AMD or Revo??

Westle said:
My other half doesn't even know about my remap! I just got up early one saturday morning and told her I was going to work for some overtime.... came back a few hours later with a smile on my face :racer:

If you have a joint account she can check you're stuffed though :banghead:
Click to expand...

No joint account, but we are looking to move in together. So all our money is tied up atm.
 
Dani_B19 said:
Read through, shows an increase on 10bhp on a mapped leon, compares the standard set up too:
http://www.seatcupra.net/forums/showthread.php?t=242751
Click to expand...


Doesn't this guy compare the cone result with the standard set-up result he previously had on a different day (possibly warmer day)?

I'd say Ess Three's results are more conclusive, but i'm sure it's possible for different people to have different results on different (but similar) cars.
 
i have done lots of logs recently with pipercross pannel filter which nearly every time gives a peak maf reading of 204gs give or take, i done a couple of logs last nite with the bmc filter fitted mostly the results were lower like 202gs but one was peaking at 208.64gs so once adapted might be ok and steady higher then lower
 
i think it would be worth talking to AMD and having an idea as to what you want your car to be like. if you want a very punchy map ( as i did, and still loving the punch!!) then go revo, if you want more progressive then try AMD.
 
Just because a RR don't show no increase in powerr or torque, doesn't mean the driveabilty of the car hasnt been improved.
 
S3 HODGE said:
REVO! All day any day :)

Jojo I wish i never filmed this coming from the Revo side! But for your luck i didnt film the second run! :whip:
Click to expand...

In all honesty, I had the perfect run in that clip, but the timer didn't register my time, which is a shame... well it did...1/4 miles in 10 secs apparently! yeah right! :)

In the second run, we both got it wrong, and was in the 15secs, which is crap.

I have no doubt the Revo is more aggressive midrange, but I think I have you guys licked at top end, I was reeling Jason(Voorhees) in, near the end of the strip, I was almost level with him, despite being 2-3 car lengths behind at one point!(We have different driving styles)

I have to point out that 1/4 mile times and how it looks in vids is 2 different things. It doesn't take reaction time into the equation, so I could still get a better 1/4 time than my opponent if I reacted 1/2 sec later than him. But it will look like I lost the race.

The vid is just a bit of fun, and is only valid for 12 months :), so rematch next year at GTI Inters if we both still have our S3's! :racer:
 
jojo said:
The vid is just a bit of fun, and is only valid for 12 months :), so rematch next year at GTI Inters if we both still have our S3's! :racer:
Click to expand...

Well i will film both runs this time and only upload the Revo winners :). If i have a strip-worthy car next year i will stick her on i think :yes:
 
S3 HODGE said:
Well i will film both runs this time and only upload the Revo winners :). If i have a strip-worthy car next year i will stick her on i think :yes:
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for someone with a remapped Diesel to accept my 1/4 mile challenge at GTI Inters next year.

They are all running scared. :moa:
 
When I had my original map put on at big boys toys Essex I was having the Amd map put on, mainly because at the time I didn't know much about revo ( I'd had Amd on my previous car ) when I spoke to one of the lads that worked there picking his brain about the 2 maps he said that generally speaking the Revo would get away quicker but the Amd would reel it in, so over a reasonable distance ie 1/4 mile there wouldn't be anything in them...
 
jojo said:
I'm still waiting for someone with a remapped Diesel to accept my 1/4 mile challenge at GTI Inters next year.

They are all running scared. :moa:
Click to expand...

Who knows? maybe they will pull a BT 1.8T out the hat? :moa:
 
S3 Nattie said:
Just because a RR don't show no increase in powerr or torque, doesn't mean the driveabilty of the car hasnt been improved.
Click to expand...

what it does show though is the power hasn't infact increased..... considering thats what these firms live by 'power figures' it proves them wrong..... also consider why many race teams using the 1.8T's continue to this day with the standard airbox (obviously not BT's )

for me that is an unessesary part to change, im not in the habit of wasting money for the sake of a 'whoosh'....if it gave me 5bhp id be straight down to the shops to buy one otherwise....
 
go get one then, i went out doing more logging lastnite and hit a peak maf reading of 211.5 g/s and lots of 206's and 207 g/s. before fitting the bmc i was getting 204 nearly everytime. i also done logs on my actual v requested boost and its meeting requested boost quicker then before so its not in my head that its spooling quicker.
i cant see how people think the bmc is restrictive i certinally dont but the std air box seems to be restrictive in comparison maybe its just my setup
 
your not getting 5 bhp+ :)

kev have you read the original thread by Glen? this test was conducted without an airbox and with the airbox...... there was hardly any difference which led Glen to maintain the original airbox.... that S3 was pretty much as maxed out as any KO4 S3 is likely to get

now im happy that your getting all these logs etc showing you what the difference is, but until you have evidence that it is actual and not based around sensors readings, then i will be keeping my airbox..... try doing the actual test in test conditions via an RR

be interested to find what 1.8T experts such as Bill think about this.... surely some other testing has been carried out at some point to swing it either way? as it stands all we have is what Glen spent thousands of his own cash on to ensure he was only changing what was absolutely needed
 
rolling road is just lottery stuff on road test is actuall tests, i no you dont like the sensor theroy but if the engine is reading more air in then there is always going to be a gain in bhp as its one of the key parts in an engines performance as long as you have sufficient mods to get rid of the burnt gasses after.
my previous logs also showed little gains over standard but since letting it adapt then doing more logs i have now definantly gained with out dropping maf readings. so on this dyno lottery test was the car left and run on road to let the ecu adapt to the new mods or just chucked on and re-run???
 
IIRC the test was on the RR and not left to adjust.....the RR is dyno lottery.... what he used as a gauge is that 1 run on an RR then upgrading, then another run will infact produce an increase if there is infact one there....assuming all the calculations are done exactly the same.... this was done at Star performance, your best searching for it

the thing is (nothing against you) Glen spent thousands that day testing various bits of kit to see what was worth putting on his S3 to squeeze that little bit more power out..... you have simply checked your logs. Whilst i dont wana promote people 'not' testing, it seems to me that the tests Glen conducted were pretty robust (would you spend thousands testing?)....

im not 'pro Glen', i'm merely not into spending money for tha sake of it and the write up from that day still stands today.....nobody has proven otherwise
 
i have spent thousands testing rather then just looking to what others have tried and going by there experinces, i was one of the 1st to try ap coilovers where most would just go out and get the 'tried and tested' billys and h+r combo. also the large fmic that most deem to big for a k04 turbo.
what have you tested other then a cc remapp?? no offence but serching on fourms and going by other peoples rr graphs where its had no time to adjust to the replaced parts, imo thats not a way to test parts on a car that is known to have a adaptive ecu.
As per my 1st logs with the bmc fitted if i were on a rr test i no doubt would have lost bhp as thats what my maf readings were indicating at the time but also on the rr i would'nt have felt the difference the bmc actually made to the feel of the car where as on road testing you can
 
'what have you tested other then a cc remapp??' - I am not a mechanic for a living, nor do i pretend to be, what i have is a knowledge from my uni years of engineering both electrical and mechanical..... i know a few crap mechanics and i know some ****** good ones that are able to do things with cars i never thought possible..... i DON'T just take someones word for it when i read something...i look into it further if its not something i can do myself.... this is what i basing my theory on

from what Glen has done for this forum and by his S3, he has far more credit to his name than you, yet you pop up fitting a cone to your car and sprouting how its increased your power JUST by logging..... your gonna have to come up with something better than that to convince....otherwise im afraid you'll just end up another sales figure for these lovely chaps selling 'cones' claiming ridiculous figures....

fully appreciate what you have tested previously.... BUT you havent gone anywhere near the levels that Glen did which is where your argument falls down.... i appreciate what your vagcom tells you, try a clinical test via an independent piece of equipment (your only option is to bench test the engine or RR it).....then run (after your ECU has adjusted if you so wish) in as near the same conditions again....THAT is what will tell you what you have in terms of bhp....not what a sensor tells you,converting to a hidden calculation bhp figure......

you have done the easy bit in logging, you havent proven anything other than an increase in the air going past your MAF..... as you have stated, that doesnt automatically equate to power, and the difference is so minimal I would question the benefit vs cost

personally i think you'd be better ripping your back seats out spare wheel to create the same effect :)
 
1animal1 said:
'what have you tested other then a cc remapp??' - I am not a mechanic for a living, nor do i pretend to be, what i have is a knowledge from my uni years of engineering both electrical and mechanical..... i know a few crap mechanics and i know some ****** good ones that are able to do things with cars i never thought possible..... i DON'T just take someones word for it when i read something...i look into it further if its not something i can do myself.... this is what i basing my theory on

from what Glen has done for this forum and by his S3, he has far more credit to his name than you, yet you pop up fitting a cone to your car and sprouting how its increased your power JUST by logging..... your gonna have to come up with something better than that to convince....otherwise im afraid you'll just end up another sales figure for these lovely chaps selling 'cones' claiming ridiculous figures....

fully appreciate what you have tested previously.... BUT you havent gone anywhere near the levels that Glen did which is where your argument falls down.... i appreciate what your vagcom tells you, try a clinical test via an independent piece of equipment (your only option is to bench test the engine or RR it).....then run (after your ECU has adjusted if you so wish) in as near the same conditions again....THAT is what will tell you what you have in terms of bhp....not what a sensor tells you,converting to a hidden calculation bhp figure......

you have done the easy bit in logging, you havent proven anything other than an increase in the air going past your MAF..... as you have stated, that doesnt automatically equate to power, and the difference is so minimal I would question the benefit vs cost

personally i think you'd be better ripping your back seats out spare wheel to create the same effect :)
Click to expand...
i appreciate what glen has done for the forum and the test he has carried out im not saying he's wroung with any of the modifications he has carried out im just stating that imo an air filter on my car has done some improvements no need to go on a rr to prove that i may or may not have gained any bhp or possibly lost any because in real world circumstances i notice an improvement where air is being drawn down the cold air feed and into the induction kit not possible with a rr even with a big fan,
i belive i have carried out many tests on my own car much in the way glen has done i just dont write a new thread about every product i have tested on here i reply to someone asking a question about a product i have either tested or have fitted to my car im not as clued up on the tecnical stuff as glen is to give detailed reports however im intelligent enough to no what im doing and to no if im correct in what i have done,

Just like to add i wasnt the sales figure for the bmc as id never have risked paying £200+ for an air filter that my improve things may not have done i left that to the guy i brought it off for £70 :)
 
1animal1 said:
what it does show though is the power hasn't infact increased..... considering thats what these firms live by 'power figures' it proves them wrong..... also consider why many race teams using the 1.8T's continue to this day with the standard airbox (obviously not BT's )

for me that is an unessesary part to change, im not in the habit of wasting money for the sake of a 'whoosh'....if it gave me 5bhp id be straight down to the shops to buy one otherwise....
Click to expand...

Well I did get about 5 g/s of air flow when I put a cone on, may not be 5 bhp increase but it is a increase never the less. The car is also smoother during acceleration.

The main reason I fitted a cone was for the extra sound.
 
no worries Kev..... well fill us in on ya testing next time.....you know im all ears ;)Nattie.... if you fitted it for sound then fair enough, you may have more airflow but is it the correct sort of air?....ie cold air ;)
 
I would like to have a race with any other stage 1 S3 next year, i.e amd CC etc all I have is stage 1 as seen on the signature.
 
And your making 312lb/ft of torque from just a stage 1 :think:
 
I am thinking of changing my filter now to a Jetex one after reading one of the Cupra R boys results. Its a far bit bigger than the filter I have on now and for £47 ish, seems pretty good.
 
im just gonna increase my cold air intake to a 4" jobby once the FMIC is on....that may be why Glen didnt find any increase in airflow and will ensure all of my airflow is cold air :)
 
1animal1 said:
no worries Kev..... well fill us in on ya testing next time.....you know im all ears ;)
Click to expand...
and mouth :jester: :)
on a serious note iam attending the rr day with tuffty etc and the only changes to my car since amd has been the bmc and 007p so we shall see if there is any improvements or losses, however its a different rr and different day i no but if the difference is massive its can only have improved/lost power from the bmc
 
i cant disagree fella :respekt:

I think it would take the same RR (same conditions) to convince me mate TBH.... the other consideration is the fact that the ambient temp of the increased airflow would have theoretically dropped, hence why im still thinking 4" CA feed once the FMICs on.

if your getting a massive difference in power, the 007p and filter wouldnt be to blame i shouldnt think.....
 
Dani_B19 said:
And your making 312lb/ft of torque from just a stage 1 :think:
Click to expand...

Yep, like said the revo along with the forge DV, & milltek is putting out 312lb/ft , its very torquey... thanks to the ppl at AMD essex. :gun2:
 
Thats a hell of amount of torque from a stage 1, not disagreeing that your car isnt making that amount at all but is that RR'd tested too?
 
it is considering the Revo isnt a fully customisable map in stage 3 guise...... ive not heard of a stage 1 hitting those figures....Revo controller or not

open to being proven wrong

big misinterpretation that Revo maps are open to manipulation by the supplier...they are limited, otherwise Revo would be leaving themselves wide open. Also one of the reasons JBS no longer use them..... because they are adjustable only within parameters - although i know a lot of Revo dealers will argue the toss :)
 
Back on topic and directed to the OP (enough of this nonesense about who's is quicker, better or has an extra 1bhp here or there, or even how much air flows through the damn air filter rubbish!)

I too am an Ex M3 owner. Yes the remap is a must on the S3, far too sluggish without, but it really doesn't matter which one you go for. Turbo cars perform differently each time you put your foot down on the same day let alone different days/atmospheric conditions.

I got the JBS remap, green panel filter and Forge DV offer for £350. Its been spot on.

Enjoy!
 
I remember back in the earlier days when everyone was getting their 8L S3's remapped 300lb/ft of torque was standard reading, and we all got wet over it, as no one could dyno a Haldex equipped car properly.
 
I was very impressed with the result myself I do have a print out so if you guys feel the need I need to prove it, then by all means, I will upload it. the first run after the map was even higher with 324lb/ft but low on bhp, so they had to change things around a bit to get a better result in between. but then again I have only had her on RR at AMD essex I don't know if I have to do a RR at a different place to get a better mean result!
 
312lbs/ft !! thats extremely generous isn't it :) I'm a Revo man but someones pulling your leg with that figure.
 
So you think they made it up then! I am curious. It felt way quicker than pre-map. So I feel a bit confused now. What are my rights? If any! Shall I get an independent RR to see if it matches? or take it back? what do I say to them?
 
S3KO4 said:
So you think they made it up then! Shall I get an independent RR to see if it matches?
Click to expand...
I dunno its curious but if any RR days come up which are local to you I would get it done.
Mine was 275lbs/ft when last tested which keeps me firmly in the seat :)
I always remember the saying 'its a dyno lottery' as the figure can vary depending on what the technician does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Revo or Amd
Replies
7
Views
988
voorhees
voorhees
Sandip
  • Start Poll
apr, revo, amd, superchip or jabba?
Replies
37
Views
3K
emzino
emzino
jack.s
stage 2 revo or AMD for S3 AMK
Replies
26
Views
4K
superkarl
superkarl
audia3turrbo
revo remap vs amd
Replies
17
Views
5K
DJ_Troopa
D
JamS3
APR or AMD???
Replies
6
Views
1K
Gambba
G
Top
Back