Why 8Y quicker than 8V on 100-200?

[Luca79]

I understand that the launch control has been improved, but from what I can see also the 100-200 time is better on the 8Y, despite the same horsepower as 8V.
Are the claimed power/torque underrated, or something?

 

[boardlord]

I understand that the launch control has been improved, but from what I can see also the 100-200 time is better on the 8Y, despite the same horsepower as 8V.
Are the claimed power/torque underrated, or something?

gearing / weight / drag coefficient / S-tronic settings ???

 

[Daggerit]

I understand that the launch control has been improved, but from what I can see also the 100-200 time is better on the 8Y, despite the same horsepower as 8V.
Are the claimed power/torque underrated, or something?

I believe that the torque has been increased over a larger rpm spread on the 8Y, which would help this, as well as the other things already mentioned.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Terminator x]

Area under the curve better vs before?

TX.

 

[Daggerit]

Area under the curve better vs before?

TX.

That’s basically what I was trying to say, badly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Terminator x]

@8YARWY will know, is it a better / different turbo Sean?

TX.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

 

[8YARWY]

@8YARWY will know, is it a better / different turbo Sean?

TX.

Sent from my Pixel 6 Pro using Tapatalk

Same part number with newer revision letter

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mike.46]

As said, more area under the curve, or more mid range, it's not all about 'peak hp' probably more noticeable on a 100-200 due to the increased time spent in the midrange

 

[8YARWY]

And the performance edition has different mapping again so a little quicker they suggest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mike.46]

A lot of people seem too focused on the max, peak. or hp bragging rights, the tune I had on the Golf R basically added 33 hp (plus or minus a few hp) right across the rpm range from 3000rpm upwards, the increase in the mid range was far more useful and noticeable than the increase at the top end

The additional 33 hp at 6800rpm would be around a 10% increase.
The additional 33 hp at 3500rpm would be around a 16.5% increase

PS: The added 33hp was on actual values, they tested the Golf R at 328hp, so 328+33hp as the final figure, some companies would use the VW 306hp figure and compare their new figure to that making the 33hp increase a 55hp increase

 

[Daggerit]

A lot of people seem too focused on the max, peak. or hp bragging rights, the tune I had on the Golf R basically added 33 hp (plus or minus a few hp) right across the rpm range from 3000rpm upwards, the increase in the mid range was far more useful and noticeable than the increase at the top end

The additional 33 hp at 6800rpm would be around a 10% increase.
The additional 33 hp at 3500rpm would be around a 16.5% increase

PS: The added 33hp was on actual values, they tested the Golf R at 328hp, so 328+33hp as the final figure, some companies would use the VW 306hp figure and compare their new figure to that making the 33hp increase a 55hp increase

Totally agree. Sometimes I look at the peak figures for tuning boxes on our cars and think it’s not that great but then look at the curves and there’s a massive chunk of additional torque through the midrange, exactly as you’ve said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[furious_iPod]

Reviewed the answers,
it would be really interesting to see the difference on same level of upgrades when ECU will finally be available for tune.
For instance, 8V facelift could casually run 100-200 in low 7 secs on st2. What's the upgrade to this discipline that can bring 8y?

 

[garethdj]

Reviewed the answers,
it would be really interesting to see the difference on same level of upgrades when ECU will finally be available for tune.
For instance, 8V facelift could casually run 100-200 in low 7 secs on st2. What's the upgrade to this discipline that can bring 8y?

We’ll now pretty soon, people are starting to unlock it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Daggerit]

Reviewed the answers,
it would be really interesting to see the difference on same level of upgrades when ECU will finally be available for tune.
For instance, 8V facelift could casually run 100-200 in low 7 secs on st2. What's the upgrade to this discipline that can bring 8y?

It’s looking like a stage one 8Y remap is giving about 630-650Nm so that’ll probably be reasonably close to a stage two 8V. I believe many of them are limited to under 700Nm to keep the rods in the block so I’d like to think there wouldn’t be a massive amount in it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flybynite]

I believe many of them are limited to under 700Nm to keep the rods in the block

Has anyone found out if the rods in the 8Y are stronger than the 8V?

 

[Daggerit]

Has anyone found out if the rods in the 8Y are stronger than the 8V?

Don’t quote me but I believe they’re the same rods? I’m pretty sure someone looked up the engine parts list and they were the same number. Could be mistaken though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[8YARWY]

Has anyone found out if the rods in the 8Y are stronger than the 8V?

Same chocolate jobbies my 8V was capped at just shy of 700nm.
Although careful mapping is key really, I’ve countless cars with big torque spikes and the devils work of rolling anti-lag being used, I used that once on my 8V, all I’ll say is it can’t be good for any components in the engine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[8YARWY]

8Y DNWC

Daza

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Daggerit]

8Y DNWC

Daza

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So looks like same part number but new revision for 2020 onwards. So likely the same in ours as later 8V FL cars I presume.

 

[Mike.46]

Same chocolate jobbies my 8V was capped at just shy of 700nm.
Although careful mapping is key really, I’ve countless cars with big torque spikes and the devils work of rolling anti-lag being used, I used that once on my 8V, all I’ll say is it can’t be good for any components in the engine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I dont think I would want to go anywhere close to what people believe is the torque limit with a remap, all it needs is a little wheelspin and a torque spike and it's game over, we learned the hard way using Porsche 993 rods in our 993 GT2 race car followed by 964 rods after the first engine let go, RS Tuning in de said they are up to it, I stripped the motor to fit Carillo rods and all 3 RH side rods where slightly bent, that was a 3.6 motor doing 555hp (through 24.5 mm restrictors) in British GT (theres a reason why only the 3 RH side rods were bent )

 

[Daggerit]

I dont think I would want to go anywhere close to what people believe is the torque limit with a remap, all it needs is a little wheelspin and a torque spike and it's game over, we learned the hard way using Porsche 993 rods in our 993 GT2 race car followed by 964 rods after the first engine let go, RS Tuning in de said they are up to it, I stripped the motor to fit Carillo rods and all 3 RH side rods where slightly bent, that was a 3.6 motor doing 555hp (through 24.5 mm restrictors) in British GT (theres a reason why only the 3 RH side rods were bent )

I think that’s why 700Nm is chosen, that’s the reasonably safe maximum rather than it really being right on the raggidy edge just in case you get that bit of wheel spin or whatever. Just what I’ve been able to gather from conversations with various folk.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[garethdj]

I dont think I would want to go anywhere close to what people believe is the torque limit with a remap, all it needs is a little wheelspin and a torque spike and it's game over, we learned the hard way using Porsche 993 rods in our 993 GT2 race car followed by 964 rods after the first engine let go, RS Tuning in de said they are up to it, I stripped the motor to fit Carillo rods and all 3 RH side rods where slightly bent, that was a 3.6 motor doing 555hp (through 24.5 mm restrictors) in British GT (theres a reason why only the 3 RH side rods were bent )

Revo’s stage 1 on the 8v was capped just under 600 and that felt plenty me, reliable 0-60s I’m the 3.2s with a best of 3.08. Then their stage 2 is something like 630 from memory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flybynite]

theres a reason why only the 3 RH side rods were bent

I know one bank on the flat 6s always gets a harder time due to rotation and gravity but was there any other reason?

Revo’s stage 1 on the 8v was capped just under 600 and that felt plenty me, reliable 0-60s I’m the 3.2s with a best of 3.08.

I like the Revo map because it has less top end figures and more area under the graph (which is what they seem to have done to the 8Y) but it is missing a couple of things for me.

Problem is there does not seem to be anyone good at smooth OEM 'area under the graph' maps for the 8v, they are all so used to people wanting willy-waving dyno figures for bragging rights on instafacetube they don't know how to do anything else.

So the car stays standard, but there's plenty of time now as I won't be getting an 8Y.

 

[Mike.46]

I know one bank on the flat 6s always gets a harder time due to rotation and gravity but was there any other reason?

Porsche use the same pistons for the left and right side in a lot of applications, they did for their 993 GT2 race car, but some like early 3.0 Turbo have left and right pistons.
The Porsche pistons have offset piston pins (All engines generally have either offset piston pins or offset cylinder bores so the crank/rod/piston can never be in a dead straight line at piston TDC)
So if you set the Porsche engine to TDC both engine sides connecting rods (cyl 1 and 4) will be slightly pointing upwards (imagine a straight 6 engine and then rotate the cylinders into a flat 6, one side will now have its piston valve reliefs the wrong way, you can either make 3 different pistons or turn the pistons upside down (cheaper) )
Once you get to high torque outputs the ignition timing needs to be different for each engine side, but it isnt, so one side suffers and bends the rods before they fail.
The trick at the time was to machine all 6 pistons equaly for valve clearance and install one side 'upside down', on a 500 hp engine it also gave a free 30-40 hp alone

 

[garethdj]

I know one bank on the flat 6s always gets a harder time due to rotation and gravity but was there any other reason?

I like the Revo map because it has less top end figures and more area under the graph (which is what they seem to have done to the 8Y) but it is missing a couple of things for me.

Problem is there does not seem to be anyone good at smooth OEM 'area under the graph' maps for the 8v, they are all so used to people wanting willy-waving dyno figures for bragging rights on instafacetube they don't know how to do anything else.

So the car stays standard, but there's plenty of time now as I won't be getting an 8Y.

(Excuse the previous typos) but yes I would agree, the Revo map was very good day to day but then again that’s part of their whole philosophy.

I know you always then got the trade offs with people saying it’s off the shelf but on the flip side the R&D that goes into their maps seems to be second to none.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flybynite]

I know you always then got the trade offs with people saying it’s off the shelf but on the flip side the R&D that goes into their maps seems to be second to none.

No problem with the map as I saw what went into it, if you could select what maps were on the SPS it would have been on the car by now.

Strangely they spec what would be my choice on the Golf map but won't do it on the RS3