ECU upgrades, poweroutputs and prices

[manol]

The dyno graph presented in the above is from my Skoda Octavia RS's dyno run so I can vouch for DNA's tune. Very happy with it and very comfortable to live with on a daily basis. Even the partner doesn't know its tuned (well at least until you step on the throttle a bit further, then all hell breaks loose).

Just out of curiosity, how old is your Octavia?

[Gti Dave]

Just out of curiosity, how old is your Octavia?

2009 model just purchased a tad over 2 months ago. Got it chipped pretty much shortly after I bought it. Its the prefacelift model witht eh golf mkV gti engine and drivetrain. Power output is bloody smooth and linear and highly predictable. Unlike the APR V2 tune in the Polo Gti.

[Ando01]

My gripe with tuning companies and for that matter car companies, when they talk power outputs is that they are talking engine power-not at the wheel power. Let's forget about car companies for a minute, a tuner who spends a considerable amount of time developing a tune for a car would presumably have worked on a number of cars and would then have an average across the range power number people could expect to get.

I have had Bluefin and now on Revo and their claimed figures really add up to nothing as what they have been able to tune the engine to is not what my car will put out on the road when I am driving. For me a tuning company that said "hey at the wheel you could expect to see at the wheel power increase from betweem X kw and Y kw" or "total at the wheel power for your car is most likely to average X kw" would be far more helpful.

All the talk about power outputs for engines only is great for the tuners but for us humble folk surely some estimated at the wheel figures would be more useful in making a decision on which tune to buy.

[DNA Tuning]

This is a very valid statement, but the reality is that it would be much more complicated to give the specification based on wheel horsepower/kilowatts. Put 2 cars on different dynos, different locations, different days, and you could say have anywhere between 110kw to 140kw on a stock Golf GTI let's say for instance.

Now, if one tuner uses a particular dyno that reads on the low side to specify their power, then they are disadvantaged. For instance, if on their dynos they achieve 110kw stock, and 135kw tuned, that is 23% gain, but another tuner that uses another dyno for development say goes from 130kw stock to 140kw tuned, which is only 8%, but their specification of 140kw at the wheels would sound more impressive.

I hope that makes sense; in reality the best way to rate power is not by absolute numbers - it should be based on percentages. Of course, with abit of maths, rating it based on engine power is essentially specifying the percentage gains, because tuners will for instance obtain 110kw at the wheels, and deduce that is the equivalent of 147kw at engine (as per VW spec). As such, 135kw at the wheels after tune would mean that at the engine there is 180kw.

My gripe with tuning companies and for that matter car companies, when they talk power outputs is that they are talking engine power-not at the wheel power. Let's forget about car companies for a minute, a tuner who spends a considerable amount of time developing a tune for a car would presumably have worked on a number of cars and would then have an average across the range power number people could expect to get.

I have had Bluefin and now on Revo and their claimed figures really add up to nothing as what they have been able to tune the engine to is not what my car will put out on the road when I am driving. For me a tuning company that said "hey at the wheel you could expect to see at the wheel power increase from betweem X kw and Y kw" or "total at the wheel power for your car is most likely to average X kw" would be far more helpful.

All the talk about power outputs for engines only is great for the tuners but for us humble folk surely some estimated at the wheel figures would be more useful in making a decision on which tune to buy.

[slipshot]

This is a very valid statement, but the reality is that it would be much more complicated to give the specification based on wheel horsepower/kilowatts. Put 2 cars on different dynos, different locations, different days, and you could say have anywhere between 110kw to 140kw on a stock Golf GTI let's say for instance.

Now, if one tuner uses a particular dyno that reads on the low side to specify their power, then they are disadvantaged. For instance, if on their dynos they achieve 110kw stock, and 135kw tuned, that is 23% gain, but another tuner that uses another dyno for development say goes from 130kw stock to 140kw tuned, which is only 8%, but their specification of 140kw at the wheels would sound more impressive.

I hope that makes sense; in reality the best way to rate power is not by absolute numbers - it should be based on percentages. Of course, with abit of maths, rating it based on engine power is essentially specifying the percentage gains, because tuners will for instance obtain 110kw at the wheels, and deduce that is the equivalent of 147kw at engine (as per VW spec). As such, 135kw at the wheels after tune would mean that at the engine there is 180kw.

All very true and quite right, but it just goes to demonstrate that the issues with dyno is as much the operator as it is the day of the week, the weather, the car etc. Basically, to my mind the only value of seeing what the ECU upgrade offers is what the manufacturer is telling you, since they have a pretty decent dyno that uses the same settings each time, coupled with the real ideal scenario of having your car on a dyno before it's been tuned, then the Bluefin or anything else is uploaded, then it is put back on the dyno and the two graphs plotted against each other. Only then can you truly see what the power gains bring.

With all due respect, seeing a graph on one car shows a power output relevant to that dyno, and that car on that day with that operator. I bet you take it back on another day and the figures will vary - perhaps not by much, but the upgrade is only as good as the car was in the first place.

Thus, any operator (and in this case DNA Tuning since they uploaded the graph above), while the graph can look good, if you could show the car without the tune and then with the tune, all of a sudden we have a proper case of same dyno, car, operator and weather (if done on the same day) that truly shows the percentage power and torque increase.

I just wish everyone could show this as then, and only then, do you see a true image of the benefit of any upgrade system.

[etechremapping]

All very true and quite right, but it just goes to demonstrate that the issues with dyno is as much the operator as it is the day of the week, the weather, the car etc. Basically, to my mind the only value of seeing what the ECU upgrade offers is what the manufacturer is telling you, since they have a pretty decent dyno that uses the same settings each time, coupled with the real ideal scenario of having your car on a dyno before it's been tuned, then the Bluefin or anything else is uploaded, then it is put back on the dyno and the two graphs plotted against each other. Only then can you truly see what the power gains bring.

With all due respect, seeing a graph on one car shows a power output relevant to that dyno, and that car on that day with that operator. I bet you take it back on another day and the figures will vary - perhaps not by much, but the upgrade is only as good as the car was in the first place.

Thus, any operator (and in this case DNA Tuning since they uploaded the graph above), while the graph can look good, if you could show the car without the tune and then with the tune, all of a sudden we have a proper case of same dyno, car, operator and weather (if done on the same day) that truly shows the percentage power and torque increase.

It's fine if the tuner has an in house state of the art environmentally controlled dynamometer as good as the manufacturer's where all their development work is undertaken

Sadly many dyno's are in garages affected by climatic conditions etc etc etc but even so the % differences should not be much.

A better test may well be rolling start 50 to 160km.

The first diesel car (of my own) which I did dropped from 30seconds 0-100mph down to 19/20 seconds... !

"wanted" -- "Test Drivers" -- LOL