Our EA288 2.0tdi 184PS Development thread..

ABYSS

Andrew - Diesel Tuning UK
Site Sponsor
Joined
Apr 7, 2010
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
699
Points
113
Location
DTUK -HQ
if youre driving a 2.0 184ps Audi A3 then this thread should be of interest to you..

At the weekend we headed down to Shark Performance to use their dyno, and also look at combining our knowledge to see what we could achieve..

This is an ongoing project which ill update regularly..

I posted this on another forum earlier today

talk is always good..


We've been involved with dual channel systems for VAG/BMW/MERC/Vauxhall for nearly 3 years now, intact we've been tuning the 2.0 140/170 with a dual channel system since 2009 and have dyno graphs from that engine showing a nice smooth curve and 220bhp and 443nm

the latest range of EA288 TDI engines in my eyes are a revelation, so much so i actually love driving our vRS

Getting onto the nitty gritty, we all know that tuned figures are like the lottery. Some of the claims being made are in my eyes unachievable, ok ill rephrase that and say that a high spike of bhp to hit the numbers is achievable but at the sacrifice of drivability.

As maisbitt has mentioned, he has loads of power but by the sounds of it his car is bordering on being undriveable as he is losing traction.

We've been working on software this last couple of weeks (without the dyn0) and we can give our customers an undriveable peaky map that within the dyno lottery would probably give 235bhp.. Yeah I've got 235bhp but i can't drive the car.

A true tuner wants to give their customers a tuned car that they can actually use, and this is why we differ from the competition and why we've invested over £25,000 in our own Octavia. This latest 2.0 184PS is going to be very popular, and we want to be the tuner of choice for VAG owners.

Im sure many of you have heard of Shark Performance, and i know that within the Skoda community they have a very good reputation, intact we used a shark performance STS on our own S3 and would be the inly people i would use for a remap.

So moving onto the 2.0 184PS

We did plan on going to our usual dyno based at Motoscope in Northallerton as this is the dyno we've used for the last 8/9 years and their figures are consistent.

2009 our 2.0TDI Seat Leon produced 210bhp and 443nm
2013 our TT TDI produced 220bhp and 443nm of torque

In those 4 years we have tweaked and developed the software which is what we will do with the latest 2.0TDI'S.

As this new engine is going to be shot topic we decided to goto a different dyno, and chose Shark's in Mansfield, factor in that they also have their own Octavia vRS and are interested in seeing exactly what we can offer them for their customers who don't want their edu opened up..

I will be posting a full write up on this forum and many others later this week, to summarise the results from saturday..


In standard form the vRS produced

141bhp at the wheel - 179.2 at the flywheel and 378nm of torque at 3003rpm

we dynode several files that we had written using the bum dyno, and the figures ranged from 210bhp unto 226bhp, but th torque on all of these files was sitting between 475 and 490nm.

After a day working with Ben on the dyno we created a smooth drivable file that produced

183bhp at the wheel - 221bhp at the flywheel and 489nm at 2150rpm


anybody that's anybody will agree that those figures are worthless as we could take the same car to 6 other dynos and the figures would vary for me the important thing i always look at are the % increases at the wheel as this takes away all of the correction bull.

So if you look at the 141 to 183bhp figures you'll see that they have increased by 29.7%

So if we were to add 29.7% to 184ps quoted by VAG then the expected figure we could quote on our website would be 239PS


so there we go, the unachievable figure i mentioned above is actually achievable but in reality on sharks dyno we only produced 221bhp..

I hope you guys are following where I'm going with this?


Either way we do intend to take our car to our usual dyno, and run the same files that we did on saturday and i guarantee the figures will be different.


So if youre looking for a company that is passionate about tuning cars, and are in it for the long term then you know who to talk too..

And this is before the introduction of a 3 channel system we are looking to develop with Shark Performance

1461666_10151702766815756_1645107569_n.jpg


1391583_10151701764235756_2057864075_n.jpg


1000352_10151701644295756_2032506166_n.jpg


1422555_10151701763540756_1391126657_n.jpg


oh yeah, the dyno sheet..

shark_zpsa9da753d.jpg


and a video..

DTUK VRS 2.0 TDI 184 PS - YouTube
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brodster and arad85
Hi Andrew - thanks for posting - very interesting.

Looking at the dyno (and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm new to this), you have lowered the RPM for peak power by ~250rpm and also a broadly similar shaped torque curve (although it is slightly higher at the 2k rpm level). Any feedback on how this affects the driving of the car? I think the vRS is FWD... can you get the power down through the wheels? Any feelings for how this would behave on a quattro?

Also any ideas what the kink is between 2500 and 3000 rpm? It seems strange and affects all curves equally...
 
Hi Andrew - thanks for posting - very interesting.

Looking at the dyno (and please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm new to this), you have lowered the RPM for peak power by ~250rpm and also a broadly similar shaped torque curve (although it is slightly higher at the 2k rpm level). Any feedback on how this affects the driving of the car? I think the vRS is FWD... can you get the power down through the wheels? Any feelings for how this would behave on a quattro?

Also any ideas what the kink is between 2500 and 3000 rpm? It seems strange and affects all curves equally...

you've read the graph correctly, first of all I'm not sure why it dips between 2500/3000rpm, as this isn't present when you drive the car, intact the car feels very smooth and pulls like a train,

Traction isn't too bad to be honest, as it all does depends on the behaviour of ones right foot, and no issues getting the power the front wheels.

Regarding a Quattro going back to when we tune the 170 Quattro's i would say that this tune is going to make for an entertaining drive :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: vegnomeat, Brodster and arad85
are you suggesting that you're holding back because the car is FWD ?

Does that mean we could see 240hp or more on a 4WD ?
 
are you suggesting that you're holding back because the car is FWD ?

Does that mean we could see 240hp or more on a 4WD ?

no, I'm saying that you should expect a 29% increase :)
 
Does that mean we could see 240hp or more on a 4WD ?
I think Andrew is saying that with quattro it will be easier to floor the pedal and not get spinning wheels...

At least that's what I'm hoping he's saying :busted_cop:
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABYSS
OK, but you talked about 235hp, that made the car undriveable.

Then showed 220hp on the dyno

could you develop ? Is 235hp a map available on the tuning box ?
 
Last edited:
1425593_10151707916970756_433847140_n.jpg


Thats right, you've read it correctly. Purchase a DTUK Petrol or Diesel Tuning System between now and the 31st of December 2013 and youre in with a chance of receiving a FULL REFUND from us for the full cost of the system.




The draw will be made on January the 3rd 2014, with the winner being named on our Facebook page.




This offer is open to our retail customers only
 
OK, but you talked about 235hp, that made the car undriveable.

Then showed 220hp on the dyno

could you develop ? Is 235hp a map available on the tuning box ?


the point i was making is that on the dyno we have seen a 29.7% increase in power, if this is then related to the 184ps the figures would be 238bhp
 
Has anyone done some before/after on acceleration times - both 0-62 and the more interesting 30-50-70 times?

EDIT: on this or any other version of your (or anyone elses) tuning box...
 
the point i was making is that on the dyno we have seen a 29.7% increase in power, if this is then related to the 184ps the figures would be 238bhp

similar to the figures Ben achieves with Volvo d5 engine fwd though that is 2.4d 5 cylinder........

one thing i will say is Ben @ sharks dyno is top notch and trustworthy !
 
  • Like
Reactions: ABYSS
Has anyone done some before/after on acceleration times - both 0-62 and the more interesting 30-50-70 times?

EDIT: on this or any other version of your (or anyone elses) tuning box...

well just tried launch control on my standard 184 :

had a problem with 0 to 60 (I cut too early)

so 0 to 56 in 6,55s
147HP at the wheel
max accel 0,77G

will try to get the 0 to 60 tomorrow
 
well just tried launch control on my standard 184 :

had a problem with 0 to 60 (I cut too early)

so 0 to 56 in 6,55s
147HP at the wheel
max accel 0,77G

will try to get the 0 to 60 tomorrow
Bloomin' 'eck! 6.55 to 56 - perhaps the 0-62 at 6.8 is pretty much spot on. Shows the quattro (and I guess launch control/stronic) helps - 100kg heavier than the manual and faster....

BTW: how did you measure all that and are you going to "invest" in a tuning box?
 
doing it with dynolicious on my iphone,

you can get a review here : iPhone Dynolicious Software Better than G-Tech? -Garage419 - YouTube

I've been using it on other cars and always had good results
on my previous car, dynolicious was bang on with the results I had when I took my car to a proper dyno.

about the tuning kit: I will invest in one at some point, not sure when
 
Last edited:
Yes sure ! ;)

Andrew : I heard you're testing 3 way tuning boxes, should we wait for them ?

what are the pro and cons ?
 
Yes sure ! ;)

Andrew : I heard you're testing 3 way tuning boxes, should we wait for them ?

what are the pro and cons ?

We aren't offering the 3 channel, we're continuing with the 2 channel
 
Now the vRS has a few more miles under its belt we thought we'd take it back to the dyno..


OCTAVIA3_zps1944fbc5.jpg


232.9bhp and 368.6lbft/501nm - map 4 plus 1
 
Well there are some really funny things with the figures you have quoted.
On the initial testing at Shark you got 141 bhp at the wheel and 179.2 at the flywheel. the 179.2 sounds reasonable for a 184 bhp car but if you work out the transmission loss thats 21% ?? 179 * 0.79 = 141 which is a daft figure for a FWD car like than and more what I would expect on a quattro.
On the second run you had 183bhp at the wheel and 221 bhp at the flywheel thats a 17% loss 221 * 0.83 = 183. A more realistic figure but still high and the transmission has suddenly improved it's efficiency by 4%.

Then to go to the results you have just posted the car is now making 206 bhp at the wheels when the previous best was only 183 bhp so it's improved 11% over what it was doing earlier 183 x 1.11 = 203 bhp .
It must be the transmission losses have dropped a lot more to free up all that extra power.
But no, if you look at the transmission losses on the seconds run 233 x 0.88 = 205 so the calculated transmission loss is 12% which is what I would expect.
Going to a different dyno is a waste of time everybody knows some dynos are more accurate than others.Some are wildly OTT .They are useful only as a comparison between two runs to see the effect of a change.
Any attempt to try and calculate the actual flywheel power is only ever going to be a guess, the only way to do that is on an engine dyno.
If you work on a 12% transmission loss the first run at shark 141bhp would be 141 / 0.88 = 160 bhp pretty poor and the second 183 / 0.88 = 208 bhp thats a 23% difference 160 / 0.77 . The first run was obviously low so I would question the 23% improvement.

Just out of interest how much pressure is the pump calling for in a standard car and how much are you asking it to do to get these improvements .

Karl.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kanecullen89 and vegnomeat
Well there are some really funny things with the figures you have quoted.
On the initial testing at Shark you got 141 bhp at the wheel and 179.2 at the flywheel. the 179.2 sounds reasonable for a 184 bhp car but if you work out the transmission loss thats 21% ?? 179 * 0.79 = 141 which is a daft figure for a FWD car like than and more what I would expect on a quattro.
On the second run you had 183bhp at the wheel and 221 bhp at the flywheel thats a 17% loss 221 * 0.83 = 183. A more realistic figure but still high and the transmission has suddenly improved it's efficiency by 4%.

Then to go to the results you have just posted the car is now making 206 bhp at the wheels when the previous best was only 183 bhp so it's improved 11% over what it was doing earlier 183 x 1.11 = 203 bhp .
It must be the transmission losses have dropped a lot more to free up all that extra power.
But no, if you look at the transmission losses on the seconds run 233 x 0.88 = 205 so the calculated transmission loss is 12% which is what I would expect.
Going to a different dyno is a waste of time everybody knows some dynos are more accurate than others.Some are wildly OTT .They are useful only as a comparison between two runs to see the effect of a change.
Any attempt to try and calculate the actual flywheel power is only ever going to be a guess, the only way to do that is on an engine dyno.
If you work on a 12% transmission loss the first run at shark 141bhp would be 141 / 0.88 = 160 bhp pretty poor and the second 183 / 0.88 = 208 bhp thats a 23% difference 160 / 0.77 . The first run was obviously low so I would question the 23% improvement.

Just out of interest how much pressure is the pump calling for in a standard car and how much are you asking it to do to get these improvements .

Karl.

We can sit and analyse figures all night and I agree it's no good comparing any 2 different dynos is fruitless .. I know that if we went to a third dyno the figures and % would yet again be different.

We've used this particular dyno for the last 8 years and the figures are always consistent.

I can't answer your question regarding the fuel pump pressure
 
  • Like
Reactions: s33nyboy12
I'm not backing up abyss and his figures as he and I know we have had our differences previously..........
However figures aside or calculations aside, I know Ben @ sharks dyno is accurate so therefore I would believe the claimed tuning end result.

Sean
 
This guy seems to be trying pretty hard and he is nowhere near 6.8 seconds only manages 7.4 with launch control.
Aaaaaaaaaand that's why you spend extra on a quattro :)

The quattro times are quicker than the FWD, despite the extra 100kg. You can see in that video the tyres losing traction - 184PS/350NM is a LOT to get down through 2 tyres....
 
Looking at the the two dyno runs there is a noticeable dip in power that occurs from 2750 to 3250 rpm. I wonder if this is related to the inablity of the fuel pump to provide sufficient pressure/ flow for the requested demand.
The Pump used is a CP4.1 with a single barrel .The designation R35 refers to the capacity of the pump. The pumps have various size pistons and different strokes to alter the capacity.

Inside the HPFP - TDIClub Forums

If you look at the pump on a 3.0 V6 they use a cp4.2 rated at R65 nearly twice the capacity for only 240bhp.
The pump used in the VRS is used across many other engines in the VAG range from the 1.6 through to the 2.0 engines.
It's in the interest of the manufacturers to size the pump at a level that just does the job. Larger capacity pumps take more power to run so impacting fuel economy etc.
With this kind of tuning box they rely on upping the pump pressure to get more fuel flow. If the car currently calls for 1700 bar when running flat out and you want 10% more power you need more pressure If you raise the pressure to 1870 bar that will give you roughly 10% more fuel but obviuosly there is a limit to how much pressure you want to ask for.
This tuning box uses a second channel to massage the boost signal to produce some more boost to try and keep the AFR reasonable and the EGT's down as well as looking after the DPF a bit but at the end of the day it's fuel that gives power so when there is talk of 30% improvements you know thats never going to happen with this kind of box as the fuel pressure would have to be off the scale.
You can get large improvements in the mid range performance with big gains in fuel pressure and boost over what the car would normally have and this can be seen in the dyno plots.
I agree that the final run on the shark dyno at 220bhp sounds plausible. Going from 184bhp to 220bhp would be a 17 % improvement and going from say 1700 bar that would mean the pump pressure would be around 2050 bar. 1700 / 0.83 = 2048.
The CP4 pump is designed for 2000 bar max .
The reason I asked about pump pressure is there is a big issue with these pumps in the USA, probably related to the poor quality of their diesel and the money saving approach that is taken with these pumps that are no where near as reliable as the old school CP1 , CP3 pumps.
These boxes have a place in the tuning world but I don't think it's for out and out performance. On a remap if you want more fuel you probably will increase the pump pressure a little but most of the gains come from injecting for longer. It's the pressure the pump is generating that wears them out not the volume of fuel it's flowing.

Karl.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mister.c. and kanecullen89
video I made after fitting the box :

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: arad85
Just before anyone gets uber excited by snowfree52s post... those are km/h on his speedo, not mph :D
 
Out of interest Andrew (as I may well have one of your boxes now) which setting on your box did you get the max dyno figures from?

snowfree52: what are you finding your box best set to?
 
4+1 for the moment, 4+2 has bad fuel economy
 
  • Like
Reactions: arad85
Thanks. Strangely (or perhaps not!), mine has come preset to 4+1....

Map 4 plus 1 is what I recommend :)

I took the liberty to preset your kit to that setting
 
we took the Skoda back to the dyno again this weekend, it now has 3,800 miles on the clock and it seams to be loosening up nicely..


This should be of interest to a few of you :)


This run was using map 3 plus 1...

OCTAVIA_240_zps08a0a777.jpg


240bhp and 372.4lbft / 505nm!! at 2625rpm

we then ran it on the usual map 4 plus 1.

SKODA_MAP4_zps8a1f7d22.jpg


237bhp and 370.7lbft / 504nm at 2306rpm
 
This should be of interest to a few of you :)
I've still not fitted mine (the wiring loom is in though!!). Only done 602 miles.... I'm doing my best to get as many miles on as soon as possible but I'm not ding too well!

BTW: is map 4 the one that gives best boost at lower revs?
 
Andrew, How is map 3 to drive ?

I thought map 4 was the one that gave the best torque/power
 
Map 4 plus 1 is what I recommend :)

I took the liberty to preset your kit to that setting
Thank you :)

Even though I've had the box 2 weeks, I only fitted the box today (when I changed the insurance over, they wouldn't put the box on the insurance unless I had it, so I ordered it 2 weeks ago). A bit less than recommended 1000 at 850 miles on the clock, but I'd had long enough waiting!

Wow is all I can say. Turns a very nice "fast" car into a very nice "very fast" car. The surprise comes not just with the acceleration (it is now very quick off a standing start once you are past 1500rpm) but the fact it is still pulling like a tractor with no sign of giving up as you go into the illegal speed area....

Money very well spent IMHO.
 
I thought you'd like it ;)

The feedback were getting from Audi VW Skoda and Seat owners running the latest 2.0 150/184 has all been fantastic :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: arad85