ECU tune and emission requirements

[JonP01]

It would appear that the only impediment to significant increases in engine power output is the cost of certification.

From your own perspective, if the cost of a claim potentially being denied by an insurance company is greater than the cost of certification (judging from your posts, that appears to be the overriding impression), then it would make sense to pay for the cost of certification, freeing you from insurance claim worries and the 20% limit.


Gotta pay to play (by the rules).

Possibly true but possibly not. The engineer may find, for example, the brakes are no longer adequate to support the power increase. Then an inocuous $750 tune has turned into a modifcation worth several thousand dollars at least and probably much more, given the starting price for engineers is $1,000 upwards.

I was only ever interested in a mild optimisation in any case. As I say, the engne is already 90% there as it is, but the smoothness, driveability and linear power delivery can all still be improved over the stock engine. I never wanted to tune the engine to the point where I had to start considering other things such as the driveline, brakes, etc.

[Lucas_R]

Although it might not have rolled off the showroom floor yesterday, an 8 month old car is pretty new if you ask me, and im sure your VW warranty would still be on your mind at this point in time, given that you still have 2 yrs and 4 months left.

Viezu and Superchips do offer a "warranty" of sorts, which personally i don't believe in - but as far as im aware neither of them offer a tune for the 1.2T 77TSI engine? So you can pretty much scrap them off your list unless they have released something recently for this engine that ive missed.

With these "warranties", also treat these with some caution, because if and when something does go wrong, the VW dealer will blame the tuner, and the tuner will blame the car/dealership.....and you will end up wearing it regardless. Unless you are extremely lucky, you will end up paying for it out of your own pocket.

As far as im aware, DNA and BSR are the only companies which offer a tune for this engine locally. There are quite a few people on here with 77TSI Polo's already running the DNA 100kw tune without any issues.

Ive never read of ANYONE on here with a tune from BSR, so i would approach them with some caution if you are considering using them. Although they appear to be a reputable company and have a pretty website, the fact that ive never come across a single person on here (or other VW forums) with one of their tunes would be enough for me to wonder why? I can assure you that BSR did not take the 20% power increase law mentioned earlier into consideration when developing their tune, it's simply coincidence that thats how they have rated their tune.

[Diesel_vert]

Well, if you don't want to pay for the cost of certification (whatever that entails), then either:

- ignore the regulations and get whatever you like
- get a 'de-tuned' tune or something
- leave it as is and put up with a '90% there' engine

[JonP01]

Although it might not have rolled off the showroom floor yesterday, an 8 month old car is pretty new if you ask me, and im sure your VW warranty would still be on your mind at this point in time, given that you still have 2 yrs and 4 months left.

Viezu and Superchips do offer a "warranty" of sorts, which personally i don't believe in - but as far as im aware neither of them offer a tune for the 1.2T 77TSI engine? So you can pretty much scrap them off your list unless they have released something recently for this engine that ive missed.

With these "warranties", also treat these with some caution, because if and when something does go wrong, the VW dealer will blame the tuner, and the tuner will blame the car/dealership.....and you will end up wearing it regardless. Unless you are extremely lucky, you will end up paying for it out of your own pocket.

As far as im aware, DNA and BSR are the only companies which offer a tune for this engine locally. There are quite a few people on here with 77TSI Polo's already running the DNA 100kw tune without any issues.

Ive never read of ANYONE on here with a tune from BSR, so i would approach them with some caution if you are considering using them. Although they appear to be a reputable company and have a pretty website, the fact that ive never come across a single person on here (or other VW forums) with one of their tunes would be enough for me to wonder why? I can assure you that BSR did not take the 20% power increase law mentioned earlier into consideration when developing their tune, it's simply coincidence that thats how they have rated their tune.

You are quite correct that the warranty would weigh on my mind regardless and I am also pretty sure if anything went wrong it would become a blame game with me as the loser. That is why I am still at the consideration stage and weighing everything up, though of course the main things being discussed here apply to anyone regardless of the age of the vehicle and warranty status.

DNA have demonstrated the best customer service thus far, with prompt responses to my emails. I have not heard back from Viezu nor have I heard back from BSR. All tuning companies need to understand that prompt responses to enquiries gives a potential customer confidence, whereas slow replies or replies not directly answering questions tend to be regarded with reservation. So if I don't get answers, say within 48 hours of asking simple and direct questions, then I would perhaps be wondering what would happen down the track if I bought their tunes and something went wrong. I also read on another forum where someone wasn't too impressed with BSR customer service, but that of course was just one person's story. So in these terms, DNA wins out in these aspects. DNA have also impressed as evidenced by the post in this forum where they would offer to de-tune the Stage 1 tune so that the theoretical power increase is less than 20%, thereby avoiding the need for expensive certification. The BSR tune seems to be relatively new and I suspect that apart from that, perhaps because it is more conservative in terms of power and torque yield, people just prefer to go with DNA, since the DNA tune is cheaper and yields considerably more power and torque.

Superchips do now have a tune for the 1.2 TSI (for the same engine in the Audi, VW and Skoda) - you can go to the website and see there is one there. It is midway between the BSR and DNA tune - similar power to the BSR tune but more torque, so in terms of what I want, the Superchips tune would - all other things being equal - be more appropriate. But again, there are Polos and Polos - mine would almost certainly have a newer encryption on it that perhaps neither the BSR or Superchips tune can cope with.

The other advantage with Superchips is that the service centre who will be looking after my car is a Superchips dealer and they are 5 minutes from my home.

But as you say, the warranty is a big issue and possibly in the end it isn't worth offsetting that liability against the (admittedly obvious and clear cut) gains that a good tune would provide whilst the car remains under VW warranty. I know these companies spell out their warranties but I would be absolutely amazed and stunned beyond belief if any tuning company with a comprehensive warranty were to pay up for a new turbo for example. Not saying it couldn't happen, just that I would be amazed to hear of it happening. They could blame VW and VW could blame the tuner because the turbo was running 2 psi higher than stock, for example.

I just wish VW had offered a Polo in the Australian range between the Comfortline and GTI. That would have made me 100% happy with the stock car. There are more choices in the Golf range, but you need to get the 118TSI engine in the Golf to better or even just equal the stock Polo 77TSI performance. The stock Golf 90TSI performance is worse than that of the stock 77TSI Polo most likely because the Golf weighs considerably more. By the time you get to a Golf with a 118TSI engine, you are in a completely different price class and a whole heap of alternative options become available for consideration.

It is a big jump in the range from the Comfortline to the GTI and I think given that VW now have the Up! for young P-Plate purchasers, for example, the Polo Trendline should have just been dropped from the range altogether (seriously, how many of these do VW actually sell?), the 77TSI made the base model and then something shoe-horned between that model and the GTI. Then I would never have even questioned the need to optimally tune the 77TSI engine.

[Lucas_R]

I think from a reliability point of view, you did the right thing getting the 77TSI in manual over the extremely problematic 1.4 twincharge engine extremely problematic 7 speed DSG.

I too agree that VW should have offered the 90TSI in the Polo, unfortunately they didn't though.

Re DNA, both myself and my brother are customers of DNA and i can vouch for their service. John from DNA is always helpful, explains things clearly in his emails and their tunes perform well - not to mentioned being very well priced.

Re the newly released Superchips tune, can these ECU's now be tuned via OBD port? I didnt think they could? As far as im aware, the ECU needs to be removed and physically opened in order to tune them.

[JonP01]

Re the newly released Superchips tune, can these ECU's now be tuned via OBD port? I didnt think they could? As far as im aware, the ECU needs to be removed and physically opened in order to tune them.

I'm not sure and again, as with BSR and Viezu, I have not received any replies to my queries except that my local VW independant has suggested I physically go to them to discuss the options. To be honest I am now a bit circumspect about all the other tuners bar DNA, since DNA has at least been straight forward, answers questions and offers to try and find solutions whereas the others...haven't really offered anything substantial at all. DNA are also the only company who can state that in all likelihood their equipment can handle the encryption on my current model ECU. The possibility of simply getting the laptop and getting John to do everything remotely is far more enticing than dealing with others who seem to be showing some reluctance to correspond by email and to answer what I would have thought were pretty straightforward questions.

The lack of warranty thing doesn't even come into it with DNA, since I don't really consider the warranties to be of any practical value anyway. Plus, as you mentioned, lots of people are running round with 100 kw DNA tunes without issues and the lack of BSR users is indeed a bit troubling (as are BSR's electronic communication skills).

So yeh, I think given my feelings towards the customer relations side of the other tuners as compared to DNA, and thus far a lack of answers from anyone bar DNA, it will probably now be DNA or nothing. But it would still depend on whether they have a less than 20% tune that will work perfectly and can document it as being a 91 kw tune as per customer requirements. then it would just come down to how I feel about the warranty and the faith I have in my engine (which at this stage is total faith in it).

[Lucas_R]

If you haven’t already, do yourself a favour and look up the following Facebook pages:

- DNA Tuning: DNA Tuning | Facebook
- DNA Motorsport: DNA Motorsports | Facebook
- Dark Artz Tuning (Sth African based tuner): http://www.facebook.com/DarkArtzPerformance

And have a look at some of the cars that DNA tune. The entire Mini Challenge team, their own race car (Seat Cupra), Audi RS3’s, Ford Focus RS’s, BMW’s, Range Rover Sports, Porsche 911 Turbo’s etc etc. You have nothing to worry about. Im sure that the HQ in the UK can tone down the standard 100kw tune to match your requests and bring it back to 90 odd kw. Altering timing, fuelling and turning the boost down a smidge will achieve this. As for the accompanying letter to verify that the tune did not increase power by more than 20%, im sure they can knock something up for you on a letter with a header/footer etc, but this would be best discussed one on one with John Lu.

[parso_rex]

Interesting thread but flawed technically on a few levels, a simple one being that it would be impossible to measure the actual engine power accurately without removing it from the car and even then you could only do this to a very coarse level of accuracy . I would also bet a large sum that many 'claimed' tuned figures are nowhere near the measurable figures either.
The emissions tests are actually quite complex, if they feel like it, with runs carried out with timed varying loads and RPM values but not all out (can't remember the exact figures rpm wise). Even some standard cars fail too which is mildly amusing.

Most (I would hope all) tune provides would leave the closed loop area of the tune pretty much untouched so none of this would change and given that the later cars operate in closed loop for a lot longer than the old vehicles a 'simple' test might show no change at all emissions wise.
We could go on about this for ages but in any case the concerned owner would still have to prove that the car after modification still in fact did meet the emissions standard in your state and that would mean testing it and then certifying that this was indeed the case - you would have to do this in every tune configuration available too.

We can tune cars to whatever power figure you desire including the humble polo but my recommendation would be Superchips because like all the others on here I am biased plus they can also modify your 'OBDII' flashed file to do whatever you wish - a lower power figure for example.

[JonP01]

Interesting thread but flawed technically on a few levels, a simple one being that it would be impossible to measure the actual engine power accurately without removing it from the car and even then you could only do this to a very coarse level of accuracy . I would also bet a large sum that many 'claimed' tuned figures are nowhere near the measurable figures either.
The emissions tests are actually quite complex, if they feel like it, with runs carried out with timed varying loads and RPM values but not all out (can't remember the exact figures rpm wise). Even some standard cars fail too which is mildly amusing.

Most (I would hope all) tune provides would leave the closed loop area of the tune pretty much untouched so none of this would change and given that the later cars operate in closed loop for a lot longer than the old vehicles a 'simple' test might show no change at all emissions wise.
We could go on about this for ages but in any case the concerned owner would still have to prove that the car after modification still in fact did meet the emissions standard in your state and that would mean testing it and then certifying that this was indeed the case - you would have to do this in every tune configuration available too.

We can tune cars to whatever power figure you desire including the humble polo but my recommendation would be Superchips because like all the others on here I am biased plus they can also modify your 'OBDII' flashed file to do whatever you wish - a lower power figure for example.

As I explained to John from DNA, the actual output from my tuned vehicle is not terribly relevant. What matters is that I knowlingly purchase a product designed to increase power by not more than 20%. So in the case of the Polo, this would mean purchasing a tune with no more than an advertised 92 kw. My car probably has more than 77kw to begin with and might produce 96 kw from a 92 kw tune for example. But from a legal perspective I have done my due dilgence in ensuring I purchased a product that was designed to limit the power within the 20% allowable envelope.

In any case, DNA are not in a position to accomodate my request and I will not purchase a BSR tune because of the non existant customer service the fact that barely anyone here (perhaps even no one here) has a BSR tune.

It wont hurt for me to visit the local specialist this week just to see what they have to say (Superchips dealer). As I say, the Superchips product does not increase horsepower by very much, but it does give a nice torque increase. Since the Superchips product has published data clearly indicating the power increase is no where near 20%, I am perfectly happy with that from a legal perspective.

[noone]

ECU tune and emission requirements

Don't do it.
Buy yourself a 9n3 GTI, the you have a Polo, 110 boring kw and you're done.

It's great that you are going to this level of detail, but the reality is that an insurance company is more likely to give you a new car than spend thousands of dollars with engineers they don't have proving your vehicle is technically not road legal in X way. Yes, it's absolutely possible. But you are on a site where you could look at most of our cars under a microscope and find something.

The gear linkage bushes in my gearbox are made in the US and were never tested here, unroadworthy? Could be, but who's going to see them, look for them, know HOW to look for them (to tune a modern car takes a fair bit of tech), or be the final judge on if it is or is not now technically legal.

I really do praise your efforts, but suggest you simply drive a stock car due to the level of concern this has for you.

As for the Aus laws, they are IMO, in total disarray, they over regulate and are irrelevant to modern motoring. They create generic rules to cover a huge variety of vehicles. Even the question of what sized rims and tyres can I legally fit to my car can take a bit to fully comprehend.

If you've ever had to blueslip a car, you can get some real junk passed. As for certing mods, I don't want to know what that is like. I think there should be some level of interaction, feedback, communication from the TRMS. I don't really think they look at new cars under the microscope other than emissions and the cars from Aus can't be sold in many countries because they spew too much junk to be sold in much of Europe. I drive a vehicle that is lowered and sounds powerful due to the turbo spool, I don't get looked at twice.

Many VW's have speedo's that read around 8% under their actual speed and that's ok? But adding 21% extra powerto a car that is
Not powerful makes it unroadworthy? Just bad. Like the no turbo's forP platters, just lazy regulating.

Take a big risk, take a measured risk, take no risk. Your choice.

[JonP01]

Thanks. Yes in the end I have now decided to do nothing now that DNA have said they cannot help me. It is just too much of a legal and warranty minefield and I am the type of person who doesn't sleep at night if I am aware of a regulation and law and know that I have done something that does not follow it to the letter in principal. I don't really have sufficient faith in the other tuning companies except for DNA and unless DNA were to bring out an official "economy" range of conservative tunes (similar I guess to the Viezu Blue Optimise products) then it just isn't worthwhile.

To be honest though, having read through all those guidelines they seem absolutely fair and reasonable to me. It's not like modifications are outright banned. And to be perfectily honest, I would be quite worried if there were heaps of cars running around all over the place that were 30% more powerful than stock and did not have an engineering certification to ensure the rest of the car was up to the demands of the additional power.

I will still keep an eye and ear out for any tunes that come out over the next couple of years, just in case a product comes out that is conservative in nature, Australian certification-friendly and is released by a reputable company.

[noone]

To be honest though, having read through all those guidelines they seem absolutely fair and reasonable to me. It's not like modifications are outright banned. And to be perfectily honest, I would be quite worried if there were heaps of cars running around all over the place that were 30% more powerful than stock and did not have an engineering certification to ensure the rest of the car was up to the demands of the additional power.

You mean like 1/2 the imports, 1/3 the cars with a decent exhaust and most of the turbo cars that have been chipped? I don't see why a Golf with 200kw is so much more dangerous than a stock Holden V8 upwards of 350hp. They are both capable of doing the legal speed limits and should both be able to corner and brake sufficiently at suburban and freeway speeds.

I only bought my Polo because it could go from 110kw to 150 with just a chip. Power is not the enemy and you don't need a lot of HP's to go fast. Any kid in a Excel can get into plenty of trouble. You're 77 has the ability to get well beyond the legal speed limits as is, someone is going to one day accept that unless we all have GPS units tracking us or even worse, cars that drive for us, we have the freedom to drive properly or otherwise. It would be nice if there were more free options for driving in a more spirited fashion, alas, we've been given pretty strict road and vehicle regulations.

I'm glad you decided to take the safe option, we all have our limits of what we are willing to live with (not being sarcastic, there's things I will and wont do).

[JonP01]

You're 77 has the ability to get well beyond the legal speed limits as is

True...and don't get me wrong. It is still the best performing car I have owned or driven regularly by a long shot, and that includes older 6 cylinder cars such as the VN Commodore. It is just that it is pretty obvious given the high figures from perfectly safe tunes such as the DNA one (I mean, geez, and extra 50 nm of torque!!!), that the engine is obviously far more capable so long as the owner is willing and able to look after it properly.

It is all relative to the era as well. If my stock Polo 77TSI were current back in 1985, then just by pure performance terms (outright and in gears acceleration) it would have been hailed as the small performance hatchback, usurping the Pulsar ET Turbo (which greatly impressed Wheels magazine, for example). Today's 77TSI performance both in outright acceleration and in gears lies somewhere between that of the old Pulsar ET and the leaded Cordia Turbo of the mid 80s, and these cars were the absolute top of the heap for affordable performance cars back then.

Today, despite the very modest (for these days) power and torque figures, VW somehow seem to get performance even out of the stock model that on paper it just shouldn't really have. As an example, my previous Mazda 2 on paper had more power (supposedly 82 kw) but around 142 nm of torque at around 3,400 RPM if I recall. That torque peak translated to around freeway speed in 5th gear. Yet my 77TSI out-performs the old Mazda 2 on steep freeway hills in 6th gear to the Mazda 2's 5th gear. When you consider the 77TSI is geared at 50 kmh per 1000 RPM in 6th and the Mazda roughly 33 kmh per 1000 in 5th, then the 175 nm torque figure of the Polo seems conservative, even taking into account that the drive train of the Polo may have less frictional losses and the Polo would be slightly more aerodynamic.

I have seen some dyno printouts on the web suggesting the stock 1.2 TSI even goes as high as 90 kw and 199 nm, however I regard these figures with extreme suspicion and think the truth lies (at best) somewhere in between. But it would not surprise me in the slightest if on the dyno my particular Polo gave more than the quoted stock figures, especially as regards torque. There is just no way my Polo could climb hills the way it does in 5th and 6th gear if it "just" had the 175 nm. It easily gets up the Blue Mountains in 5th at light throttle openings with two hefty blokes on board and the old Mazda would definitely have needed 3rd in the same circumstances.

That is one reason I asked that "dumb" question earlier which hasn't been addressed yet. If you have an official 100 kw DNA tune for the Polo for example, but the stock Polo already delivers 85 kw, then are you going to get roughly 105 - 108 kw or still the 100 kw? And if the stock Polo is an underperforming one, then does the same principal apply in reverse?

[Mysticality]

It easily gets up the Blue Mountains in 5th at light throttle openings with two hefty blokes on board and the old Mazda would definitely have needed 3rd in the same circumstances.

But the unfortunate thing with the extra torque is not being able to drop it down a couple of gears and give it a nice loud rev!

I say this, coming from a 1,250kg Kia Rio w/ 1.4ltr (125Nm) and 5spd manual into the 1,500kg Octy vRS TDI with 350Nm...

[Diesel_vert]

True...and don't get me wrong. It is still the best performing car I have owned or driven regularly by a long shot, and that includes older 6 cylinder cars such as the VN Commodore. It is just that it is pretty obvious given the high figures from perfectly safe tunes such as the DNA one (I mean, geez, and extra 50 nm of torque!!!), that the engine is obviously far more capable so long as the owner is willing and able to look after it properly.

It is all relative to the era as well. If my stock Polo 77TSI were current back in 1985, then just by pure performance terms (outright and in gears acceleration) it would have been hailed as the small performance hatchback, usurping the Pulsar ET Turbo (which greatly impressed Wheels magazine, for example). Today's 77TSI performance both in outright acceleration and in gears lies somewhere between that of the old Pulsar ET and the leaded Cordia Turbo of the mid 80s, and these cars were the absolute top of the heap for affordable performance cars back then.

Wait until you drive a MY13 Polo GTI.

Today, despite the very modest (for these days) power and torque figures, VW somehow seem to get performance even out of the stock model that on paper it just shouldn't really have. As an example, my previous Mazda 2 on paper had more power (supposedly 82 kw) but around 142 nm of torque at around 3,400 RPM if I recall. That torque peak translated to around freeway speed in 5th gear. Yet my 77TSI out-performs the old Mazda 2 on steep freeway hills in 6th gear to the Mazda 2's 5th gear. When you consider the 77TSI is geared at 50 kmh per 1000 RPM in 6th and the Mazda roughly 33 kmh per 1000 in 5th, then the 175 nm torque figure of the Polo seems conservative, even taking into account that the drive train of the Polo may have less frictional losses and the Polo would be slightly more aerodynamic.

I have seen some dyno printouts on the web suggesting the stock 1.2 TSI even goes as high as 90 kw and 199 nm, however I regard these figures with extreme suspicion and think the truth lies (at best) somewhere in between. But it would not surprise me in the slightest if on the dyno my particular Polo gave more than the quoted stock figures, especially as regards torque. There is just no way my Polo could climb hills the way it does in 5th and 6th gear if it "just" had the 175 nm. It easily gets up the Blue Mountains in 5th at light throttle openings with two hefty blokes on board and the old Mazda would definitely have needed 3rd in the same circumstances.

The 1.2 l engine in the Polo owes a lot of its performance figures to its turbocharger, which not only increases the amount of work an engine can do (torque), it allows it to perform maximum work early in the rev range (peak torque of 175 Nm is produced from as early as 1550 RPM, staying constant until 4100 RPM). A turbo also increases the rate at which it can do work (power).

In contrast, the naturally-aspirated 1.5 l engine in the Mazda2 has a peak torque figure of 142 Nm that wasn't reached until you hit 4000 RPM, which you would most likely need to downshift a gear or two in order to reach it.

So while the results of the 1.2 l engine may seem remarkable, the technology behind it is thoroughly conventional (and therefore, inexpensive enough to put into an A-segment vehicle).