who convinced me has a 4bar on his fitted by Vagcheck.. (Matt Rodinson) and i must admit hesitation at the line has reduced.


Hi Guys,

Just for clarity in regards occasional instances when we have deemed a 4bar FPR will be necessary for a particular modified 225 & its hardware (stock K04) if we are too >

1. Extract maximum safe performance 
2. Maintain well managed EGT's
3. Avoid totally maxing the injectors out
4. Ensuring EGT protection management (fuel flood) is still possible. (Where applicable)

In regards the 4bar FPR itself & the stock pump, yes it will be tasking the fuel pump more than with the stock 3bar reg that is a given, & we do normally convey this when discussing the options. If its not going to be needed for an individual vehicles tune then all well & good, as of course there is no good reason to place any component under more stress unnecessarily.

The pump will cope with a 4bar reg + reasonable amount of boost providing it is healthy. Unfortunately as these vehicles get older in turn the pumps have also had a long life, & sometimes are already weak & sagging & in this instance fitting a 4bar reg would likely only expedite the pumps demise.

Will it be needed with a stock K04 + full set of popular bolt on mods like intake, TIP, DP, cat/decat, cat back, FMIC etc, well this is dependant on how much air the turbo is able to push, how much boost is asked for by the tune at higher rpm's, & the tuners desired AFR.

We normally prior advise customers (in instances we think we might see a very high IDC) that we will review/log the vehicle with the stock fuel system before making the call on whether we are going to have to fit & calibrate for a 4bar to comfortably support our AFR targets.

If it can be avoided then we do avoid it (less load on the pump, less cost for the customer etc)

We are however also mindful to be sure the fuel pump is up to it in instances where a 4bar FPR is to be used, & measure/log fuel pressure if there are any doubts at all over the health of the pump.

Ideally it would be a better overall solution to fit & calibrate for larger injectors when the stock injectors cannot flow enough with a 3bar reg, however costs are obviously quite a bit more with this route.

Hope this helps.

Regards
Morgan


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

On my build im going with a Motorsport supplied Bosch 044 inline fuel pump rated to 6 Bar and a new OEM FPR rated to supply at 4 Bar, using old equipment to feed the engine is not good practise and raising the supply pressure to the injectors is better than the other way round. As long as the pressure to the injectors is not exceeding manufacturers limits, i can only think that it is going to be a benefit.
Steve


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

stevecollier said:


> On my build im going with a Motorsport supplied Bosch 044 inline fuel pump rated to 6 Bar and a new OEM FPR rated to supply at 4 Bar, using old equipment to feed the engine is not good practise and raising the supply pressure to the injectors is better than the other way round. As long as the pressure to the injectors is not exceeding manufacturers limits, i can only think that it is going to be a benefit.
> Steve


Steve, Motorsport FP200 044 is a 200lph rated at 5 bar pump, the FPR will of course limit the rail pressure.
Load current at 5 bar and 22 °C [1] 14 ± 1 A

They can deliver more pressure but load current increases and therefore ensure you have overhead in the wiring. 
the Litres per hour decreases as pressure demand increase for a given voltage, it should still be good for your setup.


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

Wak said:


> stevecollier said:
> 
> 
> > On my build im going with a Motorsport supplied Bosch 044 inline fuel pump rated to 6 Bar and a new OEM FPR rated to supply at 4 Bar, using old equipment to feed the engine is not good practise and raising the supply pressure to the injectors is better than the other way round. As long as the pressure to the injectors is not exceeding manufacturers limits, i can only think that it is going to be a benefit.
> ...


I stand corrected..Bosch Part Number: 0580254044 Operating Pressure: 72.5 PSI (5 Bar)
But it is the 300LPH type.
Steve


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

stevecollier said:


> Steve, Motorsport FP200 044 is a 200lph 5 bar pump, the FPR will of course limit the rail pressure.


I stand corrected..Bosch Part Number: 0580254044 Operating Pressure: 72.5 PSI (5 Bar)
But it is the 300LPH type.
Steve[/quote]

yes, read more of the spec and it should be good for your setup, just allow a good 20a feed for overhead on the current draw.

At 13v if demand is 6bar it drops to around 225 lph .... Bosch Spec sheets are not always 100% :roll: says 200lph but graphs to 300lph!


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

Wak said:


> stevecollier said:
> 
> 
> > Steve, Motorsport FP200 044 is a 200lph 5 bar pump, the FPR will of course limit the rail pressure.
> ...


yes, read more of the spec and it should be good for your setup, just allow a good 20a feed for overhead on the current draw.[/quote]

Im sure the current draw is catered for but i will double check, cheers.
Steve


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

stevecollier said:


> Im sure the current draw is catered for but i will double check, cheers.
> Steve


Here you go , spec sheet just to confuse you....
http://www.bosch-motorsport.de/pdf/comp ... FP-200.pdf


----------



## V6RUL (May 28, 2009)

Wak said:


> stevecollier said:
> 
> 
> > Im sure the current draw is catered for but i will double check, cheers.
> ...


This is the data sheet i used for my reference.. 2 item on the list
http://www.boschfuelpumps.com/
Steve


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

stevecollier said:


> Wak said:
> 
> 
> > stevecollier said:
> ...


Trouble is thats a retailer, the Bosch spec sheets "should" be the most accurate resource.... even if they do seem a little flaky. :?


----------



## Guest (Jan 8, 2011)

UK225 said:


> Ideally it would be a better overall solution to fit & calibrate for larger injectors when the stock injectors cannot flow enough with a 3bar reg, however costs are obviously quite a bit more with this route.


It would seem logical that if you're maxing out the injectors (logged on times = 25 ms? at higher loads during WOT run) then an uprated set-up would be required with the appropriate reduction in the scaling factor KRKTE for required fuel mass to injector on time. I was observing 23 ms max during my 4th gear WOT run so no issues for me on stock equipment I would have said (assuming the injectors aren't blocked!), but not a lot of scope left.

Doug


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Doug Short said:


> UK225 said:
> 
> 
> > Ideally it would be a better overall solution to fit & calibrate for larger injectors when the stock injectors cannot flow enough with a 3bar reg, however costs are obviously quite a bit more with this route.
> ...


Hi Doug,

You may want try applying the correct math to your injector on time/rpm cells to calculate duty cycle, as I am seeing some very high IDC in your 4th gear log...

Hope this helps.

Regards
Morgan


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2011)

Thanks for the tip-offs Morgan! Got your post on chiptuners.org.
 
I'm just starting off with analysing these files and have a long way to go but am having fun in an OCD type of way. :wink: All I've got to reference against are the S4 files here:

http://www.audizine.com/forum/showthrea ... ECU-(ME7.1)

I have done a first pass through the BFV maps but haven't analysed any of the 8x8s yet. Once I've assigned the lot, I'll need to do a sanity check to see if my first guess is correct. It's like trying to crack the Enigma code! :roll:

Spreadsheet updated with IDC calculation. Big differences between the 3rd & 4th gear WOT runs. Some cogitation required on my part to work that out I think... [smiley=book2.gif]

Cheers.

Doug


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Doug Short said:


> Spreadsheet updated with IDC calculation. Big differences between the 3rd & 4th gear WOT runs. Some cogitation required on my part to work that out I think... [smiley=book2.gif]
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> Doug


Hi Doug,

One possible little hint > EGT's.. Longer pull = More likely to reach the EGT trigger point for fuel flood (Basic description)

Regards
Morgan


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2011)

UK225 said:


> Hi Doug,
> 
> One possible little hint > EGT's.. Longer pull = More likely to reach the EGT trigger point for fuel flood (Basic description)
> 
> ...


Oh well. That rings a bell on something I read in the S4 wiki:

_KFLBTS - requested lambda for component protection when calculated EGT is above the threshold specified in TABGBTS..._

So I suppose the moral of the tale here is to ensure when remapping that there is enough headroom left in the injectors to allow for fuel enrichment to cool the inevitably higher EGTs...

Fascinating. 

Doug


----------

