EA288 2.0 TDI 184PS Development thread..

[ffrank]

Made the adjustment to 3+1 at Screwfix and drove the 2 miles home. It was wet (for the first time in quite a while) and I don't know whether I was just a bit enthusiastic, but I got my first taste of 3rd gear wheelspin on the move with the DTUK box, with the traction control kicking in very noticeably. I'll see what it is like on a real run tomorrow, whether it needs a bit more control on my part to avoid wheelspin in 3rd. If it does, I will probably switch back to 4+1.

Blimey, sounds a bit eager in 3+1! Have you driven in the wet with 4+1 much yet for comparison? Amazingly we've not had too much rain recently...

[monkeyhanger]

Blimey, sounds a bit eager in 3+1! Have you driven in the wet with 4+1 much yet for comparison? Amazingly we've not had too much rain recently...

ffrank: We've hardly had any rain since I had the DTUK box fitted, and I know normally to be careful in 2nd gear (because you can easily spin the wheels on 4+1), but being eager to see what it could do, I did hoof it a bit.

[monkeyhanger]

Just had my first drive to work with 3+1. Firstly, it was dry and uncharacteristically cold, which helps with the grip but not the mpg.

I could definitely tell the difference with this setting vs 4+1, but not in outright performance.

On 4+1, pretty much all of the throttle response feels sensitised, like having a pedal box on and seeing all of the stock response squeezed into the 1st 2/3 of pedal travel, but then having way more beyond it.

With 3+1, you can definitely tell there's less enhancement of the stock response for the first 1/4 of pedal travel, and then things start to feel enhanced. The car feels like stock to 2000 revs and really comes alive above 2500 revs.

I suppose from a mpg point of view, the car should perform a lot like stock for cruising, when you're not going to be doing more than 2200rpm doing 80mph, as the signal modifications to the common rail and turbo are less than at 4+1 at the same engine speed.

My indiicated mpg was a little down today (46.1) vs what i've been used to (47.2), but it could be down to a number of things:-

1. A change in fuel - now running Shell (because I had a £5 voucher), which seems less lively than Esso.

2. It was 5C this morning, as opposed to 9-11C i've seen in recent mornings.

3. If signal modification is less in 3+1 than 4+1, a lower indicated mpg in 3+1 might mean the same or similar actual mpg.

When I did put my foot down, I couldn't tell any noticeable difference in performance between 3+1 and 4+1 in the 2500-3500rpm zone - they're both really quick, and when you're talking 4 or 5 Hp difference on 235 Hp, that's only 2%.

Without considering the effects on mpg right now, I think i'm preferring the linear response of the 4+1 throughout the throttle travel rather than what feels like stock to 1/4 throttle then a whole lot more.

If there's like 5mpg between 3+1 and 4+1, i'll probably stick with the 3+1. I'll give it a tank of Diesel to see what the differences are, hoping that the warmer weather will come back so it's a true(ish) comparison. 

There's a lot to be gained in either 3+1 or 4+1 vs stock.

[monkeyhanger]

Well 3+1 didn't last long. I swapped back to 4+1 tonight, the lower end of 3+1 just seemed a bit lifeless, then it kicks in hard at 2500rpm. It just feels like Jekyll and Hyde. I really didn't want to run it on 3+1 for a whole tank.

Don't get me wrong, it's much better to have the 3+1 than be running stock, but 4+1 just feels so much better as an overall driving experience, and i'm happy to forgo 3 Hp/2 Nm max output to stick with the 4+1

I find the 4+1 a much better drive as the extra power is more accessible from lower down and builds up progressively - it just feels like it is always there on tap, whereas you're waiting for it to kick in on 3+1.

For less signal modification (and presumably less fuel used) with 3+1 giving more Hp and Nm is quite an achievement though. Maybe a hybrid map of 4+1 modification in the lower end and 3+1 above 2500rpm could yield the best of both worlds.

On opening the box, I lost my clear "window" piece down the front right corner of the engine department, amongst the mass of wiring between the right headlight and air intake/battery box. It pinged off when I unscrewed and split the casing for access to make adjustments, not to be seen again (totally my fault, being a bit careless). I'll have to tape the gap in the case for now and ask if I can acquire a spare off Andrew if possible  .

This little spell of playing around with the settings has taught me one thing - once you get used to 4+1, anything resembling stock feels very asthmatic in comparison. I would really miss not having the DTUK box on the car for any length of time now.

[Andrew@DTUK]

Hi Matt,

I'll sort you a window, that's not a problem

Are you heading to the metro tomorrow?

[monkeyhanger]

Hi Matt,

I'll sort you a window, that's not a problem

Are you heading to the metro tomorrow?

Not heading there tomorrow Andrew - I have a doctors appointment I have had to wait over 2 weeks for, seems only the hyperchondriacs that don't work can get to the docs in less than a week where I live.

Have you flitted between the maps much on the Skoda, and if so what is your favourite for everyday driving? I really think you nailed it with the 4+1, I would not be without the box now. My dad is pretty interested for his too, but his is a DSG, can it handle the torque without throwing up some faults?  Have you had any 184PS GTD/VRS/A3 customers with DSG run your box yet?

[Andrew@DTUK]

My brothers running the Skoda as I'm running a new S3 at the mo.

I preferred map 4 tbh as for Dsgs, we've tuned several of them now and again map 4 seams to be very popular too

[TheCarMadDad]

Do the DTUK boxes cause any extra smoke out of the exhaust?

[Andrew@DTUK]

Do the DTUK boxes cause any extra smoke out of the exhaust?

You'll never see any smoke as you have a DPF, and if the boxes were causing smoke you'd be reading posts on here and other forums from customers having issues with blocked DPFs

[monkeyhanger]

I was getting forced DPF regens every 250 miles or so before I had my box (which was hammering my mpg), and I had my first proper forced/active regen post-fitting of the box with 800 miles travelled since fitment. The car is set up to force a regen every 800 miles regardless of soot loading (just in case), so the one I had was always going to happen. The car seems happier to sit with oil temp at 95C as opposed to 90 (stock) now the box is on and I believe this is helping stave off the regens by allowing the DPF to get a little hotter in a shorter distance, aiding the soot burn.

I never had any forced regens when I had my Scirocco 170TDI, and that had a preference for warm oil temp to sit at 95C. With the Scirocco, my 12 mile commute was long enough to keep the DPF clean without forced regens, with the stock GTD, it wasn’t (more like 16 miles needed). I do suspect that the stock GTD has been set up a certain way for emissions purposes which makes it harder for the DPF to do its job passively vs Scirocco/MK6 Golf as the engine runs that little bit cooler (90C), so you need longer journeys as a result to keep the DPF clean passively.

My DPF operation is far less noticeable with the DTUK box on, as everything is happening passively now within my normal commute.