ECU tune and emission requirements

[JonP01]

I am well aware of all the principals you mention, however my previous Mazda was the last revision of the "old" 1.5 litre engine in which the torque was improved down low and the torque curve considerably flattened out in comparison to the 1.5 litre models built prior to early 2006. My model was the shortest lived of all the Mazda 2 revisions - think it sold here for only 6 to 8 months at the most from early 2006 to late 2006. I remember looking at a torque graph for the last of the 82 kw engines that mine was equipped with and it was virtually flat from between 3400 and 4000. Maybe there was about 5nm difference across that part of the rev range but that was about it.

So my point is that at freeway speeds, the Mazda was infact delivering practically the best of its torque in 5th gear give or take literally a small handful of nm, and the Polo in 6th gear is doing the same. Even if I am generous and say the Mazda was only delivering 130nm of its maximum 142 nm torque at 110 kmh (and from memory it was more than that in 5th gear), then take 50 / 33 * 130 and you get 197 (the 50 is the kmh per 1000 in 6th - top gear - for the Polo, the 33 is the kmh per 1000 in 5th - top gear - for the Mazda). And yes, the Mazda was definitely less aerodynamic than the Polo, but I still get 197 versus 175. Maybe that 22 nm variation can purely come down to aerodynamics and drive train losses, however I think they can only account for part of the difference. So I think it is still likely that at least some of the 1.2 TSI engines are performing better in the real world than the figures put out by VW, because if I take the VW figure as an absolute, then the Polo in 6th gear would simply not be capable of outperforming the old Mazda in 5th gear when they were both at maximum torque. But the Polo in 6th gear infact outperforms the old Mazda in 5th when they are both running within the most advantageous part of their torque bands.

[Diesel_vert]

I am well aware of all the principals you mention, however my previous Mazda was the last revision of the "old" 1.5 litre engine in which the torque was improved down low and the torque curve considerably flattened out in comparison to the 1.5 litre models built prior to early 2006. My model was the shortest lived of all the Mazda 2 revisions - think it sold here for only 6 to 8 months at the most from early 2006 to late 2006. I remember looking at a torque graph for the last of the 82 kw engines that mine was equipped with and it was virtually flat from between 3400 and 4000. Maybe there was about 5nm difference across that part of the rev range but that was about it.

So my point is that at freeway speeds, the Mazda was infact delivering practically the best of its torque in 5th gear give or take literally a small handful of nm, and the Polo in 6th gear is doing the same. Even if I am generous and say the Mazda was only delivering 130nm of its maximum 142 nm torque at 110 kmh (and from memory it was more than that in 5th gear), then take 50 / 33 * 130 and you get 197 (the 50 is the kmh per 1000 in 6th - top gear - for the Polo, the 33 is the kmh per 1000 in 5th - top gear - for the Mazda). And yes, the Mazda was definitely less aerodynamic than the Polo, but I still get 197 versus 175. Maybe that 22 nm variation can purely come down to aerodynamics and drive train losses, however I think they can only account for part of the difference. So I think it is still likely that at least some of the 1.2 TSI engines are performing better in the real world than the figures put out by VW, because if I take the VW figure as an absolute, then the Polo in 6th gear would simply not be capable of outperforming the old Mazda in 5th gear when they were both at maximum torque. But the Polo in 6th gear infact outperforms the old Mazda in 5th when they are both running within the most advantageous part of their torque bands.

I forgot to mention, a turbo can also have the effect of moving the power band out, so even if it the peak power figures (77 kW vs 82 kW) are similar, the 1.2 TSI is able to deliver its power earlier throughout the entire rev range compared to a N/A 1.5, so the Polo will be faster almost everywhere in the rev range.

Here's a rudimentary graph:



So whatever performance figures your engine is producing, where and how that is delivered is down to the turbo.

[Tweeked]

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?

Yes all of the above statement can be true.... some engines make more power than others (even after a tune), so many factors will determine this on the day you test (internal manufacturing tollerances / fuel octane / ambient air temp and air density / leaks in turbo system) .... Factory figures are ball-park and usually understated... I wouldn't sweat over a few kw + or -....

[parso_rex]

In relation to this particular thread it still remains that any performance data 'claimed' by any tune provider (me included) cannot be assumed to be remotely accurate for your engineering purposes nor can it be used as a basis for any emissions or RTA blue-slip/Engineering certification as there is no real way of measuring this to that level of accuracy. You would still need to submit the vehicle for multiple tests subject to the standards that apply in that particular state using whatever calibrated equipment they certify as being accurate for their measurements.
Or just tune the damned thing and I'm sure that in time you'll still sleep quite well at night. Well i would like to think so anyway

[JonP01]

Well as I have already mentioned, I am not going to do anything. Having done a huge amount of research on this over the last week I have come to the conclusion that there are far too many legal issues, too many insurance issues, too many compliance issues, too many engineering issues, too many warranty issues and even potential issues upon and after resale. Now that I am much more knowledgeable about it, I would have to be mad and desperate to let my ECU be tampered with by anyone other than a VW Australia dealership. If I had even known a tenth of what I know now a week ago, I would never have even started this thread in the first place.

Mucking with a VAG ECU in 2013 seems to me to be the perfect recipe for a potentially very long term and expensive nightmare, especially for cars under warranty now that VAG has "TD1" warranty tagging on their system that cannot be overridden by dealers or aftermarket tuners. People may think it is all fine and won't affect them, but after spending several hours last night reading the long story of Audi owners who were left out of pocket with unresolved driveline problems after their cars were "TD1" tagged, there is already anecdotal evidence at least that it can and does cause expensive nightmares.

All I am going to do about it is that next time I am surveyed by VW about my car experience, I will simply mention to them that I am disappointed the Polo Comfortline did not come with the 90TSI engine as an option and that I would have been more than happy to pay up to several thousand dollars extra for such an option. And leave at that - point made.

I am happy for the mods to close this thread if they wish as it is now just going around in circles. At the very least I have contributed all that I am going to contribute to it. Nothing I read is ever going to change my mind regarding this situation. The only time I would ever change my viewpoint is if VW instigated a VAG-approved, VW Australia approved, VW dealer approved OEM performance tuning option for their cars, and I cannot see such a thing ever happening.

[Tuning Dynamics]

As far as im aware, DNA and BSR are the only companies which offer a tune for this engine locally. .

We support the 1.2 TSI engine