Remapped Cupra PD160 vs remapped1.8T

[acidstrato]

seems my pd130 has a better time than alot of mk3 cupra's

In fact, has anyone ran a btter 1/4mile time for a remapped 130?

1/4miles seem to hate mk3s, when you think all of the people who jumped on the k03sport band wagon and cant break 14seconds, and my car ran 15.7 standard and 15.3 modified with a misfire!

when my car is running healthy i wouldnt be scared to say i reckon i could hit 14.2/14.3 with abit more practice at the start.

 

[cheb]

Im a derv, had a run with petrols and dint keep either of them for two minutes as the cost of running them, ive had the 1.8 corsa SRi and the fiesta ST, ok they were N/A but cost a fair bit to run so had to go back to the derv's and dont think i will ever turn back unless i have plenty of money to spend.

the whole purpose of buying the ibiza is that it was alot cheaper to run, less tax, alot better economy (22mpg with fiesta on average) and expected to comprimise some performance, i would never have thought the tdi ibiza would have been quicker than the fiesta, just shows how much i know

 

[mexicorich]

22mpg from the Fiesta??? Really???

So I think we have determined that the diesel vs petrol performance is fairly close

What kind of fuel consumption do 1.8Ts return standard and chipped.

Having still run lightweight Mk1 & Mk2 Golfs in recent years I'm a little disappointed with the 43mpg I'm getting from the PD

 

[gazjones]

my average is 32mpg over 2k miles but if i boot it its about 20mpg average

 

[justlivyalife]

Rich - you're only getting 42? I've had mine for 1300 miles so it's just opening up now, I've averaged 49mpg since I picked it up! Bearing in mind its probably 1/2 mways at 70/80, 1/4 on mways at 85/90 and then the rest town driving - pretty good i think!!

 

[DIFT]

I only get around 34 ish, but thats London Driving, and using the cars power when I get the chance.

In the petrol I'd be getting nearer 18-20 I think.

 

[cheb]

22mpg from the Fiesta??? Really???

aye, only 22mpg. went to silverstone and filled the tank up and by the time i got back home it wanted more fuel as it was empty and covered 220miles from the tank.

tbh, i couldent believe it.

the next day i was sat in the ibiza leaving the ST with stoneacre.

 

[mexicorich]

Justlivyalife
Yes 42 thats actual measured across the time I have owned the car including flat out runs to airports when I have slept in etc!. Onboard computer generally shows 1 to 2mpg better than actual. The car generally returns an actual 42 on each tank though in a mix of driving but rarely do my cars sit at 75-80. If I'm going that slowly I'm making a big effort to drive economicaly! If I stay around the 75-80 it will just give the 49/50mpg that you refer to. Driven that bit faster I can't average more than the 42. Disappointing thing to me is to get 42 I'm still driving more slowly than in my GTIs which given a good thrashing and hitting 100mph every day return 31mpg and I havn't given any attention to engine tune on them for years! If I was to slow off a little as I am in the PD, I'd guess they would give mid, possibly even high 30s especially with a little attention to engine tune. So mid 30s vs 42 across 25 years of development and petrol vs derv - I just expected the differnce to be greater than that.

I am still very curious to know what consumption the equivalent petrol engines give in comparison to the PDs?

I guess the weight of modern cars has consumed much of the potential economy advantage of modern engine development

 

[justlivyalife]

Ah right I see!!

My 307 (HDi) only got 40 ish at the speeds I do! I would love to drive like that - gives me excitement but knowing that if I drive gently (did 55 back from Uni the other day as i was in no rush) I could get mid 60s!!!

 

[idge]

aye, only 22mpg. went to silverstone and filled the tank up and by the time i got back home it wanted more fuel as it was empty and covered 220miles from the tank.

tbh, i couldent believe it.

the next day i was sat in the ibiza leaving the ST with stoneacre.

Wow i always got over 300 miles out of my ST and with it Bluefinned it was defo quicker than my pd130. Saying that, the ibiza is better for overtaking with all the torque but the ST would pull away quicker, hardly ever need a gear change and not feel like it was struggling before 100.

I see it as a compromise really, i can hit 55-60 mpg easily in my ibiza and the tax and insurance are far cheaper as well as being able to suprise a lot of quick cars, but at the end of the day i miss my fiesta on a twisty b-road.

 

[BIGAR]

Just like to say, the diesels that we are talking about as standard are amongst the best on the road and even better with a remap and a few mods on there, but there no match for the petrol 18 20v T, sure there quick but you put like for like next to each other and the petrol wins every time on performance, its the law of physics. Thats why F1 cars are petrol based and not diesels..

 

[DIFT]

but you put like for like next to each other and the petrol wins every time on performance, its the law of physics. Thats

Like for like... I think it would be down to the drivers. Only real difference is >70-80MPH.

Same drivers then granted the 1.8T would be quicker if driven properly.
To close to call in real terms though, An I doubt the 1.8T would win everytime.

 

[mexicorich]

Depends how you define like for like? if they were truly like for like by definition there would be no difference. if they were tuned for like for like fuel economy, ie like for like cost which is the real comparison, I suspect diesel would be rather a lot faster! And the F1 reference is poor because again their si no 'like for like' comparison on economy - look what Audi have done with their diesel LeMans cars!

Well the difference seems to be pretty slim now but no one with their only 'marginally' quicker petrol car seems to be owning up to a truthful mpg

So come on convice me to go back to petrol, I'm open minded as the PD isn't quite as economical as I expected. What petrol mpg can I expect?

 

[BIGAR]

Like for like... I think it would be down to the drivers. Only real difference is >70-80MPH.

Same drivers then granted the 1.8T would be quicker if driven properly.
To close to call in real terms though, An I doubt the 1.8T would win everytime.

I honestly think the diesels are excellent cars but I would never swap my petrol for one. Also on the 18.t I would put my 20vt against any derv with the same mods and I know for a fact that I would win ive tried it before the dervs are quick but they just don't have the edge and that's what it is all about having the edge on the opposing car IMO

 

[BIGAR]

Depends how you define like for like? if they were truly like for like by definition there would be no difference. if they were tuned for like for like fuel economy, ie like for like cost which is the real comparison, I suspect diesel would be rather a lot faster! And the F1 reference is poor because again their si no 'like for like' comparison on economy - look what Audi have done with their diesel LeMans cars!

Well the difference seems to be pretty slim now but no one with their only 'marginally' quicker petrol car seems to be owning up to a truthful mpg

So come on convice me to go back to petrol, I'm open minded as the PD isn't quite as economical as I expected. What petrol mpg can I expect?

I get about 30 - 31 ~ its down to you. Do you sacrifice your speed for economy ??? Which ever you got there both good cars which is fastest Petrol
which gets better MPG diesel. That's Fact.

 

[mexicorich]

Its not fact and you don't need to sacrifice speed for economy.

Compare 'like for like' as you say.
With a diesel tuned to give like for like performance, it still seems to give better economy than a petrol and therefore has to be judged the superior engine now

 

[BIGAR]

I see that Im gonna have to spell it out to you as your not getting it..

PD 160 + phase 2 CC + full milltek + forge DV + Green air filter

18 20v t+ phase 2 CC + full milltek + Forge DV + Green air filter

= the 20 V T is faster..... and that is fact like i said before

 

[mexicorich]

But thats missing the point and is not truly like for like you are comparing different compromises. If you take a fast car and a slow one its hardly magic in announcing the fast car is fastest? Tune the slow one so that its as quick as the fast one. if one then drinks petrol but the other still uses only 70% of the diesel there is a very obvious conclusion that in that scenario that one engine is better than the other

Make them genuinely like for like where they both consume the same fuel and just see how well the diesel goes.

VAG who designed the things in the first place know that and that's how they can now make Lemans winning diesels. The best petrol engines in the world couldn't keep up.

 

[redcupratdi]

I see that Im gonna have to spell it out to you as your not getting it..

PD 160 + phase 2 CC + full milltek + forge DV + Green air filter

18 20v t+ phase 2 CC + full milltek + Forge DV + Green air filter

= the 20 V T is faster..... and that is fact like i said before

pd160 and180 1.8T remapped is nothing in it, bar torque

 

[Nath.]

It takes a complete package including a driver to win lemans, not just an engine that burns oil rather than a solvent

at the end of the day the petrol engine for me is the quality one so thats what I bought

the tdi may have a fancy injection system but it only has 8 valves and it can't rev very high

you cant compare the two cars IMHO but its the buyers choice as to what they want and what they need

people want a turbocharged petrol engine but they need a tdi because of the mpg

IMHO the petrol is slightly quicker in factory spec and if both remaped the petrol still gets the win