DTUK box on a Mk7 GTI GTD results

[Rob916]

Thanks John, this will sound quite daft but I'm new to all this and haven't a clue how to message you ?

[Johnc41]

Thanks John, this will sound quite daft but I'm new to all this and haven't a clue how to message you ?
[/quote
Just click my name on left side of the quote mate.

[Poached]

I had the dsg and a manual and they were both crap. Sorry mate I don't know where you are going with this or what information you have Been looking at. It has always been a well known fact that the mk5 engine was far better to tune. Why would they bring out an ed35 after the mk6gti and put the old engine in it? Surely that has to answer your questions? If that was the case why bother using the old units at all. The simple answer is the mk6 was never up to the job of all that extra power and there is no tuning company that would disagree with me. I had 5 mk5s tuned with both turbos and no problems and drove much better than any of the 2 mk6gtis I had, hence the reason I got rid of them as they were far to slow. And my mates car is stock so I ought to know what is what. I raced him in both many times and got my ass whipped. So people that say an mk6 could keep up with an r are mistaken. Now the new engine has updated block to cope with extra torque. Why bother even updating it as if you say it was good enough?

I said Time and Cost was a more likely a factor for the engines absence in the last generation ED35 and R on the basis it needed more work. You've rubbished TSI tuning potential without really saying why, just that you think it's crap or because a tuner said so.

Revo K04 upgrade for TSI yields excellent gains, average gains which are typically greater than TFSI K04 conversion. Revo is worldwide and it's reputation would probably suffer more than others if it was releasing these upgrades so it can't be as bad as you state.

There isn't much between the engines in term of performance increases like for like but the TSI edges it and doesn't require fueling upgrades to achieve it.

[matchboy]

Yeh I agree in the ED35 and R the older engine would have been preferential because both engines had a variety of changes to accommodate the power increase. I was speculating that the TSI probably didn't make it into the R and ED35 due to time or development costs.

I can't see how it can be described as a poor tuning platform compared with TFSI (Like for like e.g GTI vs GTI), for example:

1.The TSI manifold's flaps lay flat, and out of the path of incoming air when not in use. The FSI flaps stay in the middle of the manifold which restricts the flow.
2.TSI head flows better.
3.TSI fueling system is better.
5.TSI engine compression ratio is lower allowing for more timing advance.
6.TSI engine achieves greater timing advance than the FSI.

There's probably more...some tuners are better than others!

A stage 1 MK6 GTI should match or even pull on a stock R from a rolling start but the R will beat plenty of cars off the line.

GTI Stage 1 - let's say 250 BHP, power to weight ratio of 190/Ton.
Stock R - 262 BHP, power to weight ratio of 181/Ton.

Maybe your car had some problems or the other car was modified.

I had the dsg and a manual and they were both crap. Sorry mate I don't know where you are going with this or what information you have Been looking at. It has always been a well known fact that the mk5 engine was far better to tune. Why would they bring out an ed35 after the mk6gti and put the old engine in it? Surely that has to answer your questions? If that was the case why bother using the old units at all. The simple answer is the mk6 was never up to the job of all that extra power and there is no tuning company that would disagree with me. I had 5 mk5s tuned with both turbos and no problems and drove much better than any of the 2 mk6gtis I had, hence the reason I got rid of them as they were far to slow. And my mates car is stock so I ought to know what is what. I raced him in both many times and got my ass whipped. So people that say an mk6 could keep up with an r are mistaken. Now the new engine has updated block to cope with extra torque. Why bother even updating it as if you say it was good enough?

Can I ask, why did you have 5 mk 5's and 2 mk 6's?! 

[p3asa]

Thanks John, this will sound quite daft but I'm new to all this and haven't a clue how to message you ?

I think you need 10 posts before you can PM someone, so another post and your good to go.

[Rob916]

Thanks for that, I've been clicking on everything I can find !

[Johnc41]

Yeh I agree in the ED35 and R the older engine would have been preferential because both engines had a variety of changes to accommodate the power increase. I was speculating that the TSI probably didn't make it into the R and ED35 due to time or development costs.

I can't see how it can be described as a poor tuning platform compared with TFSI (Like for like e.g GTI vs GTI), for example:

1.The TSI manifold's flaps lay flat, and out of the path of incoming air when not in use. The FSI flaps stay in the middle of the manifold which restricts the flow.
2.TSI head flows better.
3.TSI fueling system is better.
5.TSI engine compression ratio is lower allowing for more timing advance.
6.TSI engine achieves greater timing advance than the FSI.

There's probably more...some tuners are better than others!

A stage 1 MK6 GTI should match or even pull on a stock R from a rolling start but the R will beat plenty of cars off the line.

GTI Stage 1 - let's say 250 BHP, power to weight ratio of 190/Ton.
Stock R - 262 BHP, power to weight ratio of 181/Ton.

Maybe your car had some problems or the other car was modified.

I had the dsg and a manual and they were both crap. Sorry mate I don't know where you are going with this or what information you have Been looking at. It has always been a well known fact that the mk5 engine was far better to tune. Why would they bring out an ed35 after the mk6gti and put the old engine in it? Surely that has to answer your questions? If that was the case why bother using the old units at all. The simple answer is the mk6 was never up to the job of all that extra power and there is no tuning company that would disagree with me. I had 5 mk5s tuned with both turbos and no problems and drove much better than any of the 2 mk6gtis I had, hence the reason I got rid of them as they were far to slow. And my mates car is stock so I ought to know what is what. I raced him in both many times and got my ass whipped. So people that say an mk6 could keep up with an r are mistaken. Now the new engine has updated block to cope with extra torque. Why bother even updating it as if you say it was good enough?

Can I ask, why did you have 5 mk 5's and 2 mk 6's?! 

I liked them lol. I include ed35 ed30 and 3 gti's. I have 30 cars in 10years I get sick of cars very quickly lol.
I only car I have ever service was ed30 kept that the longest because it was the best. I kept going from manual back to dsg that's why I changed them so much

[Johnc41]

I had the dsg and a manual and they were both crap. Sorry mate I don't know where you are going with this or what information you have Been looking at. It has always been a well known fact that the mk5 engine was far better to tune. Why would they bring out an ed35 after the mk6gti and put the old engine in it? Surely that has to answer your questions? If that was the case why bother using the old units at all. The simple answer is the mk6 was never up to the job of all that extra power and there is no tuning company that would disagree with me. I had 5 mk5s tuned with both turbos and no problems and drove much better than any of the 2 mk6gtis I had, hence the reason I got rid of them as they were far to slow. And my mates car is stock so I ought to know what is what. I raced him in both many times and got my ass whipped. So people that say an mk6 could keep up with an r are mistaken. Now the new engine has updated block to cope with extra torque. Why bother even updating it as if you say it was good enough?

I said Time and Cost was a more likely a factor for the engines absence in the last generation ED35 and R on the basis it needed more work. You've rubbished TSI tuning potential without really saying why, just that you think it's crap or because a tuner said so.

Revo K04 upgrade for TSI yields excellent gains, average gains which are typically greater than TFSI K04 conversion. Revo is worldwide and it's reputation would probably suffer more than others if it was releasing these upgrades so it can't be as bad as you state.

There isn't much between the engines in term of performance increases like for like but the TSI edges it and doesn't require fueling upgrades to achieve it.

Yes I have no doubt that they will have great gains with k04. I only keep my cars a year at most so all I want is a remap and don't want to do any mods like that.
Yes when I got white mk6 I went to superchips after celtic tuning could not sort out boost problem. And when there racing driver took it for a spin he said it felt really slow with poor mid range, that's exactly the problem I had. He then checked the bhp and could not believe it was kicking out 230bhp stock. So he remapped it and it was 277bhp on rolling road.
But even after remap he sayed it really did lack mid range grunt.
So got sick of it traded it in for a dsg in hope that maybe there was indeed a fault with it. Needless to say I buy brand new cars so I could not test drive it. So I again took it celtic tuning and they manged it ok but same problem compared to mark5 it was poor. And as I said before my mates stock r gave me a right drubbing with them both. So as soon as the ed35 came out I got a new one remapped and god it was a different world.

[monkeyhanger]

Probably would've been cheaper buying an Audi TTRS or Porsche Cayman than taking initial depreciation hits on all those MK5 and 6 Golfs

[Johnc41]

Probably would've been cheaper buying an Audi TTRS or Porsche Cayman than taking initial depreciation hits on all those MK5 and 6 Golfs

Lol your right there. But you can't beat smell of a new car lol