Seen so many threads like this over the years. They are entertaining and in the most part irrelevant.
Having been to a fair few rolling roads over the years, one way or another you'll never find a rolling road that is entirely accurate. Different software, different manufacturers of equipment different operators. However you guys like us, have done the best kind of event. In that you brought car's of a similar specification and ran them all on the same road under more or less the same conditions.
It's nearly always variable though most good RR's I've used have always been +- 5hp either way off the actual mark. The true test of an engine is a bench dyno, but no-one is going to do that.
For example I've ran at Awesome recently, achieving 305hp 360lbft (with updated pump), I ran it at RS Tuning in Leeds last month, it produced 305hp 315lbft (stock pump). Then i ran it at ProSport (updated pump), it ran approx 311hp 335lbft.
All similar headline figures yet with different torque outputs, this can be caused by wheel slip, tyre pressures or simply the way one roads software calculates variables over another, including what load parameters are used.
Someone coined a very good phrase on Cupra.net for it, we call it Dyno Lottery. Do you feel lucky.
As for the Bluefin inconsistances.
Do Superchips make any allowance for the midrange fuel cut-off caused by the standard pump?
Every other TFSI tuner on the market has identified this problem and had to alter the way they approach mapping the TFSI engine due to the way the stock pump delivers. If they are pushing the mid-range part of the map it could at worse be running lean or simply not delivering the fuel pressure where it's needed.
Alternatively they may of played it very safe across the mid-range to get round the fuel cutoff, but then not actually realised the stock pump is able to pump more fuel towards the higher end of the rev band so stalling your headline figures. In effect leaving it a bit linear when they could of bumped it up more towards the tail end. Conjecture on my part I would have to look at the graphs more closely.
Superchips have a good name no doubt otherwise they wouldn't be in the business, but I've never really seen them pushing the same kind of figures as other tuners do in most of the markets I've seen them in.
Nothing wrong with that persay, they may very well be playing it ultra safe for the manufacturers (Superchips do appear to work with the manufacturers more than others), where the American tuners do not.
In short though there could be a multitude of reasons why one car showed less figures than others, technical or otherwise.
Stock TFSI engines in nearly every application they are used in, especially this variant as used in the Ed30, Cupra and S3 have displayed higher than publicised figures on a wide number of RR's across the country.
Nearly every TFSI Cupra i've seen so far produces 260hp give or take as stock, Ed30's similarly. The only time i've seen them display lower is when they are brand new. Mine only showed 240hp when it was new, but after it got past 1000miles it physically loosened up you could feel it on the road, and low and behold next RR it went on, 260hp. It's almost like there is some inbuilt run in time that pegs back the power.
With the engineered differences of the S3 TFSI engine, I wasn't overly surprised to see the impressive stock figures last weekend at ProSport.
All my opinion you understand and I'm certainly no expert, but i've seen this subject done to death on many forums including my own. No one really provides a definitive answer.
Try a few different rolling roads, if its producing similar figures elsewhere, i'd say it's either the map or there is an underlying problem with the car, dodgy MAF or boost leak. Yes TFSI;s still get dodgy MAF's