Prosport Rolling road day results

[ZBOYD]

As i say, I'm no expert or engineer. But the many years i've been going to rolling road events around the country it's the kind of debate we often see after a meet like this. I've picked up a little bit of knowledge through experience and chatting to much smarter people.

If you take the results somewhat with a pinch of salt for ultra accuracy, yet running cars of a similar ilk together gives you some kind of control figures to consider. Manufacturers measure and calculate power as an average usually. They also often under state actual power figures for commercial and legislative reasons.

For example take a Leon Cupra R, they produced a 210bhp(AMK) version first off, then a couple of years later introduced a 225bhp(BAM) version. On RR's I saw these cars as 210's put out 220+ as standard, and the 225's a similar figure. However they both chipped up to the same level of performance. Though there were small mechanical differences between the AMK and BAM engines, to put it bluntly it was nothing more than a commercial move to peg the car up against it's competitors at the time such as the Megane and Focus RS.

What I also forgot to mention is heat soak, some remaps can put a strain on the inlet temperatures. Especially if they are quite torquey boosty maps.

One of the things i mentioned at ProSport was the smaller fan, I think they could benefit from a larger unit or possibly a couple of extra fans for either side. They also shut the bonnet which means that heat can not escape quite as quickly as it might otherwise. Awesome for example leave the bonnet up, as do a few other places I've been too.

On the same hand I'm not knocking ProSport, they ran a great day and they didn't push the cars hard. Some RR' operators are complete animals, they will really rag the car hard before doing a run. ProSport were smooth and run the cars up though gears gently with a pause before what i presume were 4th gear runs.

I believe Superchips may of alluded to the intake temperatures in response to IGGU's comments. However in truth this isn't as much of an issue for the TFSi cars as it is for say the cars with 1.8T's.

The TFSI appears to be pretty damn efficient even when its running a bit on the toasty side. JonnyC commented on the temperature of his intake, yet still produced great figures. The ECU is able to compensate somewhat and the intercooler also appears to work very well.

Maybe with an improved intake and exhaust, IGGU's would deliver similar levels of performance. Remembering cars are always going to be far more efficient on the open road with proper air flow. However with VAGCOM this can usually be measured too.

My own car runs fairly aggressively too but lacks the improved intake and also does not yet have the S3 intercooler. This is reflected in my figures, i believe with an EVOMS and a better IC, the car will be producing much higher figures still and more efficiently.

1.8T's suffer more from heatsoak I think, especially with a sudden torque/boost induced heat buildup. Especially if they are still running with the stock side mount intercoolers. An FMIC upgrade on a 1.8T must be a serious consideration if you want to be able to see sustained good figures. They rarely give you a huge power increase (couple of bhp at most), but they do stop you losing power through heat buildup.

However what i'm trying to get across is a RR is a good guide as to what kind of power and torque output a car produces. However there are a multitude of reasons why people don't always get the figures they expect.

If IGGU's car feels quicker on the bum dyno, then i expect it is quicker than a stock S3 if it's delivering it right across the power-band. But the lack of improved intake and exhaust maybe hurting it when it's sat stationary on a RR. Just another theory to chuck in the pot.

 

[jamiekip]

Good to have you on this forum ZBOYD - very useful input on this kind of stuff!
:thumbsup:

 

[PaulAr]

As i say, I'm no expert or engineer. But the many years i've been going to rolling road events around the country it's the kind of debate we often see after a meet like this. I've picked up a little bit of knowledge through experience and chatting to much smarter people.

If you take the results somewhat with a pinch of salt for ultra accuracy, yet running cars of a similar ilk together gives you some kind of control figures to consider. Manufacturers measure and calculate power as an average usually. They also often under state actual power figures for commercial and legislative reasons.

For example take a Leon Cupra R, they produced a 210bhp(AMK) version first off, then a couple of years later introduced a 225bhp(BAM) version. On RR's I saw these cars as 210's put out 220+ as standard, and the 225's a similar figure. However they both chipped up to the same level of performance. Though there were small mechanical differences between the AMK and BAM engines, to put it bluntly it was nothing more than a commercial move to peg the car up against it's competitors at the time such as the Megane and Focus RS.

What I also forgot to mention is heat soak, some remaps can put a strain on the inlet temperatures. Especially if they are quite torquey boosty maps.

One of the things i mentioned at ProSport was the smaller fan, I think they could benefit from a larger unit or possibly a couple of extra fans for either side. They also shut the bonnet which means that heat can not escape quite as quickly as it might otherwise. Awesome for example leave the bonnet up, as do a few other places I've been too.

On the same hand I'm not knocking ProSport, they ran a great day and they didn't push the cars hard. Some RR' operators are complete animals, they will really rag the car hard before doing a run. ProSport were smooth and run the cars up though gears gently with a pause before what i presume were 4th gear runs.

I believe Superchips may of alluded to the intake temperatures in response to IGGU's comments. However in truth this isn't as much of an issue for the TFSi cars as it is for say the cars with 1.8T's.

The TFSI appears to be pretty damn efficient even when its running a bit on the toasty side. JonnyC commented on the temperature of his intake, yet still produced great figures. The ECU is able to compensate somewhat and the intercooler also appears to work very well.

Maybe with an improved intake and exhaust, IGGU's would deliver similar levels of performance. Remembering cars are always going to be far more efficient on the open road with proper air flow. However with VAGCOM this can usually be measured too.

My own car runs fairly aggressively too but lacks the improved intake and also does not yet have the S3 intercooler. This is reflected in my figures, i believe with an EVOMS and a better IC, the car will be producing much higher figures still and more efficiently.

1.8T's suffer more from heatsoak I think, especially with a sudden torque/boost induced heat buildup. Especially if they are still running with the stock side mount intercoolers. An FMIC upgrade on a 1.8T must be a serious consideration if you want to be able to see sustained good figures. They rarely give you a huge power increase (couple of bhp at most), but they do stop you losing power through heat buildup.

However what i'm trying to get across is a RR is a good guide as to what kind of power and torque output a car produces. However there are a multitude of reasons why people don't always get the figures they expect.

If IGGU's car feels quicker on the bum dyno, then i expect it is quicker than a stock S3 if it's delivering it right across the power-band. But the lack of improved intake and exhaust maybe hurting it when it's sat stationary on a RR. Just another theory to chuck in the pot.

So all things considered, in your opinion, what do you think is an average realistic bhp figuire for a stock 8P S3? (Sorry for the $million question!)

Cheers
Paul

 

[L60N]

I would say 280ish? Thats being conservative, but again, not to be sniffed at

 

[PaulAr]

I would say 280ish? Thats being conservative, but again, not to be sniffed at

That would be my guess also.

Must admit, it didnt feel it at first.
I had a 250bhp Golf before and the S3 didnt feel that much quicker initially, but my car seems to have loosened up a lot.

I bought it on 4K and have kept in on VPower with a good mix of pootling and spirited driving, its on 8K now and feels much more lively and less `asthmatic`.
Will it loosen up more?
Anyway Im chuffed with the car but still love the idea of 300+bhp

Cheers
Paul

 

[ZBOYD]

It's difficult to be sure, as some of the engineering differences are still somewhat shrouded in mystery.

The S3 is believed to run a different compression ratio, may have some internal differences. Though i've yet to see evidence of this fact.

There was also word that the S3 uses a slightly revised version of the K04 turbo, over that of the Cupra and Ed30. Again i've yet to see the physical evidence, though part numbers are meant to be different for all 3 turbos in all 3 applications. Of course that could purely be a VAG reference reason.??

The Cupra and Ed30 it is claimed use a twin scroll variant of the K04 turbo.

Where were absolutely certain there is a difference, is the intercooler. The S3 has a larger core with metal end tanks. The Cupra and Ed30 use a smaller core of IC, with plastic end tanks.

Recently a member of Cupra.net has changed their stock IC for the S3 part. He claims to have seen approx 20% lower inlet temps. Lower temps mean sufficiently better boost and less heat soak. Sustained power for a longer period. In short better headline figures. He has only just done the modification so he is still monitoring the improvements and no doubt will be getting it RR'd at some point.

However based on Cupra's and Ed30's showing around 20hp above stock stated figures, I would expect the S3's to deliver a similar increase.

So to stick my neck out, I say around 280hp is a roundabout average figure some will be stronger than that, some might be a bit weaker. We've seen some Cupra's make above 260 and some a little less than 260 for example.

But as i said before, on a RR this can be just as significant as different tyre pressures, or a slightly hotter run on one car than the car before it. Plus fuel does make a difference in terms of power output, supermarket special will likely produce a bit less than Shell VPower or Tesco99.

I run mine on VPower and have done since day one.

 

[phantom]

So all things considered, in your opinion, what do you think is an average realistic bhp figuire for a stock 8P S3? (Sorry for the $million question!)

Cheers
Paul

In the region of 280-290bhp depending on the car in question and the fuel used. :icon_thumright:

With 280-290lbft , my own torque is out some because of a spike in my plot ( it's been there on all my plots )

p

 

[L60N]

In the region of 280-290bhp depending on the car in question and the fuel used. :icon_thumright:

p

I still think 290 is a bit far reaching P AND top end of what we saw. Even though this may be contrary to what we saw on the day, allowing for all the variables mentioned above, and even being conservate I think a fair average figure would still be around the 280 mark.

 

[Sohrob]

Did anybody run with an uprated fuel pump? I already have the Hammer map and im getting stattler to fit the upgraded fuel pump.

 

[phantom]

I still think 290 is a bit far reaching P AND top end of what we saw. Even though this may be contrary to what we saw on the day, allowing for all the variables mentioned above, and even being conservate I think a fair average figure would still be around the 280 mark.

You are right L6ON , 280hp is a good bench mark , out of the 6 cars ive seen run , 4 have made up to 290hp while 2 have made 280+hp.

So you could say 280+hp is a good average.

Agreed.

( whisper whisper use good fuel and get up to 290hp )

p

 

[jonnyc]

Did anybody run with an uprated fuel pump? I already have the Hammer map and im getting stattler to fit the upgraded fuel pump.

Zboyd ran with the APR fuel pump and the mid range was very strong and smooth..

As far as I know that was the only car with an uprated pump fitted on the day

Jonny

 

[phantom]

Zboyd ran with the APR fuel pump and the mid range was very strong and smooth..

As far as I know that was the only car with an uprated pump fitted on the day

Jonny

Thats right Jonny , the fuel pump only gives a handful of hp top end , but 40hp in the midrange.

p

 

[maxS3uk]

Did anybody run with an uprated fuel pump? I already have the Hammer map and im getting stattler to fit the upgraded fuel pump.

How much are they doing that for?

I'm thinking of taking my car to them to have the uprated pump fitted, and maybe ssome other bits too

Do they have an email address?

 

[Sohrob]

the fuel pump is around £230 iirc plus fitting and the tweaking of the map so maybe £350 all in.

Waiting for the guy at stattler to get back from his holliday

 

[Evolve]

All the S3 8P's we have had on our dyno have produced at least 10 BHP over stock figures. Newer VAG's in general tend to make over book figures. Not seen as high as 290 BHP but anything is possible. We had a standard Megane 225 BHP make 255 BHP standard and no one would believe the owner - and we are very careful to make sure our dyno runs are carried out correctly.

 

[ZBOYD]

Thats right Jonny , the fuel pump only gives a handful of hp top end , but 40hp in the midrange.

p

Basically the fuel pump upgrade whether it be the APR solution which is a full replacement pump, or an Autotech or KMD solution where you change the internals of the stock pump is designed to increase the fuel pressure across the mid-range.

The stock pump is driven off the camshaft lobe, and as a result it's affected by the speed at which the engine is revving. Though it is fine running standard, to increase power a remap must increase both fuel and air/boost.

Herein lies the problem as the stock high pressure pump is incapable of pumping a high enough volume of fuel to support the FSI engine with even moderate modifications, much less a large turbo kit.

With up to 40% more fuel in the midrange, the uprated pumps were designed to provide the extra fuel all 2.0T FSI's need in the midrange.


My own car has seen a healthy 40-50 hp increase right across the mid-range, headline figures are not really increased. But how often are you running around bouncing off the limiter??

The midrange and the torque in the midrange is what we all strive for.

 

[Spin140]

Mark your a star and a wealth of info, good to have you on this forum and good to chat to you on the day except I have the feeling you may be costing us all some more money on future modifications

280bhp is a very reasonable figure and one to be pleased with but my view point on this thread is concentrate on how the car feels and drives, if it feels faster or more responsive mapped then it's got to be worth £500 + regardless of actual peak output.

I personally would never leave a Turbo car standard I'd always be thinking "what if ....???"

 

[L60N]

LoL SPin,

I just noted, you bluefinned your wifes car too!! Legend

 

[phantom]

LoL SPin,

I just noted, you bluefinned your wifes car too!! Legend

Speed demon isn't he

p

 

[ZBOYD]

Mark your a star and a wealth of info, good to have you on this forum and good to chat to you on the day except I have the feeling you may be costing us all some more money on future modifications

280bhp is a very reasonable figure and one to be pleased with but my view point on this thread is concentrate on how the car feels and drives, if it feels faster or more responsive mapped then it's got to be worth £500 + regardless of actual peak output.

I personally would never leave a Turbo car standard I'd always be thinking "what if ....???"

I'm no expert and I'm not always right, but I just read a lot and research stuff and chat to others in the know, that is all out there to find.

Well SEAT are pretty much managed directly by Audi now, so were probably more closely related to you than we are to our VW cousins.

As you rightly say, people do get far too hung up on peak power figures, when its how the power/torque is delivered across the whole experience.

Tuners quote headline figures because most people treat them as pub talk anyway and so few people understand that the remap is about what happens across the usable power-band and how in turn its delivered to the road.

For example, its easy to map a car for very high headline figures, but it's won't have that headline figure across it's usable range. It might top out at 320hp for only a short space of time then drop off sharply.

Another car may run 300hp, but hold it flat from 4k rpm to the limiter. The 300hp car would easily outpace the car on the road with 320hp, as its got it's power available to it fully across the powerband, the other car won't reach it until it tops out, and then it only have it for a short period of time. As soon as you change gear, you've lost it, and have to build up again.

Bit like a VTEC engine, only any good when it's screaming its nuts off.

 

[Sohrob]

With vtec though you have a good 2000rpm power band plus the way they are geared tends to keep them in vtec all the time.

 

[ZBOYD]

Good powerband, but its in the wrong place for me at least. Every one I've driven seems to demand to be ragged to do anything. Great fun on a track, but not so much fun on the roads.

 

[Sohrob]

i would agree with you, for that 10-20% of the time when you want all out fun they are great.

Day to day driving they can be a bit frustrating especially when rolling and in the wrong gear and a diesel ****** pulls away from you

 

[PaulAr]

i would agree with you, for that 10-20% of the time when you want all out fun they are great.

Day to day driving they can be a bit frustrating especially when rolling and in the wrong gear and a diesel ****** pulls away from you

Yes indeed, Been there a few times.
Still fond memories of the old CTR, epic fun when your in the mood. Noisy, harsh and cheap feeling when your not. Mega car for 6K as they are these days.

Anyway back on topic, having only skim read all of the posts, did anyone have a CelticTuning map or know much about the claimed 320bhp figures?

cheers
Paul

 

[boggysv]

the fuel pump is around £230 iirc plus fitting and the tweaking of the map so maybe £350 all in.

Waiting for the guy at stattler to get back from his holliday

I'm guessing this is not the APR complete pump? Arent they retailing for nearly 1k usd?

Anyways, on the topic of pumps, there's an interesting case on a forum called golfmkv.com where a user have his pressure limiting valve failing after installing the pump.

http://www.golfmkv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38575

Seems like the issue is with the added fuel volume per pump stroke into the rail during overrun is spiking the pressure, damaging the limiting valve. Anyone care to shed more light on this? This seems to be the only failure case I've been able to dig up so far, any other relevant links would be appreciated as well.

Comments gentlemen?

 

[Sohrob]

that i dont know, all i know is that its uprated pump which can flow around twice as much and sits in the original housing.

 

[phantom]

that i dont know, all i know is that its uprated pump which can flow around twice as much and sits in the original housing.

Thats correct , the fuel pump internals are changed to uprated ones , but the pump case is the same OEM product.

The APR replacment pump is just that , and weighs in at about £700 before a stage 2 map.

I'm guessing this is not the APR complete pump? Arent they retailing for nearly 1k usd?

Anyways, on the topic of pumps, there's an interesting case on a forum called golfmkv.com where a user have his pressure limiting valve failing after installing the pump.

http://www.golfmkv.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38575

Seems like the issue is with the added fuel volume per pump stroke into the rail during overrun is spiking the pressure, damaging the limiting valve. Anyone care to shed more light on this? This seems to be the only failure case I've been able to dig up so far, any other relevant links would be appreciated as well.

Comments gentlemen?

ZBOYDS really the man to ask , but i can shed a bit of light on it.

It's not the " upgraded " fuel pump thats the problem , it's a VAG design fault and can affect Std cars as well as fuel pump cars.

The lobe that sits in front of the cam shaft wears away ( even on Std cars ) and can result in cam shaft problems and in exstream cases engaine failure.

VAG seem to be changing the lobe at services if it is deemed worn.

I repeat this is not just a fuel pump upgrade failure , it's the lode which is the weak part , ive heard cheaking and changing the lode is not a hard job , the lode coasts around £18.

SHOROB to be on the safe side i would buy a new lode/ get Statller to get you one when you go for the pump internals.

ZBOYD will be along soon with a better explantion.

p

 

[ZBOYD]

Not seen this to be honest until today about the pressure limiting valvebut reading into it it seems there was something uniquely wrong with this car whether it be due to the installation or a part malfunction independent of the pump. I've certainly not heard of this being a commonly seen issue, as i say first i've heard of it and it dates back some time.

There are cars all over the place running these up-rated pumps some even running Stage 3 big turbo applications getting on for 380hp. VW Motorsport in Germany raced and won their class in the New Scirocco at the Nurburgring 24Hr recently running the APR pump on a TFSI engine. http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=3855643

The issue Phamtom speaks of, is a problem being encountered on tfsi fuel pumps, regarding the cam bucket and cam lobe wearing out. This was initially thought to be a manufacturing issue on affecting a small number of cars, mainly those cars running the 200hp version in Golf MkV's.

However many people since have identified the same problems of wear in cars much newer. Audi released a technical bulletin in the states regarding the problem. APR issued it along with their pump fitting instructions.

It' is recommended that all stock pumps and even up-rated ones be periodically inspected for wear on the cam bucket inside the pump.

This was the fuel pump cam bucket taken out of Awesome's own Golf MkV, when it was running a stock pump.

The one on the right is what it should look like, with a black coating.
The one on the left is what has happened to it after that coating was worn away.

The resulting damage to the cam bucket then ruined the camshaft, its difficult to see in the phone pics, but it basically has kicked the crap out of it. VW replaced the cam-shaft under warranty.

Now what APR recommend and many other pump suppliers including Autotech, is inspection of the cam bucket.

If its showing signs of wear like above, or the black coating is marked or rubbing off. Then they stress the cam bucket must be replaced. If it's already worn badly and of a particular part no. Then they recommend going back to the dealers as a new cam-shaft maybe required.

Fortunately the cam bucket is only an £18 part, that takes no more than 10 mins to replace.

But if a worn bucket is left to deteriate further, the resulting effect can be severe cam damage as seen on Awesome car, or worse complete seizure.

Worse case scenarios and I hate to scaremonger, but this is an issue that VAG know about.

It's claimed to have fixed it on newer cars, such as the S3, Ed30 and Cupra. But recently they completely changed the design on the new incoming 2.0TSI engines. They are now chain driven pumps, so what does that tell us

If they are periodically checked by a dealer or a trusted garage or tuner then the most it will cost you is £18 every so often. Think of it as a preventative measure.

See here for APR's fiting instructions for their pump, which includes the Audi tech bulletin and the explanation of the fault.

http://www.goapr.com/VW/support/fsi_fuelpump_installation.pdf

 

[ZBOYD]

To set your minds at ease, mine is a 2007 Cupra, built around February/March time. Awesome inspected mine at 5000miles when they installed the APR pump.

They had a cam bucket on stand-by, but found it wasn't neccersary as mine was unblemished and black. Plus the cam-shaft was a newer revision. It's almost certain these newer parts are in the S3's too.

However they recommended I inspect it periodically, every year in my case as i'm a low miler. But if your doing a lot of miles, every 6 months or so is probably recommended.

It's early days with fuel pumps, and no doubt if your sceptical or concerned, don't modify it yet. But they have run in different applications for hundreds of thousands of miles so far with very little problem.

I've no reason to doubt APR or Awesome, they wouldn't even change mine until they had inspected it first. They run their demonstrator hard, much harder than I would ever treat my own car and Awesome's car is running stage 3 now too.

There is also an ever increasing number of them running stage 3 in the states, and the odd few here in the uk.

 

[Iggu]

Me and Phantom went down to ProSport in Stockport (a more helpful bunch of fellas you could not hope to meet) and did a "with Bluefin" and "without Bluefin" run on the RR to try to get to the bottom of Bluefin.

"Headline" results were:

Standard Car Without Bluefin:
292bhp and 308 lb/ft

With Bluefin:
298bhp and 333 lb/ft

But you need to see the graph below for the full picture. Shows both runs side by side. I don't have a scanner at home so its not dead clear but you can make out the lines Ok I think. Certainly makes things clearer for me ...

 

[jamiekip]

Says it all really - more power and more torque right through the mid range. :icon_thumright:
Are you happier, or are you still going to take bluefin up on their offer of tweaking it?

 

[phantom]

You can see your money's been spent there can't you?

p

 

[Iggu]

Says it all really - more power and more torque right through the mid range. :icon_thumright:
Are you happier, or are you still going to take bluefin up on their offer of tweaking it?

After a week playing with it on/off I'd pretty much decided not to give myself the hassle of driving down there as it does drive so differently. When Peter at ProSport told us it was 6 bhp up on Standard with the map I was ready for a row with SuperChips again (just because they advertise a "gain" - that's how mapping companies market their product).

But this graph shows the gain - just not at the top end. It verifies for me that what I feel when I drive it isn't a placebo. Its there. Happy to be honest. Like Phantom says - I can see where my cash went and its where I'd want it to be: mid range pull.

 

[phantom]

I maybe would still speak to Superchips and find out if this is there latest/improved map?

p

 

[Iggu]

I will certainly email them this graph and see what their comments are. See if its typical for their map or if there's anything unusual. Maybe they can smooth that blip out. A very interesting week (for me anyway). Learned so much through this thread.

 

[jamiekip]

A very interesting week (for me anyway). Learned so much through this thread.

I agree - it has opened my eyes too!

 

[ZBOYD]

Glad your happier IGGU, your car is making good power and torque across the mid-range. Which as i think were all accepting, is where you need it most and benefit the most.

The torque is producing figures very similar to my own stage 2 map and with the uprated pump. I think mine is able to hold it over a longer period though.

I do find it a little odd though, that Superchips have focused seemingly successfully at producing midrange power and torque and then not tweeked up the top end a bit. Given it's easier and safer to do so due to the fuel delivery being better at high rpms.

But as I kind of guessed, they have approached mapping this engine differently to the american tuners. But then i think the other tuners, such as REVO, APR, GIAC do focus on developing VAG engines more closely. Superchips do tend to develop for lots of marques, this i think can effect their development focus.

It would be interesting to measure the fuel mixture and see if its running lean or not.

It may just be the S3 intercooler is able to deliver the denser air volume without them having to request the increased fuel??

Interesting findings though. :thumbsup:

My graph from ProSport during the RR day

 

[Iggu]

Glad your happier IGGU, your car is making good power and torque across the mid-range. Which as i think were all accepting, is where you need it most and benefit the most.

The torque is producing figures very similar to my own stage 2 map and with the uprated pump. I think mine is able to hold it over a longer period though.

I do find it a little odd though, that Superchips have focused seemingly successfully at producing midrange power and torque and then not tweeked up the top end a bit. Given it's easier and safer to do so due to the fuel delivery being better at high rpms.

But as I kind of guessed, they have approached mapping this engine differently to the american tuners. But then i think the other tuners, such as REVO, APR, GIAC do focus on developing VAG engines more closely. Superchips do tend to develop for lots of marques, this i think can effect their development focus.

It would be interesting to measure the fuel mixture and see if its running lean or not.

It may just be the S3 intercooler is able to deliver the denser air volume without them having to request the increased fuel??

Interesting findings though. :thumbsup:

My graph from ProSport during the RR day

Very interesting ZBOYD - I agree its odd. When I spoke to Jamie at SuperChips he said quite categorically that he'd never seen a Bluefinned 8P S3 coming off their RR with under 300hp. But he said that their RR would rev it to 7200 and that the power WOULD keep coming in. We asked ProSport anout this this morning and they said that their RR instructs them when to put the clutch in - and that it was around 6200. On your Cupra's graph you can see that the hp has plateaued out - but am I right in saying that on my graph the power is still climbing when the clutch is engaged. Am I reading that correctly ?

To be fair to SuperChips the torque on my graph is way ahead of what they claim - but the top end bhp is still about 10bhp short of their claims. But I'm wondering if maybe RRs are just set up differently. If I went to SuperChips and they revved it to 7200 maybe I'd see an extra 10bhp - which would get to their quoted figure after map.

I'd be keen to hear what you think - your knowledge dwarfs mine on this subject.

 

[ZBOYD]

7200rpm seems a bit high for these engines. They do rev well, better than 1.8T's do, but to be honest i would expect to see peak power on most TFSi's before 6500rpm

Rolling Roads do differ on how they operate, they all have a slightly different take on working out the figures. Which is why i've said its a bit of Dyno Lottery, you'd be better a load of you all going to Superchips for a RR day. Compare results based on a few different cars than just your own.

Comparing one RR against another is always difficult if your only using one form of control figure.

 

[Staz]

I'm on leave next month and plan to go to Superchips and get their latest map, I shall ask about a before and after graph.