Apologies for bumping a controvertial thread. Just a quick point re: the software vs hardware debate. I hope the trouble doesn't kick off again...
The advantage of "the Julie route" over chipping (ie: boosting, and fuelling/sparking to match) is that with her larger turbo she will have to run less boost to make the same power, since the turbo is pumping a larger volume of air. Charge air temps will be lower, combustion chamber pressures will be lower, and turbo lifespan will be longer. Will these things have a significant effect on a well maintained chip-only car? Probably not, in the scheme of how long most people keep their cars. If you still want to be driving your T5 in 15 years time, you might want to choose carefully.
This all assumes that the new parameters are within the 'headroom' of the stock ECU. For example you can put a 15G from an original T5 on a 940 turbo and it'll run slightly more than stock boost on 95 octane without pinging. Clearly Julie can do something similar with her car.
Of course the best situation is to make hardware modifications, then tailor the software to make full use of the hardware, as no amount of 'self learning' can ever be as efficient as tailored maps, especially with regard to ignition advance. This shouldn't really be a debate of hardware vs software - you wanna do both!
I think "exhaust / IC / larger turbo / remap" running limited boost (circa 1 Bar / 15 psi) is a proven route for gaining upwards of 300bhp (crank) on a real-world car (talking about a T5 here, of course), measurable on a dyno of your choice, whilst retaining the original characteristics of the engine...ie: decent spool-time, reasonable MPG, etc, etc. Naturally some cars will do better, some will do worse. I don't we can say much fairer than that, can we?
cheers
James
|