# Rolling Road Day **The Results**



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

Thank you to all those who attended!

See the pictures here

And heres the results in order of BHP:










*Other Marques:*

Tony Bamber - BAM TT - Subaru Impreza STi - 322BHP - 330Ibs Torque

Nick Drew - HRD TT - '07 Audi S3 - 307BHP - 328Ibs Torque

Graham Foulston - Love_iTT - '07 Audi RS4 - 366BHP - 290Ibs Torque


----------



## conlechi (May 6, 2006)

Looked like a good day , gutted i missed it 

Should have my TT back next week with some RR figs from the testing

some interesting results today

Mark


----------



## Dolfan (Nov 25, 2007)

conlechi said:


> Looked like a good day , gutted i missed it
> 
> Should have my TT back next week with some RR figs from the testing
> 
> ...


Sorry you could not make it Mark

Just make sure they take the brake off the rolling road when testing your TT :lol:

Yan


----------



## conlechi (May 6, 2006)

Dolfan said:


> conlechi said:
> 
> 
> > Looked like a good day , gutted i missed it
> ...


 :lol: Yep , brake off seats out ,spare wheel etc

Mark


----------



## barton TT (Nov 13, 2004)

Where ezz figures or did he not have a go.


----------



## Dolfan (Nov 25, 2007)

barton TT said:


> Where ezz figures or did he not have a go.


eez is not a happy chappy, i'm sure he will be along shortly :lol:

Yan


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

i didnt get the paperwork back off him...

i'll find out and update the info

*EDIT: NOW UPDATED*


----------



## jutty (Aug 28, 2006)

looked a good day..wish i could of been there, at home with broken leg


----------



## TT Ade (Aug 20, 2007)

My car isn't remapped, but I would have expected to see higher BHP around the 265 mark for remapped cars? Not that I know anything about it to be honest.


----------



## chrishTT (May 14, 2006)

hey guys looks good
Q- why is the results a couple of bhp more on mapped cars 
thought was giving 270/280

:?


----------



## ttmanz (Aug 21, 2007)

WAS A GOOD DAY NICE 1 AD. BUT IM AM NOT HAPPY! AT ALL WITH MY RESULTS 239! BHP


----------



## PissTT (Apr 7, 2006)

jutty said:


> looked a good day..wish i could of been there, at home with broken leg


Broken elbow and GA operation tomorrow... Sorry could not make it  even made it to London


----------



## Stub (Mar 17, 2005)

Looks like a great day I had to work 

Who went first, were the good figures done early in the day, has anyone done the air mass calc with vagcom to find out their BHP and how accurate was it against the rolling road?

Dolfan your TT looks very nice.

the best result is the QS, with this result giving a little more than standard and more than maped cars that the map that claims 270-280, you could argue that a standard qs is quicker than most non BT TT's?


----------



## ezz (Nov 22, 2006)

well heres my readout :? and i have now worked it out, we all seem to be 40 bhp/ torque down... mine was down to the 2 bags of cement i had in the back :wink:










FOR SALE Â£13000 NO OFFERS


----------



## qooqiiu (Oct 12, 2007)

Is that a nail in the coffin for so call "remaps" then??

Apart from waks, Adams and TTsimons qs all the so called mapped car claims look very exaggerated :?

The 265/270 maps are pure fiction then :?


----------



## tt-fastcar (Mar 7, 2006)

terrible :?


----------



## caney (Feb 5, 2004)

Ezz,it says your a/f ratio is 13:8:1 contact tuner.this is a little rich which can kill power i believe so it just needs a little tweak.ideal ratios are 12/12.5:1.


----------



## Stub (Mar 17, 2005)

ezz said:


> well heres my readout :? and i have now worked it out, we all seem to be 40 bhp/ torque down... mine was down to the 2 bags of cement i had in the back :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dean ur not selling it are you?

RR's are not definitive, if you went to another you may get better or worse results, I am interested in comparing the results of vagcom vs RR if anyone has logged with vagcom that went to the RR?


----------



## JAAYDE (Aug 15, 2006)

qooqiiu said:


> Is that a nail in the coffin for so call "remaps" then??
> 
> Apart from waks, Adams and TTsimons qs all the so called mapped car claims look very exaggerated :?
> 
> The 265/270 maps are pure fiction then :?


 Well i'm not that one bit convinced with most of the results today and KevtoTTy made a fair point in the events section.. I'm sure i will upset any QS even in my cars current running state (leaking boost) ;-)


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Hi all,

Sorry I wasnâ€™t able to make it today, I had to go away on a business trip that was unavoidable & only returned a few hours ago.

Disappointing results for all the modified vehicles with the exception of the new S3 which is also running one of our remaps, & the figures it achieved are practically the exact same as we quote.

I do have some real doubts over how realistic the results on the modified Mk 1 TTâ€™s are, & I will post up the reasons as to why I think this may be in due course.

If anyone can email me there actual dyno plots (I only have Waks) this will help.

In the mean time.. taking the average of an approx 15bhp increase on a modified 225, does your mapped TT really feel like it has only 15bhp more ?

Of course it doesnâ€™t. The difference between stock & modified is night & day & obviously a whole lot more than an approx 8% increase !

The 3.2 V6 lump with decent mapping & good fuel can make an 8% gain with no turbo to play with.

I would be taking the figures you have achieved today with a pinch of salt in regards to what your TTs are really producing under real world conditions.

Cheers
Morgan


----------



## caney (Feb 5, 2004)

hi Morgan,it does seem strange for sure but the standard qs was bang on the money for what Audi claim and the standard TT did 223bhp which is also very accurate?Strange one :?


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

Don't worry about it folks - myself and Clived joined the Seat guys a few years back at the Powerstation and posted very poor results, mainly due to the cooling setup and the length of the run, charge temps climbed and the ECU pulled everything back. My modded TT that usually ran between 270 & 290BHP depending on who's rollers it ran on posted IIRC around 210 BHP 

James


----------



## TTmarlin (Mar 18, 2008)

caney said:


> hi Morgan,it does seem strange for sure but the standard qs was bang on the money for what Audi claim and the standard TT did 223bhp which is also very accurate?Strange one :?


Ditto, if the Rolling Road was 'Out' then the standard TT's would be reading low .........seems the quoted extra BHP is a marketing strategy which is got outa hand


----------



## Stub (Mar 17, 2005)

Marlin is your car standard?


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

Here's a few plots from a few years back at Interpro.

http://jamesnortham.com/tt2/dyno.htm

James


----------



## TTmarlin (Mar 18, 2008)

coupe-sport said:


> Here's a few plots from a few years back at Interpro.
> 
> http://jamesnortham.com/tt2/dyno.htm
> 
> James


So does this mean that the rolling road wasnt properly calibrated before use?


----------



## TT Ade (Aug 20, 2007)

TTmarlin said:


> coupe-sport said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a few plots from a few years back at Interpro.
> ...


Dunno, it's an odd one as the standard cars are producing just about what they should so if it was reading low that would make Audi's figures for the standard cars waaaaaay out.


----------



## TTmarlin (Mar 18, 2008)

TT Ade said:


> TTmarlin said:
> 
> 
> > coupe-sport said:
> ...


Mmmmm, interesting, am sure the remappers will be out to
explain /defend soon, after all this is a big 'Blow' to the gains they claim and advertise.

maybe they should be advertising 'Torque' gains as this is more relative to the 'push' in the back you feel when accelerating, i've often felt BHP doesnt always relate to the thrust you feel


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

I think mine was a little bit shy.... :?

What i did notice with TT's and then Graham's car and mine was how the power was dialled up. now it sounded that the Haldex cars were getting there and you could hear the engine drop a touch and then the graph would dip as well

To be honest whilst i don't doub't the professionalism of the operators as the poor chap with the S3 who had the aborted run due to the lean AFR, bloody good on them, and i think that is very good, i think the RR was very conservative and the Dyno Dynamics RR's are known for it

So all you of you who made 230-255 don't worry at all, it was odd but consistent

As for the Standard cars and the S3 as Caney said in the in the other thread it was odd how the standard cars made the right power :? :?

Just my tuppence worth


----------



## starski4578 (Aug 24, 2007)

qooqiiu said:


> Is that a nail in the coffin for so call "remaps" then??
> 
> Apart from waks, Adams and TTsimons qs all the so called mapped car claims look very exaggerated :?
> 
> The 265/270 maps are pure fiction then :?


 this was a small selection of remaps i'm sure my 99 octane APR remap would of been higher than some of those results,at least that is what i keep telling myself! :?


----------



## TTitan (May 11, 2007)

Just wanted to post that it was a great day out and enjoyed meeting everyone.

Thanks Was for the engine bling install -- recommend it to anyone.

And again, thanks Adam for arranging a first class outing and thanks to T of the D team for a smooth operation.

TTitan


----------



## Stub (Mar 17, 2005)

starski4578 said:


> qooqiiu said:
> 
> 
> > Is that a nail in the coffin for so call "remaps" then??
> ...


I had an APR map now I have an APS custom not to dissimilar to some tested and mine is a step up for sure so donâ€™t be too sure?

I have had an APR, SKN and an APS map, the map is only aprt the deal, until I got the inlet mani and a few other parts done the APS map felt very mid rage now after new coils, maf, dv and spring, and inlet mani , some modifications to my hoses which messed things up, oh and millers, it feels quick much, much quicker than any of the other maps, but maybe I would have got the same figures today who knows?

I will stick with the Vagcom reading that gives me 292 :lol:


----------



## Juber (May 20, 2007)

Looks like a great day and a great outcome!

Nice one Adam for orginizing, and to other who attended!


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

As soon as Wak had his big doubts about his results on the dyno, he whizzed round to power engineering and got a more or less identical readout.

I am pretty sure that tuners do 'big up' their maps in order to make them appealing.

Generally I was happy with my result tho, down on what I thought on bhp but massive torque so that pleased me. Explains why my cars been pulling so hard since my stage 3!

If anyone has their car rolling roaded at exactly what it should be i'd be interested to find out where that is! Maybe organise another day there!?


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

I actually got 15bhp less power changing to a map thats been measured at 340bhp on the same rollers,

They did slot me in quickly, single fan, bonnet shut I believe heat soak is a killer. My mistake I should have insisted on jumping in one car and data logging IATs

they stick a probe by the airbox which means nothing if the temps at the manifold are where the heat to compensate against are to be measured.

I remapped her back to our stage 3 before leaving, behaviour on the open road is much different I'm not chasing for any faults when she is fuelling, boosting and pulling like a bat out of hell.


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

I will speak to Regal in southampton who have a four wheel dyno with a view to one alot later in the year, september time as I know before that they are very busy with the Porsche Carrera Cup but I know they have better cooling as I was a little suspect when they have a large heating fan pointing right down at the dyno :? :? :?


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

stub, a real shame you couldnt make it mate. I would have liked to have done a comparison with your car to mine. That way I could tell if its worth me carrying on with my performance mods lol


----------



## elrao (Apr 19, 2005)

I had my 911 rolling roaded recently at another dyno dynamics roller in Northampton, they had huge fans blowing! The fan at the front was twice the size of the one at TOTD and they had another huge roof mounted fan blowing down on the boot (needed for us rear engined cars). I definitely would not have run my car at TOTD yesterday as the cooling is not enough for a rear engined car. I did not stand in front of the fan to see how powerful it was, but the one in Northampton was more like the on they had infront of the viper, it would nearly blow you over!

I am also slightly confused over the Torque v BHP figures, the standard cars were showing relattivley similar BHP to Torque readings, nearly a 1:1 relationship between the two. From memory the equation relating to BHP to Torque (ft/lbs) is:

P = (T*RPM/5252)

Meaning that an increase in Torque at any given RPM will give a proportional increase to the Power. So to see these high Torque figures not translating into high BHP figures must mean that the engines are "losing" Torque at the top end RPM, more correctly they are mapped for more mid range power, with a torque curve peaking in the mid range and dropping off at higher RPMS, highlighted in ezz's plot where torque peaked at 261ft/lbs at 4,600 RPM and then dropped off sharply. I believe the Max BHP was at about 5200RPM, where the Torque was approx 247, making 245 (ish ) BHP (247*5200/5252). Had that max torque pushed out to 5,200 rpm then the BHP would have been increased to 258BHP (possibly higher as the max power is usually found after the max torque peak, so would probably have been something like 265).

Max BHP is a product of the highest Torque*RPM on the curve, meaning if the standard map plots its torque more evenly (although lower) and holds it to the higher RPMs you won't see such a huge difference in the max BHP figures on that and a mapped car with a higher torque at a lower RPM, but with more comparable torque (or less differential between the torque curves) at the high RPMs.

You notice the difference when driving because you have bags more torque, with most people 20%+ up on Torque with only 10% increases in BHP an extreme example being Adam TTR having almost 50% more torque than OEM, but only 10% more BHP!

For anyone interested in the rolling road day i went to in Northampton, two pics, one of the fan and my dyno read out


----------



## Suraj_TT (Mar 10, 2007)

Even though my bhp was alot less on the rr than I had expected, I'd be curious to see what it achieves through vagcom.. And then be baffled if its higher :?

Nevertheless I'm still cool with my torque results..


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

Frankly I'm shocked at these results. No matter what anyone say about HOW the tests were done, it was the SAME for all cars, yet the unmodified cars achieved their expected BHPs. The mapped cars; woefully below expected (promised?) levels.

Also, not a great amount of different remap brands due to geographical reasons I guess; eg no P-Torque or Custom Code. It would have been nice to have seen a few other brands - not that that's anyones 'fault'.

And lastly, just for me, how do you do a rolling road test on a quattro - what's the trick? Put the handbrake on?!

I'm shocked. Call in the trading standards I say!


----------



## mac1967 (Sep 8, 2006)

Geeeezzz :? ...Sorry I missed the day! I had to get back for work, so it was just a bit too far to get there and back in time!! so I still didn't get to put names to faces... Sorry Adam!

Sorry you guys were a little disappointed with your results. Kinda glad now I didn't get mine on!

For me ignorance is bliss!

I'd like to catch the next one though Adam!

Hopefully you'll get to the bottom of the results.

Regards,

Martin


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Guys so far only Leon has sent me his rolling road plot, to be able to make any comparisons between vehicles I could really do with some plots from the modified Mk1's.


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

morgan if u got a fax, pm me and i'll send you both of mine (one with 2wd)


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

I think the haldex wasn't helping a great deal as well, on all the graphs i saw there were loads of dips on the curve, and you could certainly hear the engines dip and see the graphs dip at the same time,

My graph obviously not haldex equipped, as it comes on boost you can see the lines are steep but smooth would be interesting if Graham's graph didn't have the dips as well, can't remember what the S3's looked like


----------



## elrao (Apr 19, 2005)

I did wonder what all the dips were for, not sure how the haldex works and how it would impact the torque curve, obviously it can't impact the engine power and the power at the fly wheel, but as these are measured at the wheels and calculated back, it could make a difference I suppose, an intersting idea!

Would be interesting to see if a performance haldex plot was much different from a standard one too, see if it does impact delivery of the power.


----------



## Johnny2Bad (Nov 19, 2006)

Pardon me for being the dummy here but i was planning a remap now that the handling of my car is getting to where i want it to be.

Judging by these results should i be looking at the map that gives me the best torque figures as opposed to swooning over big BHP numbers :? Looking at the tuners estimation and the actual results i'm confused/worried as to what i'd actually be getting for my money..

Many thanks also to Adam for organising the day and posting up the results too...


----------



## ian222 (May 4, 2007)

If you watched the cars when they were ran up they all moved on the rollers at around 4000rpm thats also when they lost there momentum i would assume thats when the rear wheels kicked in and we all lost power from that. I think its a bit un fair to be told that torque of the devils dyno can cope with the quattro system when it clearly cant, yes we all got results but not accurate not blaming Adam or anyone but TOTD did reply in the events post saying it can cope with it???? Good day out but didnt really achieve anything from it?


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

All the cars had a haldex though mapped and not mapped and a 3.2 and a S3, standard cars made the power mapped cars didn't achieve the promised results, so the dyno didn't change nor did the environment, so perhaps these maps are not delivering as expected.


----------



## Johnny2Bad (Nov 19, 2006)

Johnny2Bad said:


> Pardon me for being the dummy here but i was planning a remap now that the handling of my car is getting to where i want it to be.
> 
> Judging by these results should i be looking at the map that gives me the best torque figures as opposed to swooning over big BHP numbers :? Looking at the tuners estimation and the actual results i'm confused/worried as to what i'd actually be getting for my money..


Sorry in addition to the above - Were the actual torque levels what you guys expected them to be?

It'd be interesting to see the estimated torque vs the actual as well if thats possible?


----------



## Stub (Mar 17, 2005)

Adam TTR said:


> stub, a real shame you couldnt make it mate. I would have liked to have done a comparison with your car to mine. That way I could tell if its worth me carrying on with my performance mods lol


Ads you are only down the road from me lets meet up and do some vagcom logging, we could do some side by side tests with each others cars?



Suraj_TT said:


> Even though my bhp was alot less on the rr than I had expected, I'd be curious to see what it achieves through vagcom.. And then be baffled if its higher :?
> 
> Nevertheless I'm still cool with my torque results..


I would be happy to do some logging maybe meet up with me and ads?



BAMTT said:


> I think the haldex wasn't helping a great deal as well, on all the graphs i saw there were loads of dips on the curve, and you could certainly hear the engines dip and see the graphs dip at the same time,
> 
> My graph obviously not haldex equipped, as it comes on boost you can see the lines are steep but smooth would be interesting if Graham's graph didn't have the dips as well, can't remember what the S3's looked like


That dyno plot looks the nuts I bet that lump of power and the way it comes it hits you in the back hard, I want a plot like that?

Wak can we see your curve? I have always wondered what the curv on a BT is like? 
Wak did you have a special map on for the RR?


----------



## ian222 (May 4, 2007)

Maybe Rob, but why did they all drop in power at 4000rpm? Doesnt seem right to me should power through


----------



## TTmarlin (Mar 18, 2008)

robokn said:


> All the cars had a haldex though mapped and not mapped and a 3.2 and a S3, standard cars made the power mapped cars didn't achieve the promised results, so the dyno didn't change nor did the environment, so perhaps these maps are not delivering as expected.


Looks like that the case, as said the standard cars are doing what they should be putting out, but the remapped arent, i think although remaps do add power, ( to what extent we're now findeing out )
Alot of the time a Remap's gains are also psychological, in the hands of the car owner


----------



## HRD TT (Dec 13, 2005)

Just posted this on the other thread

As mentioned I was one of the few people happy their results. I have the VAGCheck stage 2 remap and it produced exactly what I was told it would produce. I was very suprised by the results of the modded TTs as when VAGcheck remapped my TT the gains were more noticeable than on the S3, there was no way it was it was only producing 15bhp more.

I have large (oem) front mount intercooler that would have had the fan blowing directly onto it and obviously have a different haldex setup. As you can see from my plot I didn't get the dip


----------



## Stub (Mar 17, 2005)

HRD TT said:


> Just posted this on the other thread
> 
> As mentioned I was one of the few people happy their results. I have the VAGCheck stage 2 remap and it produced exactly what I was told it would produce. I was very suprised by the results of the modded TTs as when VAGcheck remapped my TT the gains were more noticeable than on the S3, there was no way it was it was only producing 15bhp more.
> 
> I have large (oem) front mount intercooler that would have had the fan blowing directly onto it and obviously have a different haldex setup. As you can see from my plot I didn't get the dip


That plot is the nuts, how early does that come in   

I am not a lover of the look of the S3 but with power delivery like this with just a remap, bang for buck this is the kiddy to have, this looks like it has no lag and solid power right up?


----------



## HRD TT (Dec 13, 2005)

Stub said:


> That plot is the nuts, how early does that come in
> 
> I am not a lover of the look of the S3 but with power delivery like this with just a remap, bang for buck this is the kiddy to have, this looks like it has no lag and solid power right up?


I love it, remap turned it into a total beast and did wonders for the lag it's been criticised for - remaps do work!!


----------



## NaughTTy (Jul 9, 2003)

A few thoughts:

Several people on here pointing to over-estimated claims by the tuners but they all seem to be forgetting one thing - several of us have been to rolling road days and all reached expected figures (and more in some cases  ). Standard TTs at these events made standard figures just like yesterday.

In a couple of the early AmD RR days most of the maps were AmD and the few other maps (Revo, MTM, etc) made slightly lower then these. Of course everybody pointed the finger, saying that the AmD RR would obviously favour their own map. The last one 2 years ago (where my APS remap hit 274) had several more different maps running and most of these were up in the 260-270 range as expected _and_ as marketed by the tuners.

Yesterday's figures were strange, but consistant, the large heater blowing hot air towards the rolling road was a bit odd IMO and I think Graham probably got the closest reason for the low figures...*BUT*... As someone has already said - all these RR days end up with some kind of discussion/blame/finger pointing. Adam's original post for the event actually said that this was mainly a social event and not to take any of the figures as gospel or take it too seriously. I suggest everyone stops trying to over-analyse it - forget the knee-jerk reaction (ezz - don't sell your car on the strength of one RR day :roll: ) and concentrate more on how your cars feel by your 'butt-dyno' 

As I found out on Wednesday night - you're never going to be the quickest on the road, no matter what you do to your TT (clived and caney may be an exception (when their cars are running :wink: )) - especially if you're trying to keep up with an R8 or Rausch Mustang like I was  :lol:


----------



## Suraj_TT (Mar 10, 2007)

Adam TTR said:


> stub, a real shame you couldnt make it mate. I would have liked to have done a comparison with your car to mine. That way I could tell if its worth me carrying on with my performance mods
> 
> 
> Suraj_TT said:
> ...


That's very kind of u Stub- i'd def be up for doing that!


----------



## KevtoTTy (Aug 24, 2004)

UK225 said:


> The 3.2 V6 lump with decent mapping & good fuel can make an 8% gain with no turbo to play with.


Morgan,

My car showed 270 bhp and 253 lbs at AMD after their remap and a Miltek.

With Schrick cams, EVO induction and an APS map, it achieved the following 'close to stock' result yesterday (although it is far quicker on the road :? )

*Also, I was wondering how many of us were running upgraded Haldex Controllers??* Maybe this interfered with the roadwheel to flywheel calculations???

Any thoughts / comments?

Kev


----------



## Stub (Mar 17, 2005)

who went first or the firts few cars?


----------



## graham225 (Apr 5, 2004)

Brilliant comments guys, really interesting posts for all of us who have remapped TT's.

I wouldn't get too wrapped up with your figures, you all know how your TT performs, i for one have a P-torque remap and it feels a damn sight more than an extra 15-20 horses which was the average gains showing on a mapped TT.

RR and Haldex don't mix imho of course.

Only wished i could have been there... there's always next time


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Well as far Dyno Dynamics & the Gen 1 haldex is concerned myself & Wak spent sometime a few years back helping a Dyno Dynamics owner try to overcome issues with running 1.8T TTs with Gen 1 haldex enabled. Waks TT was used a the test vehicle & there were patchs made to the software from Dyno Dynamics none fixed the issue.

Further to this when speaking to Dyno Dynamics at Autosport two years ago they stated they had given up for good trying to correct the issue & there will never be a fix.

Now unless something has changed & Dyno Dynamics have fixed the software to allow the Mk1 TT to run correctly in AWD, which at this stage I donâ€™t think has happened at all from looking at the plots then this is obviously going to have a bearing on any results particulary where the torque is higher on the modified vehicles.

Cheers
Morgan


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

UK225 said:


> Well as far Dyno Dynamics & the Gen 1 haldex is concerned myself & Wak spent sometime a few years back helping a Dyno Dynamics owner try to overcome issues with running 1.8T TTs with Gen 1 haldex enabled. Waks TT was used a the test vehicle & there were patchs made to the software from Dyno Dynamics none fixed the issue.
> 
> Further to this when speaking to Dyno Dynamics at Autosport two years ago they stated they had given up for good trying to correct the issue & there will never be a fix.
> 
> ...


Yr probably the best part of 6 weeks too late telling us this now.... lol


----------



## KevtoTTy (Aug 24, 2004)

Adam TTR said:


> UK225 said:
> 
> 
> > Well as far Dyno Dynamics & the Gen 1 haldex is concerned myself & Wak spent sometime a few years back helping a Dyno Dynamics owner try to overcome issues with running 1.8T TTs with Gen 1 haldex enabled. Waks TT was used a the test vehicle & there were patchs made to the software from Dyno Dynamics none fixed the issue.
> ...


So haldex upgrade = pants dyno results :lol:


----------



## caney (Feb 5, 2004)

Adam,great day mate was really good attending an event without having to worry about being trailored home :lol: Enjoyed it thanks  How about doing another one at Power Engineering just down the road? they use a Maha rolling road which works well with haldex cars.Go on you know you want to :wink:


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

This is awful.......

Yr all pretty upset about this arent you?!

Why not try different rolling roads and see what the results are like Wak?!


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

Caney at power engineering it was the same for Wak


----------



## jutty (Aug 28, 2006)

i definetly intrested in the next one


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

jutty said:


> i definetly intrested in the next one


lol - sure you would be - hop along! :lol:

hop.... i mean.... hope you get better!


----------



## bobski (Oct 21, 2007)

Hi,

I dont know whether this has been asked before but did everyone do a throttle body reset before RR...?

Cheers
Bobski


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

yeah, course! :roll:


----------



## bobski (Oct 21, 2007)

Adam TTR said:


> yeah, course! :roll:


 Sorry Adam... 

Had to ask as the results seemed so varied.... :?

Bobski


----------



## chrishTT (May 14, 2006)

did any1 have a ptorque map on the RR day?


----------



## jutty (Aug 28, 2006)

Adam TTR said:


> jutty said:
> 
> 
> > i definetly intrested in the next one
> ...


yeah nice one mate thanks :!:

http://www.tritonmotorsport.com/showpage.php?id=rolling

i will phone these tomorrow and see if they can shed any light on what happened to you guys at the wkend, and see what they cost for a few of us to go...they are local scooby specialists, but im sure they will be alright


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

As I said I can look into it at Regal who has two rolling roads two wheel and four wheel and having been doing VAG cars for a while now and are running a 2.0TFSI @355 Bhp so know what they are doing with these cars, more than happy to approach and I don't think we will have a repeat of there's not enough cars !, Are you paying for the rest??. Not a good attitude really


----------



## caney (Feb 5, 2004)

Adam TTR said:


> Caney at power engineering it was the same for Wak


well then that tells you the rolling roads accurate then! i made 415bhp on their rolling road and 415bhp on ptorques rolling road  the bottom line is the qs was bang on the money for bhp and boost which runs the same haldex system as the remapped tt's does it not :wink:


----------



## KevtoTTy (Aug 24, 2004)

caney said:


> Adam TTR said:
> 
> 
> > Caney at power engineering it was the same for Wak
> ...


Yes, but I am guessing the QS's haldex is standard - I'm starting to think anyone running an upgraded Haldex may have had a poor result??

Kev


----------



## jutty (Aug 28, 2006)

robokn said:


> As I said I can look into it at Regal who has two rolling roads two wheel and four wheel and having been doing VAG cars for a while now and are running a 2.0TFSI @355 Bhp so know what they are doing with these cars, more than happy to approach and I don't think we will have a repeat of there's not enough cars !, Are you paying for the rest??. Not a good attitude really


yeah do that rob, give them a call see what they say!


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

KevtoTTy said:


> caney said:
> 
> 
> > Adam TTR said:
> ...


Last time I was there before i did my haldex, bf cats, 3" dp and stage 3 map I got 251bhp!!?

So i've gained 4bhp lol

Although the torque was a big big difference!


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

The unanswered question is not simply why the remapped cars measured low on BHP, but in tandem, why the unmapped cars recorded as expected ie to manufacturers specs for BHP. We can pontificate all day long what may have been wrong with the test procedures, but why did it apparently 'work' fine and dandy for unmapped cars yet not for remaps? Doesn't make sense unless there was one common, 'yet to accounted for' factor that affected only the remapped cars. Was there? Like did ALL remaps have Haldex upgrades?

As for it being solely a fun, social day and not too much emphasis should be placed on the results, hogwash! I didn't go, and I'm sure it was great day out, chance to chat, mix etc etc - I'm all for that - but equally if I'd been there I would have expected the damned results to be meaningful and not subject to a 'well don't take too much notice of them' type of postscript. I guess for some attendees, getting accurate results was the whole purpose of the exercise. This has flummoxed and spooked a lot of people.


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Guys forget about whether you have stock or performance haldex controller I dont think this is the issue.

The modified cars run much higher boost & in turn this gives more torque which on rollers that cant cope well with the front/rear transfer the issue will be exagerated.

Also intake temps will be higher & the vehicles will heat soak quicker.

I am flat out with customers currently but will try to catch up with this thread later..


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

ttsteve said:


> As for it being solely a fun, social day and not too much emphasis should be placed on the results, hogwash! I didn't go, and I'm sure it was great day out, chance to chat, mix etc etc - I'm all for that - but equally if I'd been there I would have expected the damned results to be meaningful and not subject to a 'well don't take too much notice of them' type of postscript. I guess for some attendees, getting accurate results was the whole purpose of the exercise. This has flummoxed and spooked a lot of people.


Hey everyone...

We've found our organiser for the next rolling road day!! 

I take my hat off to you Steve....


----------



## Meeerrrk (Mar 21, 2008)

i would have liked to see the results of a TT wiht a P-Torque map. shame no one ran.

VAGCHECK havnt come out of this RR day very well, i was thinking of using them to remove my p-torque and have a VAGCHECK map installed but i didnt really know much about them....

.....think i will stick to what i know and go to JABBA SPORT.


----------



## jutty (Aug 28, 2006)

it think that is abit harsh saying Vagcheck havent come out well  , all work carried out by them on forum users cars, everyone hasn't a bad word to say about them :?


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

Meeerrrk said:


> i would have liked to see the results of a TT wiht a P-Torque map. shame no one ran.
> 
> VAGCHECK havnt come out of this RR day very well, i was thinking of using them to remove my p-torque and have a VAGCHECK map installed but i didnt really know much about them....
> 
> .....think i will stick to what i know and go to JABBA SPORT.


Mark are you kidding?

Vagcheck are at the top and bottom of the list meaning that each car is different depending on mods etc.

Trust me when I say that Vagcheck could change yr car around completely. I had an SKN map and I thought it was the dogs until Wak worked his magic.

Wak also let me drive the car with the new map so I could decide if I liked it! There was no question that it was superb! And that was only my stage 2! Now I got my stage 3 I cant wait to drive the thing again! I take the long way home grinning from ear to ear!

Dont go by what you see on the table.... See for yourself and make yr own mind up.


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

Adam TTR said:


> ttsteve said:
> 
> 
> > As for it being solely a fun, social day and not too much emphasis should be placed on the results, hogwash! I didn't go, and I'm sure it was great day out, chance to chat, mix etc etc - I'm all for that - but equally if I'd been there I would have expected the damned results to be meaningful and not subject to a 'well don't take too much notice of them' type of postscript. I guess for some attendees, getting accurate results was the whole purpose of the exercise. This has flummoxed and spooked a lot of people.
> ...


Well, what does everyone think? Would you attend a rolling road day where you were being advised not to pay much attention to the test results?

Adam, you've clearly done your very best in organising a TT event. You should be applauded for your effort. It's not your fault that the results have come out dodgy. All I'm saying is, it's too late now to ask everyone not to pay too much attention to the results. Just look at how this thread is growing! It's a big issue, and it won't go away until we find out what is wrong - either with the results or people's remaps.


----------



## Dolfan (Nov 25, 2007)

Although i may have been disapointed with the results, i'm not going to lose sleep over it all :lol:

For me it was just nice to meet more forum members, and just have good old chat and a laugh, and this was really what this event was all about. Thanks again Adam for organising a great day.

ezz mate, i know your not serious about selling your stunning TT (i hope)  for those of you who have not had the pleasure of meeting the man in person, What a :lol: Maybe you and Rob could do a double act.

Special thanks to Dean for pic's and Was for the Engine bling.

I am looking forward to the next meet.

Regards Yan


----------



## Dolfan (Nov 25, 2007)

Although i may have been disapointed with the results, i'm not going to lose sleep over it all :lol:

For me it was just nice to meet more forum members, and just have good old chat and a laugh, and this was really what this event was all about. Thanks again Adam for organising a great day.

ezz mate, i know your not serious about selling your stunning TT (i hope)  for those of you who have not had the pleasure of meeting the man in person, What a :lol: Maybe you and Rob could do a double act.

Special thanks to Dean for pic's and Was for the Engine bling.

I am looking forward to the next meet.

Regards Yan


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

Steve,

You obviously didnt read the RR thread in the events section. I said that AT THE START so people would come along with an open mind.

Of course the results are important and I agree that its caused a big big issue on the forum that must be addressed. I don't think that the problem lies with the RR or operator. I think it lies with our expectations of what our cars should be producing due to tuners telling us this and we're accepting it. I'm very interested to know if the Seat Leon boys have had a RR Day and what they all came away with!

In the meantime it was a good excuse for a get together and if you ask any of the attendees if they had a good day they'll all tell you yes.


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

Adam TTR said:


> Steve,
> 
> You obviously didnt read the RR thread in the events section. I said that AT THE START so people would come along with an open mind.
> 
> ...


Fair points Adam. Understood. I'm sure everyone had a great day out and I'm glad about that. Let's hope we all learn from it. As for tuners exaggerating gains - we'll have to wait and see what conclusions come out of this. It'll be a shock to a lot of people if that's the case. The TT remapping industry could collapse overnight! I for one would certainly think twice about a remap that offered a 15 to 20 BHP gain.


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

Steve,

Was your car RR'd when you had yr map done?


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

Adam TTR said:


> Steve,
> 
> Was your car RR'd when you had yr map done?


Unfortunately no. It's a Custom Code and now, to honest, I'm as confused as everyone, I'd love to know exactly what it pans out at! If there was RR day in the midlands I'd definately be interested.


----------



## barton TT (Nov 13, 2004)

ttsteve said:


> Adam TTR said:
> 
> 
> > Steve,
> ...


Same goes here i'm up for it.


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

ttsteve said:


> Adam TTR said:
> 
> 
> > Steve,
> ...


So, what your saying is, you have written 265bhp in your sig, because of what you've been told.

This is entirely my point! We honestly believe what we are told so when we hear differently, we dont like it!!

Sad to say, the truth hurts....


----------



## caney (Feb 5, 2004)

Meeerrrk said:


> i would have liked to see the results of a TT wiht a P-Torque map. shame no one ran.
> 
> VAGCHECK havnt come out of this RR day very well, i was thinking of using them to remove my p-torque and have a VAGCHECK map installed but i didnt really know much about them....
> 
> .....think i will stick to what i know and go to JABBA SPORT.


tbh you don't seem very sure what you know :wink: what's wrong with the map you've got and why do you think jabba will be any better?


----------



## elrao (Apr 19, 2005)

While I agree that if a remap is advertised as a "260 BHP" map then it should reach that figure on a rolling road, at the end of the day I don't think anyone who has a remapped car would ever regret doing it? However it may just be that you are getting a lot of torque at low revs, which is why you feel a big kick in the arse when you put your foot down, but that torque dies out too quickly, leaving you with less then expexted BHP results.

If you are unhappy with your own remap then I suggest you speak to the vendor as they are the only ones that can do anything about it. If the advertising says 260BHP and it hasn't met that then you have a valid complaint with trading standards as it is "false advertising", however there are so many factors that can impact BHP figures and they should all be given a chance to defend their claims before any public slandering! Having a small hot heater blowing air at the front of the car can't have helped for a start!

It doesn't look like the rolling road coped with torque transfer through the Haldex very well, as Morgan said with remapped cars running higher torque then this problem will be exaggerated, which could explain why the stock cars performed as expected and the remapped ones didn't. The Mk2 and new S3 have different Haldex controllers, so again maybe this is not a problem with these newer controllers?


----------



## Love_iTT (Aug 18, 2002)

I think that maybe one of the first things we should do is ask Torque of the Devil to come on here and explain the graphs to us - especially the bit where the 'dip' occurs for some at about 4000 rpm.

Note that I say "explain the graphs" to us and not to explain why their rollers/set-up may have been out.

Lets face it, with the exception of Morgan, no one on here can honestly say what could cause this - we are all putting our logical hats on and probably only getting some of the facts. It is a big enough problem for Torque of the Devil to try and explain it, it was not just one or two cars, it was a fair proportion of the cars with remaps which had the problems. Running a test in fourth gear instead of third makes quite a bit of difference, I can't remember what gears you guys were running at the time of the test but I wouldn't mind betting it was third.

A point that interests me is that Wak went to someone else round the corner after having his run and got almost the same readings. Strange.

I really don't go along with the theory that remaps are producing a mere 15 bhp on average. 30-50 bhp on a turbo'd TT is not unreasonable and I certainly don't think that remaps are dead in the water after one session at one rolling road.

Before we all go and start cutting our wrists, lets just wait and see what they have to say. Maybe get a couple of the cars that had bad figures to a completely different set of rollers (and not Dyno Dynamics either) next weekend and see if there is a major difference, not just in the bhp figures but more importantly the shape of the curve.

Graham


----------



## graham225 (Apr 5, 2004)

Adam TTR said:


> ttsteve said:
> 
> 
> > Adam TTR said:
> ...


qooqiiu wrote:
I think independent Rolling roads should be used to conduct such tests.

I agree just thought it would show good faith in the their remap and not hide behind their claims of 40+ increases without any proof other than there say so.

If a tuner as access to a RR then they could demonstrate the increases once the remap has been completed. A before and after.

I'm not in the slightest insinuating that the tuners are trying to deliberately mislead us with their claims of 40+ bhp increase, but after all we expect those type of increases because thats what we are told to expect, prior to the remap.

Thats why there was a lot of disappointed people at the RR meet yesterday


----------



## HRD TT (Dec 13, 2005)

Meeerrrk said:


> i would have liked to see the results of a TT wiht a P-Torque map. shame no one ran.
> 
> VAGCHECK havnt come out of this RR day very well, i was thinking of using them to remove my p-torque and have a VAGCHECK map installed but i didnt really know much about them....
> 
> .....think i will stick to what i know and go to JABBA SPORT.


There were cars with remaps from VAGCheck, APS, SKN and AMD and all did exactly the same. VAGCheck were actually the only company that had a proven remap there........... mine with a gain of 45bhp over Audi's figures.


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

Adam TTR said:


> ttsteve said:
> 
> 
> > Adam TTR said:
> ...


Yes I've written 265BHP on my signature because until I'm given evidence to the contrary, that's what I believe. It's you who's suggesting that maybe we shouldn't believe what remappers are telling us. With a cynical view like that, I'm not surprised you warned people in advance not to place too much emphasis on the results. Few, (if any!) of us have rolling roads, we just have to take suppliers on trust sometimes. Me? I'm reserving judgement until the gurus here have had more time to get their thinking caps on and analyse those results.

Adam, it seems like you've already decided that what the remappers are telling us, maybe we shouldn't really be believing. I'm not naive, I know that there are rogue traders out there, but for now at least, I'm choosing to err on the side of caution re the reputable remappers out there. Give them a chance to explain this. Like I said earlier, I'm still shocked by these results, but there just has to be some kind of explanation - I hope!


----------



## G-10 (Sep 22, 2007)

robokn said:


> All the cars had a haldex though mapped and not mapped and a 3.2 and a S3, standard cars made the power mapped cars didn't achieve the promised results, so the dyno didn't change nor did the environment, so perhaps these maps are not delivering as expected.


Nail head

Firstly Adam well done for arranging this and putting the time in to it.

If a remap is advertised as a "260 BHP" map then it should reach that figure on a rolling road. If you are not happy i would go back to the mapper and ask them to prove it if they are a big company As they are breaking the law by putting random numbers on there web site.

I think the big comapy's like vagcheck and P Torque should use this Opportunity to show there map's are up to scratch and take any Doubt out of any one's mind.


Also when you have just had a new "faster" map put on your car alot of the affect could be a Placebo.

This post is not to make people angry just adding my input.


----------



## jacksprat (Apr 16, 2007)

Just to throw another map out there.

I had my car mapped at Jabba (took 8 hours in total)

Came out with something like 267bhp and 309 on the torque. I saw at least 4 dyno runs with it at that and when i get home tonight i will scan them in. Do you think that some of these tuners have over generous RR's? Because i am dubious i could have gained that much from just Â£400... However if someone told me my 225 now ran 215 i would still be happy because i know how fast it feels when i put my foot down


----------



## chrishTT (May 14, 2006)

i take that mine is 279 as it is mapped by ptorque who has the same result on his.
anyone had a map done by will and rolling roaded on his rollers?


----------



## p-torque.co.uk (Sep 12, 2006)

I thought there were some P-Torque mapped TT's going 

Mixture of results it seems.....


----------



## jutty (Aug 28, 2006)

what do you make of it Will?


----------



## TTmarlin (Mar 18, 2008)

jutty said:


> *it think that is abit harsh saying Vagcheck havent come out well * , all work carried out by them on forum users cars, everyone hasn't a bad word to say about them :?


Harsh???? Figures speak for themselves. i wouldnt be happy
Just look at the results table and most of them have 'JUST' reached the lower end of there expected and quoted figures and not near the top end which most are lead to believe,


----------



## Stub (Mar 17, 2005)

wow donâ€™t you just love a bag of worms like this,

I want to get mine checked now as I was under the impression I had quite a bit of power but maybe its a lump of torque and not as much bhp as claimed?

I think dolfan's figures are a slight indication of maybe issues with the rollers and boost, the SKN map I had was very smooth and doesnâ€™t boost aggressively only to max 17 psi, but his car made 240bh and 299 tq which is a good result against the others, maybe its because the map is smooth and not aggressive it may not have suffered from the dip effect and had its power cut? Just a thought?,

I personally didnâ€™t like the skn as I had a APR before that felt much better, the APS map I have now is in some people's eyeâ€™s an updated AMD map, I never got any logging done or RR and it was a "custom map" I was told that it would be pushing 285 with my mods? Actually even Morgan said the same when he logged the car?

Maybe we are all suckers for what we want to hear, I for one would like to know what I am really pushing and would love to go to an dependant RR with cars from other tuners that have dyno's done for them to confirm their dyno results and not from tuners tweaking their RR to get figures to please? 
:?


----------



## Meeerrrk (Mar 21, 2008)

caney said:


> Meeerrrk said:
> 
> 
> > i would have liked to see the results of a TT wiht a P-Torque map. shame no one ran.
> ...


i thank you for assuming you know better than me, you dont know me, so please dont assume & make out i am some sort of idiot; i wouldnt act like that toward you!

I've had 4 20vT cars in the past, all have been modified to different stages. Jabba, everytime, have come out best in the cars performance. I dont like how Revo'd cars drive, and i dont like how my p-torqued car drives. Personal experiance, not "What i'm lead to believe" like a lot of people go on.


----------



## caney (Feb 5, 2004)

Meeerrrk said:


> i thank you for assuming you know better than me, you dont know me, so please dont assume & make out i am some sort of idiot; i wouldnt act like that toward you!


 WTF lol get over yourself mate :roll: You've got a p torque map which your not happy with,you then wanna get a vagcheck map but now you've decided to stick with what you know and get a jabba map!not saying your an idiot so chill out ffs :? just a bit baffled as to why you didn't just go to jabba in the 1st place if they are that good?


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Right guys I think enough guessing over why the figures were down has been done, & its now time to get to the bottom of this & out in the open.

I have to say I am little surprised by some of the comments in regards to questioning our integrity & power claims from some users, but no worries we will prove you are incorrect in your assumptions.

We are sure about the figures we quote and the fact that one particular dyno showed poor results for ALL modified Mk1s not only ones mapped by us is pretty blindingly obvious all as not well with the runs.

Look at the plots its clear as day they were struggling with the haldex, & the lack of decent cooling fans will not have helped at all.

Today we have discussed the plots with several other Dyno Dynamics owners with one stating they obviously do not know how to handle this dyno correctly, & the other stating they will not run Mk1 TTs with the haldex enabled full stop for the exact reason you cannot achieve decent runs.

In as much as the stock cars making stock power, they are far easier to run than modified its a simple as that.

We are going to arrange some independent measurements on other Dyno Dynamics rollers (in 2WD) & we will prove the results for the modified TTs run on the day at TOTD are not worth the paper they are printed on.

Hopefully very soon we will clear this whole matter up.

Regards
Morgan


----------



## Juber (May 20, 2007)

Bloody hell this thread is like being in playschool, so many wingers! 
Jabba are great, proper good with their maps and you get a rolling road out of it! If you have the money and time go there!

Awesome GTI's rollling road is great too! Once i get my big plans sorted, im visiting 2 places, both Jabba & Awesome GTI.


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Juber said:


> Bloody hell this thread is like being in playschool, so many wingers!


I certainly hope you are not refering to me in that quote.

I think it would be a little unusual if we didnt defend ourselves against any criticism or questioning of our services.


----------



## Juber (May 20, 2007)

UK225 said:


> Juber said:
> 
> 
> > Bloody hell this thread is like being in playschool, so many wingers!
> ...


Not you mate, i wouldnt mouth you off you are a good friend 

i just read the last few pages and noticed all the confrontation - when the post was posted yesterday it was very calm and happy chappy  , not any more......, thats the problem with forums, people always assume things and always come across as being negative hence the friction and banter.

Everyones got to bear in mind, that power figures depends on loads of things, say for instance mr X is pushing 300BHP out of his TT and i brought the exact same map as him, i wont get the same figures becauce our cars will vary, depends how often servicing is done, how the turbo condition is, general engine wear and tear, it WILL varey etc etc.


----------



## TT51MON (Mar 22, 2006)

UK225 said:


> Right guys I think enough guessing over why the figures were down has been done, & its now time to get to the bottom of this & out in the open.
> 
> I have to say I am little surprised by some of the comments in regards to questioning our integrity & power claims from some users, but no worries we will prove you are incorrect in your assumptions.
> 
> ...


There is alot of sence here, anybody at that rolling road yesterday would have seen just about all of the TTs hoping around all over the place on the rollers. If the car doesnt have grip, how can you possibly messure performance. (hence the huge dips in every graph I saw including mine).

When I had my 225 remaped about a year ago (at Superchips, just around the corner from Torque of the Devil) the graph was so smooth I questioned if they had photoshopped it!

270bhp and 280 ib ft, smooth curve, no heldex issues etc.

Standard cars will be easier to messure as they will have more grip than a modded one in this instance.

I wouldnt say I am an expert in such matters! But I have been to dozens to rolling road events for lots of different marques and just trying to apply some common sence


----------



## starski4578 (Aug 24, 2007)

Can someone organise a RR day at awesomegti i'd be up for it, must be a load of northerns up here and we can compare figures. As someone has said the awesome rolling road seems quite capable?


----------



## anty1985 (Oct 5, 2007)

i have been reading this with interest as my recent rr run was down!!

just wanted to ask- did any of the people on the rr day have a liquidTT anf if so how did the bhp figures on that compare to the rr??

Thanks


----------



## Stub (Mar 17, 2005)

anty1985 said:


> i have been reading this with interest as my recent rr run was down!!
> 
> just wanted to ask- did any of the people on the rr day have a liquidTT anf if so how did the bhp figures on that compare to the rr??
> 
> Thanks


I asked the same thing at the start of this thread, if they have logged with vagcom or liquid and if they compare to the RR logs?



Stub said:


> has anyone done the air mass calc with vagcom to find out their BHP and how accurate was it against the rolling road?


I would be very interested if anyone could do this?


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

I did a 2nd run based on a theory Wak had an I achieved a LOWER figure. Explain that one!? :?:


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

Adam TTR said:


> I did a 2nd run based on a theory Wak had an I achieved a LOWER figure. Explain that one!? :?:


Adam, the explaination is simple,

Why should flywheel bhp calculations be different from the same car in 4wd/2wd on the same rollers with A/F & temp probes and the best Dyno in the world. ( as they may claim)

perfect dyno, perfect software........ the temp prob, sensors and accuracy claims just proven wrong by 11bhp with is an impressive difference on the same rollers.

Anyone who ever went to an AmD RR day will have seen a proper ducted cooling system and they measured intake temps properly with vagcom.

How does a probe at the airbox have any bearing to post turbo temperatures at the inlet manifold? 
A little research and you'll find a good DD rolling road operator dont use it and use the cars IAT sensor for accuracy.



Adam TTR said:


> Caney at power engineering it was the same for Wak


Adam, PE ran my "CC" map with even less bhp/torque in a quick run and the engine was nicely cooking by the time a single fan was put on it, pay for an hours dyno time and I would get more but a quick run and it simply proved that heat soak and IAT's are my problem.

TOTD have Haldex Dips as big as 500revs on the plots, how does that work then, it wasnt a simple dip in the graphs, you could hear engine note changes and the engine labouring to recover, they cant handle the gen 1 haldex properly,

One good measure of a Rolling Road that people are basing their claims on would be to run a car in 2wd and 4wd on the same rollers....
Same car, If the roller operator , software and sensor based extrapolation are any good they should calculate bhp/torque within 1-2bhp/lbs of each run! We already proved that its not the case....



Stub said:


> wow donâ€™t you just love a bag of worms like this,
> 
> I want to get mine checked now as I was under the impression I had quite a bit of power but maybe its a lump of torque and not as much bhp as claimed?


Take it TOTD.



Stub said:


> I think dolfan's figures are a slight indication of maybe issues with the rollers and boost, the SKN map I had was very smooth and doesnâ€™t boost aggressively only to max 17 psi, but his car made 240bh and 299 tq which is a good result against the others, maybe its because the map is smooth and not aggressive it may not have suffered from the dip effect and had its power cut? Just a thought?,


Dolfan is running 3"dp, sports cats and I think an FMIC...... his power is no better than the others in the same boat but the mods have helped his torque.


----------



## Wak (May 6, 2002)

Adam TTR said:


> I did a 2nd run based on a theory Wak had an I achieved a LOWER figure. Explain that one!? :?:


Adam, the explaination is simple,

Why should flywheel bhp calculations be different from the same car in 4wd/2wd on the same rollers with A/F & temp probes and the best Dyno in the world. ( as they may claim)

perfect dyno, perfect software........ the temp prob, sensors and accuracy claims just proven wrong by 11bhp with is an impressive difference on the same rollers.

Anyone who ever went to an AmD RR day will have seen a proper ducted cooling system and they measured intake temps properly with vagcom.

How does a probe at the airbox have any bearing to post turbo temperatures at the inlet manifold? 
A little research and you'll find a good DD rolling road operator dont use it and use the cars IAT sensor for accuracy.



Adam TTR said:


> Caney at power engineering it was the same for Wak


Adam, PE ran my "CC" map with even less bhp/torque in a quick run and the engine was nicely cooking by the time a single fan was put on it, pay for an hours dyno time and I would get more but a quick run and it simply proved that heat soak and IAT's are my problem.

TOTD have Haldex Dips as big as 500revs on the plots, how does that work then, it wasnt a simple dip in the graphs, you could hear engine note changes and the engine labouring to recover, they cant handle the gen 1 haldex properly,

One good measure of a Rolling Road that people are basing their claims on would be to run a car in 2wd and 4wd on the same rollers....
Same car, If the roller operator , software and sensor based extrapolation are any good they should calculate bhp/torque within 1-2bhp/lbs of each run! We already proved that its not the case....



Stub said:


> wow donâ€™t you just love a bag of worms like this,
> 
> I want to get mine checked now as I was under the impression I had quite a bit of power but maybe its a lump of torque and not as much bhp as claimed?


Take it TOTD.



Stub said:


> I think dolfan's figures are a slight indication of maybe issues with the rollers and boost, the SKN map I had was very smooth and doesnâ€™t boost aggressively only to max 17 psi, but his car made 240bh and 299 tq which is a good result against the others, maybe its because the map is smooth and not aggressive it may not have suffered from the dip effect and had its power cut? Just a thought?,


Dolfan is running 3"dp, sports cats and I think an FMIC...... his power is no better than the others in the same boat but the mods have helped his torque.


----------



## Naresh (Nov 22, 2004)

p-torque.co.uk said:


> I thought there were some P-Torque mapped TT's going
> 
> Mixture of results it seems.....


Hi Will, after seeing the results from Saturday I'm gutted I couldn't make it, esepcially as I could have compared my P-Torque remap with the others, and added another tuning company to the list. I doubt my car would have had any more power than other mapped 225's on the day though simply because what I've read briefly on this thread is that the RR machine just couldn't cope with the Haldex system very well.

What else would explain why so many cars generated lower than expected results? I also believe that a "few horses" are naturally lost from an engine during its lifespan so a 225 that is around 5 years old probably doesn't still generate that anymore. That would accout for a few bhp lost here or there.

Before anyone criticises Vagcheck, especially the "old foe in disguise" :x , I think a second RR day at another venue may help put a few minds at rest. :? I paid good money for my remap and was very pleased on the day, and still am. From what it was, my car was totally transformed so many of you will agree after a remap. I felt more power, more torque and a much smoother power delivery, so the proof is in the driving as well.

Is there a "more reliable" RR firm out there?


----------



## caney (Feb 5, 2004)

UK225 said:


> We are going to arrange some independent measurements on other Dyno Dynamics rollers (in 2WD) & we will prove the results for the modified TTs run on the day at TOTD are not worth the paper they are printed on.
> 
> Hopefully very soon we will clear this whole matter up.
> 
> ...


Morgan,both you and Wak have always been against running haldex cars on 2 wd rollers,what's changed mate?


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

caney said:


> Morgan,both you and Wak have always been against running haldex cars on 2 wd rollers,what's changed mate?


Nothings changed Steve & I would much rather run AWD but this is not feasible on DD rollers as we have seen.


----------



## ian222 (May 4, 2007)

I e mailed TOTD and this was there reply

Hi Ian, I have been trying to post on the tt forum but cannot seem to
register properly at the moment.

The dips in the curve are to do with the haldex transmission shifting
torque
during the runs, this produces the dips you are talking about, if peak
power
and torque occur at these points there may be a problem recording the
results but I don't believe this is the case especially for the peak
horsepower, after reading some of the comments on the forum I wonder
why we
bother to even hold dyno days, nobody ever belives the results unless
they
are higher than their tuner states they should be, standard TT's
recorded
standard figures on the day so I cant see the problem, do the remapped
cars
have different transmissions or something?, I don't think they do.
chris


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

ian222 said:


> I e mailed TOTD and this was there reply
> 
> Hi Ian, I have been trying to post on the tt forum but cannot seem to
> register properly at the moment.
> ...


Nice commments :? , shame about that, i thought they were all quite nice people oh well


----------



## jutty (Aug 28, 2006)

ian222 said:


> I wonder why we
> bother to even hold dyno days, nobody ever belives the results unless


i know why because you make reasonably good money from it i expect


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

Fair point as it is only their core business after all, and what they said to adam about not enough cars would he pay for the ones that didn't turn up wouldn't bother with them again TBH


----------



## KevtoTTy (Aug 24, 2004)

BAMTT said:


> ian222 said:
> 
> 
> > I e mailed TOTD and this was there reply
> ...


Actually.............YES..........some if not all have upgraded Haldex's


----------



## lmracing (Jul 29, 2007)

BAMTT said:


> ian222 said:
> 
> 
> > I e mailed TOTD and this was there reply
> ...


Ditto :?

Leon


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

I would have said the majoirty of the mapped cars DIDN"T have an uprated haldex


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

mine did.... although im not the majority am i?


----------



## DeanTT (Sep 11, 2006)

Adam TTR said:


> mine did.... although im not the majority am i?


In Soho maybe!


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

In this case no, nut perhaps a list of who had and who didn't


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Guys here's a thought did they switch the ESP off and if it was off can you fully switch it off on the TT

Just a thought


----------



## Anth (Mar 5, 2004)

Juber said:


> UK225 said:
> 
> 
> > Juber said:
> ...


Nice thread ,

either way Juber hit the nail on the head for me .. every cars not going to perform the full BHP output unless the engin is running 100% so if your 225 was suffering before a remap and was only bringing 200 to the table here lies the issue the remap brings you to 240 etc etc either way this should be pointed out when buying a remap rather than just stating its 265 bhp etc etc


----------



## pinotattt (Oct 5, 2007)

Would the results prove the formula used on vag-com to measure bhp incorrect :?: :
maf g/s *1.31 or /.8


----------



## ian222 (May 4, 2007)

Bam- I dont think it turns off the traction fully. So i was told anyway?


----------



## mattyR (Sep 14, 2006)

Perhaps a good measuring block may have been a remapped 150/180 FWD car....no haldex to contend with?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 21, 2008)

Hi all I don't normaly post on forums but after reading all the commnts made by everyone who is unhappy with the results I have a couple of things to add.As some of you may be aware I used to do the software for AmD and operated the rolling road for the best part of 10years and the TT was always the car that you had to make sure 100% that it was sat bang on in the rollers and the bed lenght was correct otherwise you get lots of movement and tyre slip which creates big dips in the curves moreso than just the normal small dips you get when the haldex tranfers the power from front to rear.So if you are getting big dips in the plots from your power run then it would suggest that the car was not sat correctly in the rollers they shouldn't move about in the rollers like some have said.
The other thing to point out is the complete lack of cooling that was being used,One fan sat in the middle will not cool the Intercoolers and will cause the intake temps to go through the roof! VAG have saftey limits built into the ecu and if the intake temps go above 60degs the ecu will reduce the power to save the engine.So when you power test a std car because of the low boost the intake temps take longer to get to 60degs so will produce the correct numbers from a run,then when you stick a re-mapped car on with poor cooling due to increased boost pressure the intake temps will increase at a much faster rate and the ecu will reduce the power giving lower than expected bhp figures.
Another thing to take into consideration is different size wheels and tyres and tyre pressures they also have an effect on how the car behaves in the rollers.
So to end I doesn't matter who's map you have if the car hasn't got the correct amount of cooling or isn't sat properly on the rollers your going to be disapointed with the results.But thats just my thoughts based on comments made as I wasn't there myself.Hope this helps

Sorry for the long post!!
Regards
Gary


----------



## Stub (Mar 17, 2005)

I was hoping you would post when I see you join,

sounds very reasonable to me, what are the best size tires and is it better to have less air in the tyres?

WHat dyno would you recommend Gary?

Also with my mods and your "custom" map what do you think it should be doing on the rollers, also from your experience is the vagcom log to get BHP reliable?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 21, 2008)

Hi It's not the size of tyres that matters but if you test a car with 17inch wheels then run a car with 18 or 19 the rollers have to be adjusted to suit something most forget! also you have to take into account the tread on the tyres very worn tyres won't grip as much as newer ones.

I don't think the dyno is the issue it's how it's used on haldex cars that's the problem especialy if it's not what you do everyday!

The vag-com logs are fairly good but it's still only a calculation of sensor values at that time of testing and road and weather conditions can have an effect on it's accuracy.

The only true way to get reliable bhp numbers is to remove the engine and put it on an engine dyno but that is way too expensive.


----------



## Stub (Mar 17, 2005)

So no guess on the power mine should run with my mods and your mapping?

I will be going to the next one to find out.

BTW at the mo its going very well and made 292 on the maf log / .8


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 21, 2008)

Sorry missed that part of the question, it's late!

I would expect to see 285-295bhp so 292 sounds bang on.


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

thank you Gary for enlightening us... your post is appreciated.

as you can imagine, alot of people have been set back by saturdays results and its nice to have someone like you give a 3rd non biast opinion


----------



## JesTTer (Mar 25, 2008)

Hi Gary. Your explanation makes absolute sense and it is great to see rational comment from someone with relevant, unbiased experience. As a result I am going to go ahead with my Vagcheck remap tomorrow with Wak - I was seriously having second thoughts!!!

[smiley=jester.gif]'s alive

Cheers,

Mark.


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

MarkvR said:


> Hi Gary. Your explanation makes absolute sense and it is great to see rational comment from someone with relevant, unbiased experience. As a result I am going to go ahead with my Vagcheck remap tomorrow with Wak - I was seriously having second thoughts!!!
> 
> [smiley=jester.gif]'s alive
> 
> ...


you'd be mad not to! I look forward to your thread stating how happy you are with their service and product


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 21, 2008)

Glad to help


----------



## Stub (Mar 17, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Sorry missed that part of the question, it's late!
> 
> I would expect to see 285-295bhp so 292 sounds bang on.


Ta Gary, I am very happy with it at the mo, after adding millers it seems better and the mapping seems to make use of the extra octane, picks up very well and holds very well through the range.

all good info and thanks for taking the time to post

I will still be interested in the results of the next meet :wink:


----------



## DAZ3247 (Oct 30, 2007)

Great thread. I started reading and was a little concerned having already booked my VAGCHECK stage2 remap for next week. Then a few expert explanations towards the end made a lot of sense.
Im now counting down the days again until Morgan works his MAGIC.

and im betting the mapped journey home will be better than the unmapped ride up


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

Gary your thought on the cooling was something I mentioned on the day my car wasn't on the rollers so no gripe from me, yours points would they not sit across the board for maped and nonmapped cars?


----------



## Adam RRS (May 25, 2006)

Rob...



[email protected] said:


> So when you power test a std car because of the low boost the intake temps take longer to get to 60degs so will produce the correct numbers from a run,then when you stick a re-mapped car on with poor cooling due to increased boost pressure the intake temps will increase at a much faster rate and the ecu will reduce the power giving lower than expected bhp figures.


----------



## KevtoTTy (Aug 24, 2004)

Adam TTR said:


> Rob...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Still doesn't explain the (poor) resuts for my n/a car :?: :? Maybe it was down to my shagged front tyres :lol:

Kev


----------



## conlechi (May 6, 2006)

Stub said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry missed that part of the question, it's late!
> ...


Gary's doing the mapping on my car today 

good to know it's in good hands 8)

Mark


----------



## HighTT (Feb 14, 2004)

KevtoTTy said:


> > > .
> 
> 
> Still doesn't explain the (poor) resuts for my n/a car :?: :? Maybe it was down to my shagged front tyres :lol:
> ...


Don't laugh, it could well be that  - rolling road readings are VERY sensitive to many variables such as tyre pressures and in what gear the test is carried out at, to name but two.

I've not read the 16 pages of this thread but I only use rolling roads when
I want to compare the RELATIVE before and after figures of some engine mod carried out at that time; i.e. when I'm using the same rolling road under the same circumstances.

The whole rolling road thing is such a dark art :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## p-torque.co.uk (Sep 12, 2006)

Ahhh

Hi Gary! Are you the face behind the Vagcheck maps then? [smiley=computer.gif]


----------



## conlechi (May 6, 2006)

p-torque.co.uk said:


> Ahhh
> 
> Hi Gary! Are you the face behind the Vagcheck maps then? [smiley=computer.gif]


APS  pmctuning.co.uk


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

p-torque.co.uk said:


> Ahhh
> 
> Hi Gary! Are you the face behind the Vagcheck maps then? [smiley=computer.gif]


Will, that's Wak and Morgan.


----------



## qooqiiu (Oct 12, 2007)

ttsteve said:


> p-torque.co.uk said:
> 
> 
> > Ahhh
> ...


I think Will was being sarcastic :wink:


----------



## Jas225 (Apr 3, 2005)

conlechi said:


> APS  pmctuning.co.uk


pcmtuning.co.uk :wink:


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

qooqiiu said:


> ttsteve said:
> 
> 
> > p-torque.co.uk said:
> ...


I'm such a sweet, innocent soul, sarcasm is often lost on me!


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Blimey, I've just come back from the US and read this thread...

I'm now wondering what to do with the 3in downpipe and sports cats I brought back and whether to even bother with a custom remap... :?

Of course I'm gonna! :lol:

It's not about rolling road results it's about how the car feels, handles, brakes and the thrill it gives. I KNOW my car is much better for all the mods I've done. I don't need some graph to tell me that although I think there's a lot to be gained from rolling roads for map comparisons and fine tuning...

Apart from the results it all looks like a fun day so well done Adam. Your car looks like it stacked up well against Wak's...



I reckon we should have a shoot out comparison between P-Torque, APR, SKN, Vagcheck and APS maps with an 'eBay special' just as a wild card...

Cheers

Rich


----------



## Suraj_TT (Mar 10, 2007)

rustyintegrale said:


> It's not about rolling road results it's about how the car feels, handles, brakes and the thrill it gives. I


Spot on - regardless of the results from RR day, I know for a fact that mine is ALOT quicker than what it was before Wak worked his magic on it.

Forget figures, think about how it feels when u drive it!

I dont doubt Vagcheck or any other mappers at all - well apart from the ebay mobile fellas! Just read Gary's reply! We all know Wak and Morgan are top blokes and are defo honest..

Theres no way mine is only 6 BHP more than standard!


----------



## p-torque.co.uk (Sep 12, 2006)

Suraj_TT said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > It's not about rolling road results it's about how the car feels, handles, brakes and the thrill it gives. I
> ...


Hold on a sec.....when I backed Wak up in another thread, I said how important drivability is compared to Dyno figures....then when I mentioned figures not being the ''be all or end all'' due to Dyno variants you disagreed and backed someone else.....was this just bullying 

http://www.********.co.uk/ttforumbbs/vi ... c&start=50


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

p-torque.co.uk said:


> Suraj_TT said:
> 
> 
> > rustyintegrale said:
> ...


Are you referring to what I said or what Suraj has said Will?

I don't recall saying anything like that... :?


----------



## p-torque.co.uk (Sep 12, 2006)

Sorry no, not you I meant Suraj

Check the link in my post above :wink:


----------



## Suraj_TT (Mar 10, 2007)

p-torque.co.uk said:


> Suraj_TT said:
> 
> 
> > rustyintegrale said:
> ...


Will.. initially i was sceptical as people were saying there was no doubt the RR was correct - due to the standard QS and 225 results being spot on.. then i read and saw Gary's reply about all the other factors i.e. tyre sizes, heating, cooling etc and i then thought, if it feels fast and really is a big difference than what is was before then screw figures!

Would never dream of bullying on here, we're all family


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

p-torque.co.uk said:


> Sorry no, not you I meant Suraj
> 
> Check the link in my post above :wink:


Well I can see both sides of the argument...

It's a bit like a broadband connection where an ISP sells an 8Mb service and then says it's up to 8Mb depending on distance from exchange and contention ratios.

However a remap is not subject to this or that. Sure the car must be in tip top condition to show maximum gain and I know Vagcheck do extensive datalogging prior to doing any remap and indeed may well advise against a remap until any issues are resolved (as was my case). But and here's the first BIG but, a properly performing car, properly remapped SHOULD be giving the BHP figures claimed by the remapper. This is normally confirmed by Vagcom and a simple mathematical equation (I can't recall what that is) so datalogging after the remap should confirm what BHP the car is pushing out - so in theory no need for a rolling road.

I've always assumed that a rolling road is required to fine tune settings and not solely to provide a set of statistics for any given car. As has already been pointed out here there are so many variables that need to be taken into account, but and this is my second BIG but - the variables were the same for the standard cars yet these appear to be the only ones that match the figures claimed for them... :?

Is this purely down to these cars having a standard Haldex, standard wheels or standard everything? I find that one very hard to fathom... and would appreciate any explanation.

Cheers

Rich


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

Perhaps I was being a bit thick but Rich is in agreement here, if a mapped car is supposed to preform to a parameter then I would expect it to reach or be near to that figure, but Gary seems to have calmed all those mapped car owners down.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

robokn said:


> Perhaps I was being a bit thick but Rich is in agreement here, if a mapped car is supposed to preform to a parameter then I would expect it to reach or be near to that figure, but Gary seems to have calmed all those mapped car owners down.


Yeah but Rob, there's no need for a rolling road to determine BHP - there's a mathematical formula using a MAF reading which is then multiplied or divided by a standard factor to determine BHP. The MAF reading is taken using Vagcom.

However I'm still curious to know why of all the cars using the same rolling road with the same atmospheric conditions only the standard cars managed to throw up the specced figures.

I accept the argument that the rollers need setting for different wheel sizes so how was that rolling road set up. Was it for standard size wheels or whoever was first on it?

Cheers

Rich


----------



## lmracing (Jul 29, 2007)

rustyintegrale said:


> However I'm still curious to know why of all the cars using the same rolling road with the same atmospheric conditions only the standard cars managed to throw up the specced figures.
> 
> I accept the argument that the rollers need setting for different wheel sizes so how was that rolling road set up. Was it for standard size wheels or whoever was first on it?
> 
> ...


I was first on with standard setup but even my dyno graph had a noticeable dip around 4000rpm. This would backup the dyno setup not handling the haldex properly.

I think with the increased power from the mapped cars aswell as increased need for cool air etc (which was lacking!) to produce this power, these dips in the bhp graphs were exaggerated reducing the overall bhp results.

Just my thoughts and evaluation on everything i have read! I had fun anyway 

Leon


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

My car is being dyno'd on friday at a proper four wheel one and as my car is a quattro we'll see how it copes and what it is pushing before and after the map, which being a 3.2 NA is not going to give much more Bhp and only about 20 FtLbs of Torque


----------



## caney (Feb 5, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> I would expect to see 285-295bhp so 292 sounds bang on.


from a standard ko4 and a few other mods  you would have to be pushing 2 bar+boost to get that?didn't think the little ko4 could push that much air reliabily?that would surely be a 1st or is it a hybrid ko4?


----------



## p-torque.co.uk (Sep 12, 2006)

caney said:


> [email protected] said:
> 
> 
> > I would expect to see 285-295bhp so 292 sounds bang on.
> ...


Hi Steve

I think Gary means for a Hybrid. Never seen a reliable 292+bhp from stock K04


----------



## p-torque.co.uk (Sep 12, 2006)

Suraj_TT said:


> Would never dream of bullying on here, we're all family


 :lol: :lol:

No probs :wink:


----------



## George K (Feb 19, 2007)

What an interesting discussion. I was particularly impressed by [email protected]â€™s measured and objective comments.

In addition to his point about the safety shut down for inlet temperatures of over 60 C, I personally would always measure/log the inlet temperature on any modified turbo car. Out of interest power output is directly related to the charge density, which in turn is related to the absolute temperature (Centigrade plus 273). Thus on a 300 bhp car, a difference of 20C will represent about 20 bhp â€" not insignificant. I have always been told that a target should be around 30C inlet temperature.

Also I was recently visiting a rolling road where I had some very successful re-mapping carried out on a 2WD N/a car. I canâ€™t remember what make of r/r they have, it was 4WD, but they did say that they generally run Haldex cars in 2WD form by removing â€˜fuse 31â€™.

Hope these observations are of some help.


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

rustyintegrale said:


> However I'm still curious to know why of all the cars using the same rolling road with the same atmospheric conditions only the standard cars managed to throw up the specced figures.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Rich


Ignoring the issues with the haldex..

Its a given no matter how efficient the compressor it will generate heat whilst compressing the air, you increase the speed of the turbine to increase boost pressure = more heat

Under normal conditions on the road with sufficient airflow over the intercooler/s the intake temps are kept within acceptable limits even with increased boost pressure or at least should be if mapped correctly.

You put the car be it stock or modified on a dyno & itâ€™s highly unlikely the airflow of the shops fans will be anything near that of driving on the road. So of course the reduced air flow over the intercoolers will result in the intake/charge temps being higher.

Now you have two cars both mechanically identical, but one mapped & the other stock.

So lets say the stock car for example ran 1 bar boost & the modified car ran 1.4 bar boost.

The turbo on the modified car whilst generating more boost will also be generating more heat.

If you then position a fan to blow air at the intercoolers in an attempt to simulate at least some airflow over the intercoolers that would be seen under normal driving, the fan runs at the same speed for both modified & stock vehicles, the runs themselves take the same time, the loading is the same, the intake temps will be cooler on the stock car with LESS boost.

Now as Gary stated the ECU will pro actively take measures if temps get to high, so both cars with exact same cooling from the fan, which is more likely to first reach the point where intake temps become an issue ?

Of course the one running more boost !

This is why its so important to have decent air flow, AmDs rolling road used to have chillers supplying two seperate ducts that used to get positioned directly in front of each of the 225s twin intercoolers unless of course it had a FMIC.

If the vehicles had been data logged IAT, ignition retard etc on the day I am sure you would have seen the impact of the lack of decent cooling.

Cheers
Morgan


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

Morgan

Do think its possible i could of had a similar issue as they only had this little hair dryer blowing into my Scoop for my top mount (they kept the bonnet closed) , I know its not a TT but surely the same principles apply, i wasn't too disappointed given everything else that went on but think i was about 15-20bhp shy from the numbers it made when it was road mapped










rgds Tony


----------



## KevtoTTy (Aug 24, 2004)

BAMTT said:


> Morgan
> 
> Do think its possible i could of had a similar issue as they only had this little hair dryer blowing into my Scoop for my top mount (they kept the bonnet closed) , I know its not a TT but surely the same principles apply, i wasn't too disappointed given everything else that went on but think i was about 15-20bhp shy from the numbers it made when it was road mapped
> 
> ...


That will be Â£1 less on what I owe you :wink:


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

KevtoTTy said:


> That will be Â£1 less on what I owe you :wink:


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## Stub (Mar 17, 2005)

p-torque.co.uk said:


> caney said:
> 
> 
> > [email protected] said:
> ...


My turbo is a standard k04? the figure 292 was taken from a vagcom log I can send it on to someone if they like? the boost spikes at 25 ish on some occasions?

This is why in posts on this thread |I have asked if the vagcom logs are accurate?

Seems they are not if people see that 290 on standard k04 is not possible?

I am waiting to go hybrid when the pennies allow


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

BAMTT said:


> Morgan
> 
> Do think its possible i could of had a similar issue as they only had this little hair dryer blowing into my Scoop for my top mount (they kept the bonnet closed) , I know its not a TT but surely the same principles apply, i wasn't too disappointed given everything else that went on but think i was about 15-20bhp shy from the numbers it made when it was road mapped
> 
> rgds Tony


Absolutely Tony


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

UK225 said:


> BAMTT said:
> 
> 
> > Morgan
> ...


thanks Morgan


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Evening guys 

Just to give you a little update.. today we visited another Dyno Dynamics 4WD rolling road, with an owner/operator who was happy to try & verify if its possible to achieve realistic & smooth power runs on a modified TT with AWD enabled & be willing to experiment trying to achieve this.

Todays exercise wasnt so much about the figures but more about trying to get smoother runs with AWD enabled.

Anyone who knows us from old, will be aware we would always rather try & avoid pulling the haldex fuse & running FWD, so we wanted to see first if indeed it was possible to avoid this.

Bed length was perfect & the vehicle securely strapped down.

Sadly even with endless amounts of playing with loading & roller settings, at the end we all agreed we were simply wasting our time, & we could not achieve what we set out to do.

However we did have an idea that if we can permanently lock the diff during AWD runs then there should be no problem at all.

We have a few ideas on how this can be achieved, watch this space :wink:

Cheers
Morgan


----------



## Stub (Mar 17, 2005)

going the extra mile Morgan, I wouldnt expect enything less from you guys, fair play bud!


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

Why don't you just disconnect the haldex Regal used to do it on their S3 when they only had a 2 wheel dyno and that was 350+Bhp IIRC


----------



## UK225 (May 12, 2002)

Thanks Stu 

Rob I would rather try and avoid 2WD whenever its possible for good reason !

Did Regal just measure wheel power or did they also get a calculated flywheel figure when running there S3 2WD ?

If they did have numbers at the crank how was figure calculated ?

Coast down, factor applied etc ?

Genuine questions & you will see why when you answer them 

Cheers
Morgan


----------



## p-torque.co.uk (Sep 12, 2006)

I have to say, I have run 100+ on my Dyno with the haldex pulled and never had an issue.

This includes Caney's monster which ran 4 times, once with NOS    :twisted:


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

I'll bet that was fun :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## Chip_iTT (Nov 14, 2003)

p-torque.co.uk said:


> I have to say, I have run 100+ on my Dyno with the haldex pulled and never had an issue.
> 
> This includes Caney's monster which ran 4 times, once with NOS    :twisted:


I think the point Morgan is making is that most dynos 'calculate' crank BHP from wheel BHP and use the ramp down measurements to estimate transmission losses. If you pull the Haldex fuse you're not measuring true transmission losses - energy is going into the Haldex but its not assessing Haldex losses correctly as the Haldex is not functioning (my guess therefore is the results will be overestimated) so in that respect a 4W dyno will be more accurate than a 2W one on a 4WD car.


----------



## Colin240sport (Jan 17, 2008)

I would love to see what my QS would make with its superchips map, milltek, wak box and a couple of other little things..

need a RR day more northern... :?


----------



## mustardtt (Apr 25, 2008)

As predicted some tuning companies are desperately trying to explain the results they did NOT achieve. :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## nathan88 (Oct 18, 2009)

Very interesting reading this topic as im considering a re-map.

It seems this RR wasnt up to the job of the TT's 4wd?

It measured the standard cars just fine though...is it a case of it not being able to measure the higher powered ones correctly? Even though when WAK had his measured around the corner he got basically identical figures...


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

nathan88 said:


> Very interesting reading this topic as im considering a re-map.
> 
> It seems this RR wasnt up to the job of the TT's 4wd?
> 
> It measured the standard cars just fine though...is it a case of it not being able to measure the higher powered ones correctly? Even though when WAK had his measured around the corner he got basically identical figures...


No-one knows. It's the mystery of the disappearing remaps.....

Amazing really. Stock 225s made 225, but remapped cars that should have made at least 260 made about 240 tops (like +15). One day someone will come up with an answer to all this. I seem to recall that up to a certain level the cooling fans were deemed as being able to cope, but at higher output levels, they just weren't efficient enough to take away the extra heat generated, thus holding back full power delivery on remapped cars. That's one theory anyway.

It's an interesting topic - anyone got any theories?


----------



## Fred (Jan 7, 2010)

Not sure how I ever missed this but it goes to prove what I'm always talking about in regards to remaps.

225s do not put out the silly figures like some people expect (ie over 250).

The tuning market is so intenese its like they each kept adding a few hp onto the claims to try and look better.

The V6 putting out less that stock after loads of mods (it says was expting 280 - 300 LMAO!!) sounds about right as well. No point even trying to tune of these unless your fitting FI.

At the end of the day there is massive false advetising going on here but its so hard to prove nobody ever follows it up.

Some people are saying the low figures are because of the 4wd. If you look at some of the CupraR (same 225 engine) results they also never really get to 250, let alone some of the bonkers 265 claims.


----------



## swfblade (Apr 24, 2007)

I think the 265 figure is based on the MAF/VAGCOM results, iirc, and not rolling roads.


----------



## country boy (Aug 23, 2008)

Surely the main thing about pre and post remap cars is not so much the bhp but the actual performance gains. i'm sure that people are getting more than 15 bhp gains by the way there cars are performing post being mapped,it would be interesting to do 0-60,quarter mile times etc on pre and post mapped cars? Its strange because the 150bhp 1.8t engines tend to get increases of around 50 bhp after being mapped as proven in a lot of R/R features in magazines,so why should'nt the 225 expect similar gains??


----------



## swfblade (Apr 24, 2007)

Its more about the way that the torque curve is moved, than peak bhp anyway. I did a quick mock up graph of mine with pre and post figures. Very rough btw on the stock figures. taken from another site and only at certain revs, so its extremely rough, but you get the idea. The difference in torque is the impressive part and what I'm trying to show.


----------



## T3RBO (Dec 9, 2003)

Another thread over two years old bumped :lol:

Don't think I have ever seen any where near expected bhp results posted.

Does make you wonder if it's specific to the 4wd and TT


----------



## swfblade (Apr 24, 2007)

yup, and why not? Same topic, no need to start another, so fair play to nathan for this 8)


----------



## ttnortheast (May 10, 2010)

Interesting reading. (Having gone through the whole thread in between trying to get a magazine to press!!)

Having had a variety of modified cars from Cosworths through to Porsche the one thing I do know is that anything is possible on the day. Cars with FI are dependent upon cool air to maximise boost pressures, and are subject to a variety of variables which can lower BHP.

As others have stated over the life of an engine bhp figures tend to drop, especially on those without perfect maintenance. The TT is a small engine in reality, and has a relatively limited turbo in the KO4. I would expect remaps are possible up to around the 270bhp mark in optimum conditions. Without 'optimum conditions' it would be quite possible to see figures of 230-240 bhp being displayed and this wouldn't shock me in any way.

Lack of cooling, slipping on the RR, haldex issues, the operator, fuel type, how much grip on the tyres etc etc will all play a part. Yes you might say that the results were similar across the board .. that would suggest the main factors (haldex and cooling are two likely culprits).

40bhp+ with a remap is reasonable but hoses getting compressed, and any other number of factors may cause further problems. Scientific regular tests are the only valuable method .. one offs don't mean anything (as with most things in life). Also seeing cars run back to back would make a difference, in real world scenarios, such as on the track. Where you can reasonably compare vehicles side by side, under the same or similar conditions.

It is important to be a realist about these things .. if you want more accurate answers, then spend the money and the time to get them instead of relying on what other people tell you. That is how motorsport works - you have to test, test and test again ... there are no short cuts.


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

swfblade said:


> yup, and why not? Same topic, no need to start another, so fair play to nathan for this 8)


Yeah, shaddup Turbo! :wink:


----------



## nathan88 (Oct 18, 2009)

swfblade said:


> yup, and why not? Same topic, no need to start another, so fair play to nathan for this 8)


lol! Just looked at the post date before mine....2008!..Wow!

I think its safe to say, when you get a rempa...insist on a pre and post rolling road print out...Simple.

Any guy can plug into ur car and say yep...ther you go mate Extra 45bhp job done. I know what il be doing come re-map time.


----------



## KimTT (Jul 12, 2009)

yeah it does make good reading for someone considering a map......

still undecided on where to go


----------



## Super Josh (May 29, 2009)

k10mbd said:


> yeah it does make good reading for someone considering a map......
> 
> still undecided on where to go


Go to Vagcheck in Staines (PM WAK on here). Should be a nice drive up from Kent. He'll make sure your car is spot on before the remap. Then  on the way home.

Josh


----------



## swfblade (Apr 24, 2007)

+1 for VAGCheck. Not just for the map, but the overall service they give in ensuring the car is tip top, pre and post.


----------



## ttsteve (Nov 1, 2007)

The point I would make to anyone considering a remap is that regardless of the figures, the difference is amazing; like chalk and cheese. It's not a 'bit' quicker, it's a LOT.


----------



## T3RBO (Dec 9, 2003)

Totally agree with Steve... sod the bhp on the rollers, in real life the difference is amazing


----------



## nathan88 (Oct 18, 2009)

ttsteve said:


> The point I would make to anyone considering a remap is that regardless of the figures, the difference is amazing; like chalk and cheese. It's not a 'bit' quicker, it's a LOT.


Youv convinced me :wink:


----------



## ian222 (May 4, 2007)

I am organising another rolling road day this August but its in 2wd so the results should be more accurate. See events section for details.


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

I've never been impressed with rolling road figures and have stated so in previous posts. The results are easily 'fiddled' by tuners and are usually not correct for legitimate reasons also.

I always listen to what the seat of my pants is telling me. Also, to confirm my TTs performance I always refer to something that happens quite often when thrashing the car.

Viz. my car is pulling like nobody's business, I'm already in 6th gear, I'm prompted/fooled into looking for a gear to change up to, but I'm already in 6th and going 'like a train'. I think that confirms everything is as it should be so far as I'm concerned.

Get a re-map for sure; don't hesitate.

Joe


----------



## nathan88 (Oct 18, 2009)

ian222 said:


> I am organising another rolling road day this August but its in 2wd so the results should be more accurate. See events section for details.


Im interested in attending this...But wouldnt the results be "less" accurate, due to the rolling road being for 2wd cars?
As how does it take into consideration the loss through the power train for the 2nd set of driven wheels, prop etc?

As i thought this was the reason the last rolling road was abit "iffy"? By this i mean the topic i reserected from about 2 years ago...You know the 1 i mean?

Not be slating anything...Just curious pal...


----------



## swfblade (Apr 24, 2007)

nathan88 said:


> ian222 said:
> 
> 
> > I am organising another rolling road day this August but its in 2wd so the results should be more accurate. See events section for details.
> ...


There are always big debates about this. Haldex themselves do not recommend it, for the same reasons that you shouldn't get your haldex powered car towed on 2 wheels over 40mph. Also, the results will never be 100% accurate, as there will be some loss.

However, there are plenty on here and on other forums who always RR there cars with no problems and so long as you are only comparing your power to others who use the SAME RR and not to others, or to manufactures stated stock power, there is as least a baseline to look at.


----------



## nathan88 (Oct 18, 2009)

Yeah thats what i had a feeling about.

I mean fair play if you want to RR it based on 2WD...But like you said, you can only compare it with the people that went with you on the day...And so it becomes kind of unrelative the the manufactures standard figures, and isnt that kinda 1 of the main things you try to "beat" or "enhance" "increase" when you modify the power.?

I hope that makes sense.

Basically i should of just said...is there not a Rolling road that is is ok for 4WD cars to use? There must be...Then all the figures would be correct, or "more accurate"

Not arguing...Just curious as i want to take part


----------



## swfblade (Apr 24, 2007)

There are plenty of 4wd rollers out there, but the problem is Haldex. It's too smart for the rollers as it moves the power about the 4 wheels too quickly for them to keep up and you get dodgy graphs with loads of dips as a result. So far, no-one seems to have mastered how to get Haldex to work properly on them. 'Tis a shame, as then we would have a truly accurate comparison for these power gains quoted by tuners.


----------



## robokn (Feb 21, 2006)

Depends what the rollers are the ones @ Regal in Southampton cope no problem, mine has been on there a few times


----------



## swfblade (Apr 24, 2007)

They do? crikey, never heard of any that did before! Why are we not all arranging a group RR day down there!?!


----------

