jammydodgerJW
Guest
ive heard that irfan too... apparently theyre rated at 300+ lb torque being a wet clutch they can also handle higher temps
Mr Hurdy's Edition30 did not blow until he use NOS...Torque was over 400+Lb - I would like a DSG myself but I will stick with Manual for now
jammydodgerJW
Guest
Join the debate lol.. ive mailed revo to get clarification on their numbers but yet to hear back
Jamie
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
jammydodgerJW
Guest
Official reply from revo head office
Hi Jamie,
*
We offer engine software for your car but unfortunately haven’t completed the development of the DSG software for the gearbox, regarding our claimed power figures these are for guidance only, we use a number of independent dynos to carry out our extensive development before software is released what we see is what we publish, we don’t focus on peak power figures, more emphasis is placed on driveability and durability, please check out this link which goes into further detail http://www.revotechnik.com/peak-power-figures/.
*
Further details on your particular vehicle can be found here http://www.revotechnik.com/type/17038/222/ *.
*
We don’t feel its professional to comment on other tuners power figures, we just stick to doing what we do best J
*
I hope this helps, if you need any further info please don’t hesitate to give us a shout.
*
Best Regards,
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Hi Jamie,
*
We offer engine software for your car but unfortunately haven’t completed the development of the DSG software for the gearbox, regarding our claimed power figures these are for guidance only, we use a number of independent dynos to carry out our extensive development before software is released what we see is what we publish, we don’t focus on peak power figures, more emphasis is placed on driveability and durability, please check out this link which goes into further detail http://www.revotechnik.com/peak-power-figures/.
*
Further details on your particular vehicle can be found here http://www.revotechnik.com/type/17038/222/ *.
*
We don’t feel its professional to comment on other tuners power figures, we just stick to doing what we do best J
*
I hope this helps, if you need any further info please don’t hesitate to give us a shout.
*
Best Regards,
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
I was giving you an opinion and agreed with your statement about manufacturer quoted figures.
jammydodgerJW
Guest
Cheers bud I was only messing its a nice pic/car anyway
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Cheers bud I was only messing its a nice pic/car anyway
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Cheers, I hope you get on well with your car to
Graeme will always argue against this because his car made a little more whp than the apr golf r at a recent dyno day, but that was against a golf r with different drivetrain loss to account for
Is that the same Golf that ran 13.4 on the 1/4 mile at Crail the next day
jammydodgerJW
Guest
Cheers, I hope you get on well with your car to
Cheers bud looks like ill just have to take the dive otherwise ill be forever going over it in my head haha
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
I guess we could just put higher gains on the website if that's what impresses you, but facts are facts, our customers' cars put down higher figures than revo's.
In addition to the figures you get EMCS and free upgrades through the stages
Graeme will always argue against this because his car made a little more whp than the apr golf r at a recent dyno day, but that was against a golf r with different drivetrain loss to account for
21hp more to the wheels and all 3 cars made identical 0.3hp between the 3 flywheel figures. The apr car made 6 lbs fr more torque but didnt sustain it quite as far up the rev range
True. But what I'm trying to say is the calibrations are both good and both companies seem to utilise all the bolt ons to there full potential. Therefore both very good calibrations
jammydodgerJW
Guest
Oh 100% I agree with what he says, but take his sig with a pinch of salt
The figures that are shown on my dig were taken from a well known dastek dyno specialist up in scotland. I have also been to APR/Ecotunes dyno com and made 364bhp along with Al and Graham Lamb (APR car). But you are right on a stage 2 + car 386 is in achievable without water meth
I was at that same rolling road day.
To be fair, the plots on my car were very similar to the APR Golf R that was there - mine was running the Revo Beta code that was added to try when Revo were developing the current version - i never got round to updating it for one reason or another. Both the APR and Revo plot from my car were pretty nice.
My car was missing a bit of boost that day which was fixed soon after by way of replacing the uprated boost pipe with the standard pancake deal and tightening the connections - there was oil weeping at both sides of the intercooler. As I understand it the new owner made 10bhp more fly hp and a few more wheel power on the same rollers just recently on a warmer day.
WeeG's plot with the new Revo Code was awesome - the torque curve was lovely and flat and ultimately his car made the most wheel power on that day. In my eyes it got the best result as the area under the curves was the largest and the power curve was the most progressive and torque curve was the flattest.
Regarding comparing calculated fly wheel hp between a APR Golf R which had the rear wheels disconnected to run on a 2 wheel rolling road and converting 302whp to be 364fly bhp despite the fact it was impossible for it to be making the losses it would have made had it been driving all 4 wheels (and they were clearly still calculating in those losses) vs 2 Revo cars that made over 320whp on the same rollers on the same day and made 0.3bhp and 0.6bhp less than the APR car at an APR dealer - not sure how that works or how it was set up to calculate, but the fly wheel bhp results were not apples for apples. Not stating for a second that the rollers or the operator were wonky or dodgy - it was a pretty sweet set up and the guys there were all sound.
Nonetheless, the slow time and terminal done by the Golf the following day indicates either;
1) The guy cant drive
2) The car had an issue
3) The performance isnt all that on the road
4) A combination of all of the above
My Leon ran faster times at Crail than that Golf R despite having the disadvantage of front wheel drive launches and 2.2 second 60 foot times vs that Golfs 1.8 second 60 foot time. Terminal speeds were close on 10mph different too, partly explainable by drivetrain losses and weight maybe. Regardless, that Golf should have been in the 12's. A Revo S2+ S3 made 12.7 @ 108mph in 2008. That APR Golf R did 13.4 @ 107mph a day after it made 364bhp this year and it had the same 60 foot time as the S3. Same turbo, pretty much same engine, box and chassis.
By the way WeeG - I agree that your signature is **** - its too big for a start and out of date. Get it sorted!
To be fair, the plots on my car were very similar to the APR Golf R that was there - mine was running the Revo Beta code that was added to try when Revo were developing the current version - i never got round to updating it for one reason or another. Both the APR and Revo plot from my car were pretty nice.
My car was missing a bit of boost that day which was fixed soon after by way of replacing the uprated boost pipe with the standard pancake deal and tightening the connections - there was oil weeping at both sides of the intercooler. As I understand it the new owner made 10bhp more fly hp and a few more wheel power on the same rollers just recently on a warmer day.
WeeG's plot with the new Revo Code was awesome - the torque curve was lovely and flat and ultimately his car made the most wheel power on that day. In my eyes it got the best result as the area under the curves was the largest and the power curve was the most progressive and torque curve was the flattest.
Regarding comparing calculated fly wheel hp between a APR Golf R which had the rear wheels disconnected to run on a 2 wheel rolling road and converting 302whp to be 364fly bhp despite the fact it was impossible for it to be making the losses it would have made had it been driving all 4 wheels (and they were clearly still calculating in those losses) vs 2 Revo cars that made over 320whp on the same rollers on the same day and made 0.3bhp and 0.6bhp less than the APR car at an APR dealer - not sure how that works or how it was set up to calculate, but the fly wheel bhp results were not apples for apples. Not stating for a second that the rollers or the operator were wonky or dodgy - it was a pretty sweet set up and the guys there were all sound.
Nonetheless, the slow time and terminal done by the Golf the following day indicates either;
1) The guy cant drive
2) The car had an issue
3) The performance isnt all that on the road
4) A combination of all of the above
My Leon ran faster times at Crail than that Golf R despite having the disadvantage of front wheel drive launches and 2.2 second 60 foot times vs that Golfs 1.8 second 60 foot time. Terminal speeds were close on 10mph different too, partly explainable by drivetrain losses and weight maybe. Regardless, that Golf should have been in the 12's. A Revo S2+ S3 made 12.7 @ 108mph in 2008. That APR Golf R did 13.4 @ 107mph a day after it made 364bhp this year and it had the same 60 foot time as the S3. Same turbo, pretty much same engine, box and chassis.
By the way WeeG - I agree that your signature is **** - its too big for a start and out of date
. Get it sorted!
Last edited:
Similar threads
