1.0 TSI - 115ps remap to 150ps

[Chungster]

Looks like Racingline will be releasing their OEM+ remap for the Up GTI next week which of course uses the same 115ps engine as found in the Polo.



https://www.facebook.com/29973117346813 ... 19&sfns=mo




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[monkeyhanger]

150ps from 115ps (+30% on stock) is pretty ambitious (and possibly irresponsible for the tuners to do) for a 1.0 engine, especially as VW has never done a variant of the engine anywhere close to that (115ps being the highest output), unlike the 2.0 EA888 which is around in much higher guise than the Polo GTI currently uses (albeit as gen 3, not 3b).

Chances are, the torque is up slightly more than 30%. Even at 30%, you'd be up at 260Nm. The dry clutch DSG box (DQ250) is rated to 250Nm, and dry clutch design means you can't uprate clamping pressure.

I'd say you're less likely to cook the DSG than the manual clutch when tuned. Lots of people smelling burning clutch at standard manual output due to high gearing (lower gearing on the lower gears in 7 speed DSG)

Racingline don't have the AW Polo selectable at the moment, I wonder whether they'd do any specific development on the Polo to account for significantly heavier kerb weight over the Up!


Been looking at what's available for the Polo GTI also. Seen as low as +23ps for a TUV rated German supplier to as much as 260ps and 435Nm (again, seems ambitious considering Burgerports cited the standard intercooler as the limiting factor to about 250ps without issue).

Right now, for what's out there, I'd be going with DTUK - 240ps and 390Nm - it's in line with that intercooler limitation and not much over the standard 350Nm limit for the wet clutch DQ250 DSG, for which the clamping pressure can be increased (and is officially for pre facelift Golf R).

I did see a German tuning box with a drivetrain warranty, but a critical term of the warranty was proving the the box caused the damage. High chance that they wouldn't pay out.

Trouble with these remaps and boxes is, by the time you've decided to add one because you've waited long enough under warranty to be sure your car has no manufacturing issues, some people are then looking to change. This wasn't a bother previously as boxes used to be undetectable when removed, so you weren't risking your warranty. I put a DTUK box on my MK7 Golf GTD, and it was phenomenal 184ps and 380Nm up to 240ps and 450Nm.

If my Polo is a long term keeper, I might put one on at 2 or 2.5 years old, but so far at a year old and 9k miles, I'd still consider the long term reliability unproven.

I'm sure the Up! GTI I was following the other day was remapped/boxed. There's a set of lights at a major junction onto the central motorway. If I'm at the front of the queue when they change, I go flying off - the only part of my commute I can really put my foot down.

9 times out of 10, I'm stuck behind a bunch of people who crawl to 70 over half of the 2.5 mile stretch I'm on for.

On Thursday, an Up! GTI was at the front and I was just behind it. I had to use about 80% throttle to keep up with it, from 0-75, pulling into the inside lane at 75 - he carried on accelerating to about 90mph. Looked very unstable accelerating around the bend from the junction when first taking off - tall, short car with relatively high centre of gravity.

140 or 150ps and the weight difference seems about right to explain the performance seen.

[mike sel]

I will consider a remap when my car is out of normal warrantee that's 3 years I think. I wont push it to 150HP but I do like the thought of 130, just 14HP more than factory 116hp. having said that I understand every car loses 1 x HP per year? is that correct? if it is I will actually be getting 127hp just 11 more than factory so not pushing the cars components to far beyond what they are designed to take and it should give the car a little more giddy-up and slightly better fuel consumption.

[monkeyhanger]

I will consider a remap when my car is out of normal warrantee that's 3 years I think. I wont push it to 150HP but I do like the thought of 130, just 14HP more than factory 116hp. having said that I understand every car loses 1 x HP per year? is that correct? if it is I will actually be getting 127hp just 11 more than factory so not pushing the cars components to far beyond what they are designed to take and it should give the car a little more giddy-up and slightly better fuel consumption.

Not sure I believe that losing 1hp a year. In days of old perhaps, or maybe at a set point after a good few miles. At almost 13 months old, my car is appreciably more powerful (somewhere between 5 and 10%) than it was on day one and getting better even now.

Piston rings and other components are hugely better than they used to be, built to tighter tolerances, with less wear. Fully synthetic lubricants are far better too.

Appreciable fuel economy gains are largely snake oil by the tuning companies. Indicated mpg may increase on a tuningbox as the car is fooled into thinking that it is using less fuel than it is in order to derive the extra power by overfuelling and over boosting.

[fazzy]

... having said that I understand every car loses 1 x HP per year? is that correct? ...

Please, let's not bring this forum to level of urban myths and legends.
No... a car does not loose 1 hp per year.

[mike sel]

I will consider a remap when my car is out of normal warrantee that's 3 years I think. I wont push it to 150HP but I do like the thought of 130, just 14HP more than factory 116hp. having said that I understand every car loses 1 x HP per year? is that correct? if it is I will actually be getting 127hp just 11 more than factory so not pushing the cars components to far beyond what they are designed to take and it should give the car a little more giddy-up and slightly better fuel consumption.

Not sure I believe that losing 1hp a year. In days of old perhaps, or maybe at a set point after a good few miles. At almost 13 months old, my car is appreciably more powerful (somewhere between 5 and 10%) than it was on day one and getting better even now.

Piston rings and other components are hugely better than they used to be, built to tighter tolerances, with less wear. Fully synthetic lubricants are far better too.

Appreciable fuel economy gains are largely snake oil by the tuning companies. Indicated mpg may increase on a tuningbox as the car is fooled into thinking that it is using less fuel than it is in order to derive the extra power by overfuelling and over boosting.

I think I got the 1ph per year loss from Top Gear in one episode they were testing 3 cars they had brought to see how many HP they old cars still had over the sales advertised HP. I have never had that from a car mechanic. Just because top gear said it once don't make it an unban myth though, lol, people are quite cranky on here sometimes.

I did also have a Citroen C3 that was derv manual 10 plate. it was 1.4ltr producing 95hp and where I live there are quite a few hills in north Dorset one of which is Zig Zag hill (anyone had the pleasure?). the car did not pull very well up these hills, after the remap it got 20% more power and it was fine on the hills it actually became a nippy little car. Fuel econ did improve by about 5%. big however, I did have that car for about a year after the remap and I have to say I did have a feeling I was kind of expecting the car to breakdown. just never felt comfortable with its longevity. cant put my finger on anything and maybe that car is still running today, but I would be surprised.

[mike sel]

... having said that I understand every car loses 1 x HP per year? is that correct? ...

Please, let's not bring this forum to level of urban myths and legends.
No... a car does not loose 1 hp per year.

Chill out there, LOL I got it from Top gear where they tested 3 old card they brought against the advertised HP, one of the presenters made that observation. whilst top gear is merely an entertainment show some things stick in some peoples heads and that one stuck in mine. For you to say its an urban myth is rather elevating Top gears influence on the general population as a whole. or have you seen this before, if so where? it would be interesting to know what constitutes an urban myth in your mind, so much so it drives you to post a disparaging remark.

[monkeyhanger]

I will consider a remap when my car is out of normal warrantee that's 3 years I think. I wont push it to 150HP but I do like the thought of 130, just 14HP more than factory 116hp. having said that I understand every car loses 1 x HP per year? is that correct? if it is I will actually be getting 127hp just 11 more than factory so not pushing the cars components to far beyond what they are designed to take and it should give the car a little more giddy-up and slightly better fuel consumption.

Not sure I believe that losing 1hp a year. In days of old perhaps, or maybe at a set point after a good few miles. At almost 13 months old, my car is appreciably more powerful (somewhere between 5 and 10%) than it was on day one and getting better even now.

Piston rings and other components are hugely better than they used to be, built to tighter tolerances, with less wear. Fully synthetic lubricants are far better too.

Appreciable fuel economy gains are largely snake oil by the tuning companies. Indicated mpg may increase on a tuningbox as the car is fooled into thinking that it is using less fuel than it is in order to derive the extra power by overfuelling and over boosting.

I think I got the 1ph per year loss from Top Gear in one episode they were testing 3 cars they had brought to see how many HP they old cars still had over the sales advertised HP. I have never had that from a car mechanic. Just because top gear said it once don't make it an unban myth though, lol, people are quite cranky on here sometimes.

I did also have a Citroen C3 that was derv manual 10 plate. it was 1.4ltr producing 95hp and where I live there are quite a few hills in north Dorset one of which is Zig Zag hill (anyone had the pleasure?). the car did not pull very well up these hills, after the remap it got 20% more power and it was fine on the hills it actually became a nippy little car. Fuel econ did improve by about 5%. big however, I did have that car for about a year after the remap and I have to say I did have a feeling I was kind of expecting the car to breakdown. just never felt comfortable with its longevity. cant put my finger on anything and maybe that car is still running today, but I would be surprised.

That's a poorly executed experiment if they didn't know what hp the cars had on day one. If they took a "100" hp car and checked after 3 years and it had 97hp, they couldn't be sure that it lost 3hp rather than only ever having 97hp.

You can take 40 year old classic cars, dyno them and say "this had 180hp when new, now it has 140hp". You can't deduce from that it has lost 1hp a year. The 3 amateur engine rebuilds over the years and a mix of older and newer components is more likely to be responsible. All this is before you even consider the accuracy of the dyno.

If there were predictable annual losses, they'd more likely be proportional to the car's output than an arbitrary 1hp. I'd rather lose 1hp a year off a 300hp Golf R than off a 95hp Polo Beats.

Top Gear Science is terribly planned, poorly executed and for entertainment only

[fazzy]

Chill out there, LOL I got it from Top gear where they tested 3 old card they brought against the advertised HP, one of the presenters made that observation. whilst top gear is merely an entertainment show some things stick in some peoples heads and that one stuck in mine. For you to say its an urban myth is rather elevating Top gears influence on the general population as a whole. or have you seen this before, if so where? it would be interesting to know what constitutes an urban myth in your mind, so much so it drives you to post a disparaging remark.

I'm chillin' bru. I'm so cool, I'm pi**ing slush puppy
You asked a question. You got a reply. Let's stick to the topic.

[Wetherfell]

Ford have been running their 1.0 3-cyl ecoboost in the Fiesta at 140ps for some years now. From tuners "before and after" graphs I've seen it could be nearer to 150 as stock.

I can't recall seeing any reports of engine failure, what seems to have given problems is the gearbox. The original 5 speed box was marginal even with the previous normally aspirated engines, there have been numerous reports of the synchro wilting on the ecoboost, particularly the 140. The latest (2017-on) Mk 8 has a different 6 -speed box which has a higher torque rating and should be stronger and I have seen no reported breakage so far.

[monkeyhanger]

Ford have been running their 1.0 3-cyl ecoboost in the Fiesta at 140ps for some years now. From tuners "before and after" graphs I've seen it could be nearer to 150 as stock.

I can't recall seeing any reports of engine failure, what seems to have given problems is the gearbox. The original 5 speed box was marginal even with the previous normally aspirated engines, there have been numerous reports of the synchro wilting on the ecoboost, particularly the 140. The latest (2017-on) Mk 8 has a different 6 -speed box which has a higher torque rating and should be stronger and I have seen no reported breakage so far.

Lots of engine failure issues out there on the web, mainly attributed to overheating. For starters:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 6381419497

[Wetherfell]

Ford have been running their 1.0 3-cyl ecoboost in the Fiesta at 140ps for some years now. From tuners "before and after" graphs I've seen it could be nearer to 150 as stock.

I can't recall seeing any reports of engine failure, what seems to have given problems is the gearbox. The original 5 speed box was marginal even with the previous normally aspirated engines, there have been numerous reports of the synchro wilting on the ecoboost, particularly the 140. The latest (2017-on) Mk 8 has a different 6 -speed box which has a higher torque rating and should be stronger and I have seen no reported breakage so far.

Lots of engine failure issues out there on the web, mainly attributed to overheating. For starters:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 6381419497

Yes, quite correct - I should have been clearer that I meant mechanical failures due to the power output.

The issues (which were all over the web long before Autocar etc picked up on it) revolve around the cooling hose layout/material used on early 1.0 Mk 3 Focuses - the facelift version had a modified hose layout which seems to have sorted the issue. The 1.0 Fiesta had a different layout from the start and I don't recall seeing mention of this problem on those.

I'm actually running a Mk 8 140 at the mo, while waiting to see if a manual Polo GTI ever appears, so fingers crossed!

[monkeyhanger]

The output relative to the engine size means that these wound up 1.0 units run hot (some produce diesel rivaling levels of NOx), compared to a traditional petrol engine. That in turn made the coolant hose fail with a sudden and catastrophic loss of coolant. From that I'd say that output is linked to those faults. It was Ford's oversight not to fit more resilient hoses, considering the operational heat they'd be exposed to.

There's no replacement for displacement, and there are clever ways for big engines to act like small engines when under low load situations - like variable valve opening on the inlet side and use of the Budack cycle like the GTI engine does, or cylinder deactivation like the 1.5 EVO engine does.

It's a pity they didn't have a decent output TDI engine. I suspect they knocked the 1.6TDI engine down to 95ps to be WLYP compliant with respect to NOx, without having to add in one of those Adblue systems. Get rid of the Soot and the NOx on a recent diesel and it's cleaner than the equivalent, or even smaller petrol.

I do feel that you're going to see greater longevity on a larger engined car that is using a fraction of its output 90% of the time than a highly strung small engine that's going to be worked hard for a far larger proportion of its operational time.

Unless you're a motorway mile muncher like Mike-SEL, you're not going to see fantastic mpg gains over the GTI without driving like a nun, with a 1.0TSI. I'm averaging 38mpg in my GTI on my mixed 12 mile commute, and it'll average 45mpg maintaining 80 on the motorway, or 51mpg doing 70.

I really feel you'll not see the Polo GTI with a manual box in the UK, they'd have made it happen by now, as they have in a handful of other countries, and then made it unavailable again.

[Wetherfell]

The output relative to the engine size means that these wound up 1.0 units run hot (some produce diesel rivaling levels of NOx), compared to a traditional petrol engine. That in turn made the coolant hose fail with a sudden and catastrophic loss of coolant. From that I'd say that output is linked to those faults. It was Ford's oversight not to fit more resilient hoses, considering the operational heat they'd be exposed to.

There's no replacement for displacement, and there are clever ways for big engines to act like small engines when under low load situations - like variable valve opening on the inlet side and use of the Budack cycle like the GTI engine does, or cylinder deactivation like the 1.5 EVO engine does.

I do feel that you're going to see greater longevity on a larger engined car that is using a fraction of its output 90% of the time than a highly strung small engine that's going to be worked hard for a far larger proportion of its operational time.

Unless you're a motorway mile muncher like Mike-SEL, you're not going to see fantastic mpg gains over the GTI without driving like a nun, with a 1.0TSI. I'm averaging 38mpg in my GTI on my mixed 12 mile commute, and it'll average 45mpg maintaining 80 on the motorway, or 51mpg doing 70.

I really feel you'll not see the Polo GTI with a manual box in the UK, they'd have made it happen by now, as they have in a handful of other countries, and then made it unavailable again.

Pretty much in agreement with all you say there, I'm by no means convinced by the downsizing trend in terms of real world (as opposed to test environment) performance/economy - I'm getting very similar mpg (mid 40's overall, low 50's on a long run) to what I have achieved in larger engine cars.

I suspect you're going to be right on the manual - same story on the A1 and Ibiza (the rumoured Cupra seems to have entirely disappeared off the radar), so I'll have to see what's on offer when I do come to change in a year or so!