ECU tune and emission requirements

[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).

[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.