PD Powerboxes: Better & Safer Than Chip Tuning?

Hello,

There have been PD (Power Distribution) control units with TÜV (German technical inspection authority) certification for quite some time, which directly extend the injector opening time. This is not the "brute force" solution involving the diesel temperature.

In a direct injection (DI) system, a prolonged injection duration is supposedly not as problematic as in a valve-controlled injection (VCI) engine. This is because the normal injection duration in a DI system is significantly shorter than in a VCI engine, so even with a considerably extended duration, it's unlikely to reach the critical range that could cause piston damage.
This, in turn, leads to fewer soot problems, as long as there is sufficient airflow.

Therefore, it is not practically necessary to start the injection process earlier, and this also avoids the higher pressure peaks that would otherwise occur.

Therefore, the PD box solution seems even more "sensible" at first glance than with the VP-TDI. Consequently, one could actually avoid (what is ultimately incomprehensible to most customers and therefore potentially prone to shoddy work) PD chip tuning, as long as specific power increase profiles are not desired that a "simple" box cannot provide, such as concentrating the power increase in the higher RPM range.

So, install a well-designed performance box (one that doesn't cause any limp-mode symptoms), and the car will run smoothly and reliably – aside from the inevitable increased wear and tear that comes with accessing the extra power.

What do you think about it?

Hello Ulf,

Quote:

Because the normal PD injection duration is significantly shorter than with VP

.

"How did you come to that conclusion? I don't believe that a 130 hp PD engine, or even a 150 hp PD engine, uses significantly less fuel than an 110 hp VP engine. While the pressure in a PD engine is higher, how large are the injection nozzles? Also, the amount of fuel that needs to be injected for 130 or 150 hp is also greater. Furthermore, there's higher back pressure during the injection phase in the cylinder due to the higher turbocharger pressure!"
I would be careful.

Best regards,
Albrecht.

Albrecht wrote:

Hello Ulf, Quote: Because the normal PD injection duration is significantly shorter than with VP . How do you come to that conclusion? I don't believe that a 130 HP PD engine, or even a 150 HP PD engine, uses significantly less fuel than an 110 HP VP engine. While the pressure in a PD engine is higher, how large are the injection nozzles? Also, the amount of fuel that needs to be injected for 130 or 150 HP is also greater.

Hi Albrecht,

The generally rougher performance of PDs compared to VP engines suggests this.
And also, the sometimes absurd performance gains achieved through chip tuning, which are practically not achievable in naturally aspirated engines (at least without replacing the injectors), without stressing the engine through excessively early fuel injection (or the turbocharger through extreme pressure increases).

The virtually unchanged fuel consumption despite higher vehicle weights (and, in some cases, a lower compression ratio compared to previous models) suggests an improvement in engine efficiency. In my opinion, this can only be explained by a shift in the combustion process towards a homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) process, which involves a shorter injection duration while maintaining the same amount of fuel.

I think I've read something like that before, but where = ?????

Quote:

Furthermore, there is a higher back pressure during the injection phase in the cylinder due to the higher boost pressure!

Well, whether an initial pressure in the combustion chamber that is up to 0.5 bar higher than a fuel injection pressure of >>1000 bar can significantly slow down the injection process...

Hello Ulf,

By increasing the injection pressure in combination with smaller injector nozzles, you achieve better fuel mixing and, consequently, a shorter ignition delay. I believe that's the key. This also results in improved emission values and reduced fuel consumption. Nevertheless, the maximum amount/power is still achieved, as there are reserves available during that time.

Quote:

Well, whether an initial pressure

in the combustion chamber that is up to 0.5 bar higher than a fuel injection pressure of >>1000 bar can significantly slow down the injection process.
You shouldn't assume a pressure of 0.5 bar. The compression pressure at the end of the stroke (when fuel is injected) looks completely different at 4000 RPM and 1.5 bar boost pressure. It's definitely not the case that you can inject fuel against a negligible resistance.
In injection chambers used for fundamental research, the most realistic conditions are created, for example, by igniting a mixture of gas and air }.

Best regards,
Albrecht.

From a technical standpoint, I can't assess that. However, I drive a similar device, the Kw-Systems box, in a 150 HP TDI engine, and it has two power levels that can be selected before starting the drive (185 HP/200 HP). During operation, it doesn't go into limp mode, and I haven't noticed any other negative side effects.
However, what's remarkable is that the soot behavior (with a different air filter) is identical for both performance variants (I was able to verify this by driving behind my own vehicle). The power curve has also been adjusted to provide more power at higher RPMs. This didn't present any problems, and the characteristic curve was adjusted accordingly by KW-Systems. Ulf's theories about soot formation and power at higher RPMs are indeed accurate in this case.

Could you recommend some good PD (Power Delivery) power banks that are TÜV certified? Actually, I'm not so much interested in the TÜV certification itself, but rather in the overall quality of the power bank.

I can think of a few things right off the bat:

- KW - Systems
- Pbox
- Speed - Buster
- Oops.

...yes...and that's when they left him.

Are there fundamental differences between these speakers, or do they all operate on the same principle?

Thanks... see you, Chris.

Hi,

While I can't share personal experiences, several of my colleagues are using your PD TDI models for the first stage of [something - the context is missing here].
http://www.bb-automobiltechnik.de/german.html

Overall, they are satisfied with them. However, they are quite expensive, but they do offer a warranty, and you can choose between electronic tuning or hardware tuning with electronic adjustments. The latter, at least, costs as much as a used Japanese car.

Perhaps it's interesting, though.

Okay, PBox is a good company; they definitely produce high-quality prints.
'We probably aren't changing the boost pressure, but the Passat PD that we had modified here also performed very close to the specifications listed by PBox during a before-and-after test. It even produced 0.8 kW more, but that was likely a temporary effect.'

'Personally, I don't like the automatic transmission in combination with the chip; before, the shifting was smoother. Maybe it will learn different shift points after some driving.'

The customer was completely satisfied.

What I don't understand right now is why a power box should be safer than a chip.
Assuming a power box is frequently turned on because the driver always wants the extra power, then the advantage of a switchable box being potentially more engine-friendly than a chip becomes irrelevant. This is because with a power box, you can drive without any tuning (e.g., in city traffic), whereas a chip might always be active.

I see the risk with chip tuning primarily in the fact that many tuners, in order to maintain their image and satisfy customer demands, often push the engine's performance limits too far and promise very impressive power figures. This "over-tunes" the engine, as the power is increased without the materials being adapted to handle that power, for example, 130 hp/280 Nm from a 1Z engine or 140 hp on an AFN. For me, the greater risk is falling for a tuner who simply doesn't have the proper knowledge and is willing to take any risk to achieve those power figures. A good chip tune extracts the extra power from the engine without causing excessive smoke or other signs of stress, unlike power box tuning.

x world one wrote:

What I don't understand right now is why a power box is safer. it should be like a chip.

Hi,

That was only meant to illustrate that a terrible chip tuner can cause more problems (e.g., premature injection timing, excessive boost pressure...) than a box that simply extends the injection time.

But can anyone here perhaps contribute some reliable information regarding the comparison of full-load injection duration in PD (pre-combustion) and VP (valve-controlled) engines?

Okay, I just checked on BB and found the following:

Item No. | Item Description | Unit Price | Shopping Cart |
1234510 BB 1J M60 B&B Performance Optimization for VW Golf TDI 85KW/115PS.
Electronics / VW Golf: 798.00 EUR


What do 'level 1' and 'level 2' mean?

It's well known that tuning isn't good for the engine, and since I plan to drive mine for a long time, I'm not brave enough to spend that money on it. The 115 hp, 6-speed Golf (AJM) isn't exactly the most refined car, and even though I'd like to, I just don't have the courage to do it. And I also don't have the money to get a new engine if needed }.
but at level 2, it said something about 160 hp??? you give it a little gas twice, and *whoosh*, that's it, or am I wrong }? it sounds very mysterious.

Otherwise, has Ulf found a solution yet regarding which is better, a chip or a box?

Hi Markus,