Stage 1 remap with ACT?

[Ashb14]

Hi guys,

I have the 1.4 TSI 150bhp with active cylinder technology, engine code CZEA. I am debating wether to get a stage 1 remap along with an intake system and intercooler, but have heard the remap can cause issues with the ACT. Anyone have any idea about this? Also is there any other issues I may run in to?

 

[Awais040802]

Hi guys,

I have the 1.4 TSI 150bhp with active cylinder technology, engine code CZEA. I am debating wether to get a stage 1 remap along with an intake system and intercooler, but have heard the remap can cause issues with the ACT. Anyone have any idea about this? Also is there any other issues I may run in to?

I’ve the same car with stage 1 running 180 bhp. Got it done over 2 years now and had no problem at all. If you aiming to get more than 180bhp then you should consider changing your normal clutch to a performance one. But for stage 1 its all safe and works great.

 

[Mr Pig]

Have you stopped to wonder why VW didn’t produce a 180hp version of this 1.4 engine? After all it would be lighter, more economical and probably cheaper but instead they use the 1.8 engine to get 180hp. Are they stupid?

I’ve found out quite a lot about engine differences over the years. I think it was true decades ago that some manufacturers produced different versions of the same engine with different power outputs but the mechanicals were the same. That is no longer true. It’s unnecessary and too expensive. A huge manufacturer like VW is not going spend more on over-spec parts that are not needed. Even in different versions of the 2.0 888 the internal parts are not the same. Pistons, crankshafts and numerous other parts, some too small to notice, improve in quality as the power increases.

VW clearly feel that 150hp is the reliability limit for the 1.4 engine. Even if they did produce a 180hp version, it would not be the same as the 150hp one.

Years ago I spoke to a Ford tuning specialist about the 1.0 Ecoboost. They’d built a show-case car which was featured in Fast Ford, and can’t remember the power increase but it wasn’t just a map. They’d swapped bits too. As soon as I brought it up the guy said “Yes, you can do this, but don’t”. They’d done it to demonstrate what they could do but he said that your reliability goes out of the window. He said the engine could generate the extra power but nothing else about the car was designed to take it. Eventually, you’re going to start breaking things.

In the eighties there was a good chance that the same gearbox was used across the range but today they’ll build different ones, or at least different spec versions of the same one, to suit power outputs. Look at the MX5. Mazda designed the gearbox for the 1.5 as they had no intention of putting a bigger engine in the car. Then America said they couldn’t sell a 1.5 sportscar, they fitted the 2.0 engine and discovered that they couldn’t make the gearbox reliable with the extra power. Fiat realised this in testing for the 124 Spider and used the MX5 NC gearbox to avoid the issue but Mazda are stuck with cars that break gearboxes.

If you want a reliable 180hp car, buy a 180hp car.

 

[Ashb14]

Have you stopped to wonder why VW didn’t produce a 180hp version of this 1.4 engine? After all it would be lighter, more economical and probably cheaper but instead they use the 1.8 engine to get 180hp. Are they stupid?

I’ve found out quite a lot about engine differences over the years. I think it was true decades ago that some manufacturers produced different versions of the same engine with different power outputs but the mechanicals were the same. That is no longer true. It’s unnecessary and too expensive. A huge manufacturer like VW is not going spend more on over-spec parts that are not needed. Even in different versions of the 2.0 888 the internal parts are not the same. Pistons, crankshafts and numerous other parts, some too small to notice, improve in quality as the power increases.

VW clearly feel that 150hp is the reliability limit for the 1.4 engine. Even if they did produce a 180hp version, it would not be the same as the 150hp one.

Years ago I spoke to a Ford tuning specialist about the 1.0 Ecoboost. They’d built a show-case car which was featured in Fast Ford, and can’t remember the power increase but it wasn’t just a map. They’d swapped bits too. As soon as I brought it up the guy said “Yes, you can do this, but don’t”. They’d done it to demonstrate what they could do but he said that your reliability goes out of the window. He said the engine could generate the extra power but nothing else about the car was designed to take it. Eventually, you’re going to start breaking things.

In the eighties there was a good chance that the same gearbox was used across the range but today they’ll build different ones, or at least different spec versions of the same one, to suit power outputs. Look at the MX5. Mazda designed the gearbox for the 1.5 as they had no intention of putting a bigger engine in the car. Then America said they couldn’t sell a 1.5 sportscar, they fitted the 2.0 engine and discovered that they couldn’t make the gearbox reliable with the extra power. Fiat realised this in testing for the 124 Spider and used the MX5 NC gearbox to avoid the issue but Mazda are stuck with cars that break gearboxes.

If you want a reliable 180hp car, buy a 180hp car.

What are you on about, have you ever built a car? You wouldn't have a stage 2 without an uprated clutch, turbo and high-flow exhaust, engine mounts etc. and you certainly wouldn't have a stage 3 without uprated fuel lines, injectors, a fully forged engine/gearbox etc., as any sane person knows. You buy uprated parts to handle the power increase, you don't just stick a map on a stock car. Also, stock engines produce about 75-80% of what the engine can handle internally. A 150hp engine will be able to handle upto around 190hp without any wear or reliability issues.

Besides, everyone knows the ecoboosts are one of the worst engines ever made, them things literally explode into flames stock from the factory, it's not really relevant to the point. I'm asking if and how a stage 1 map will interfere with the ACT to decide if I want it disabled or not, I'm not asking for a lecture on ecoboosts and reliability.

 

[WozzaB]

Hi guys,

I have the 1.4 TSI 150bhp with active cylinder technology, engine code CZEA. I am debating wether to get a stage 1 remap along with an intake system and intercooler, but have heard the remap can cause issues with the ACT. Anyone have any idea about this? Also is there any other issues I may run in to?

I had my CZEA remapped, no issues with the ACT
I'm getting the map removed soon though as I had a moment of madness and decided to have it done despite mine having the DQ200 gearbox