[Closed] Car engine re-map. Super chips?

[quote=retro83 ]It scares my nan in the passenger seat.

She's scared by how much you rev the engine rather than how fast you accelerate?

What I' m getting at is that the spread of torque over the rev range is far more relevant. Thus your comment that 123BHP is fine even in a large car is not meaningful. You could have two completely different engines, both with 123BHP that drive totally differently.

True, but it's a turbo diesel like the OP's and what most other people seem to be talking about remapping (the rest seem to be cars which already have lots of power and I doubt are short of torque) and I doubt I have more mid range torque than he does.

You can't actually do a lot with the little cars short of power which are the only ones which seem to have a real problem, which is presumably why nobody here is discussing remapping those? Though I'm a bit dubious about 94bhp not being enough in a Fiesta - that's what my Dad's Cavalier (the model replaced by the Vectra for those too young to remember) had and that went plenty fast enough. I certainly never had any problem accelerating that onto motorways - though nowadays when changing lanes I tend to just carry on without touching the cruise control (admittedly I do tend to use forward planning for that).

[quote=stevextc ]About the same as 10mm extra travel or 100g lighter forks or .... ???

Thanks for the clarification 😆

p.s. found the receipt and it was MOTECH in Wellingborough ....

Don't know if they are better/worse but I don't have any complaints and the remap is very pleasant to drive AND economical when you don't floor it

Aaaaaand they're off! The arguing has begun. These threads always end up like this. Two disparate groups angrily exchanging their polarised views. Ah well, such is STW 🙂

[quote=stevextc ]240 to 280 doesn't stop you ... it simply makes it more effortless and smoother and the fact you only need to put 50% of the available power down.
...
to me having to use the bottom 50% of the gas pedal just to overtake FEELS underpowered
...
The fact is I barely touch the power

So the issue is the lack of mobility in your right ankle? 😉

at 70-75 its producing next to no pollution because its barely idling...

What do the test results say? I suspect you'll find it's doing a lot more than idling.

Compare that with my Mum's last Fiat 500 on the same trip it would consume 1/2-1l of oil ... there is no way that is producing less pollution.

You could of course compare with a non-polluting car with a standard map, but I guess that wouldn't help your point.

Also you can't really say "my car has enough as I've hired cars with more"....
It doesn't really work like that as there is a lot of adjustment ... when I hire cars they feel horribly under-powered...

Now you're comparing apples and chalk - I'm talking about having hire cars with a lot more power than mine (I've had a V6 Vectra and a sporty Alfa estate), or some with just a bit more, and I've never got back in mine and felt it was underpowered - and yes I did drive the hire cars in the way you're supposed to drive hire cars. You're presumably hiring small cars which maybe are a bit underpowered, but then when you talk about adjustment it's you who's adjusted to what you have.

So the issue is the lack of mobility in your right ankle?

You could of course compare with a non-polluting car with a standard map, but I guess that wouldn't help your point.

Now you're comparing apples and chalk - I'm talking about having hire cars with a lot more power than mine (I've had a V6 Vectra and a sporty Alfa estate), or some with just a bit more, and I've never got back in mine and felt it was underpowered - and yes I did drive the hire cars in the way you're supposed to drive hire cars. You're presumably hiring small cars which maybe are a bit underpowered, but then when you talk about adjustment it's you who's adjusted to what you have.

Exactly but it's not small cars as such....its more the fact they need to be revved hard to even move...
We had a Nissan MPV with the clutch matched to the 1.6l petrol and it barely got up the 45 degree drive at the vacation villa... the owner had a Fait 500 (by chance) and didn't even TRY and get it up the drive... we stayed in the same place this year with a 2l diesel MPV that had no problem on the 45 degree slope but the owner still couldn't get their Fait up....

The OH just swapped from a 2.2 diesel to 2l petrol and she is constantly saying it was a mistake... I don't think it is as her work has changed so most of her driving is <5 miles so a diesel would be stupid but she says it just feels gutless on the motorway... and her 13 yr old diesel with 225,000 miles was much better on motorways...

and yes I did drive the hire cars in the way you're supposed to drive hire cars

When you own a high powered diesel (or after the first few weeks) it actually stops being something you drive like a hire car and it just becomes effortless to drive.. it's like the old petrol Jags etc. except it uses about 1/4 of the fuel.... in fact my diesel uses less than the 2.2 Honda 2.2 did by a fair margin and way less than my old 2L petrol (which wasn't meant to be economical)... ignoring tank sizes (which I don't think are that different) I'd get to my Mum's in the 306 Gti6 on a tank and have just enough left to potter about to the petrol station... the BMW I can drive all the way there .. drive it every day and rive back and fill it up when I come off the M25 before going home...

The V6 Vectra from memory was in 2.5 form only 170ps... so a lot less than half the BMW diesel and less than 1/3 of the torque.... so taking of apples to chalk...

The thing I think your missing is the smooth but effortless power delivery a big tuned diesel delivers
More akin to the big V8's but without the inherent instability the V8 creates.. it's like comparing a set of Revelations to some Lyrics or Fox 36's .... yep its way better than a entry level tk coil... but its not really a replacement for serious enduro.... (you can if you want but you'll feel a lot more beat up and the end)

My dad used to have a big V8 Jag and I never understood way he drove it so slowly... but now I do.. its the effortless torque that feels nice and means as a driver it feels effortless....

[quote="boblo"]Aaaaaand they're off! The arguing has begun. These threads always end up like this. Two disparate groups angrily exchanging their polarised views. Ah well, such is STW
The OP wanted to know about remaps...

I don't really care what anyone else drives....
I know what I put into the car and unfortunately know what my mum had to put into her small petrol when used outside its environment...

The only polarised group seem to be those who doubtlessly thought diesels were fantastic when they got told they produced less pollution... and then due to the crappy way the tests are run and cars sold have now polarised the opposite way...

As far as I'm concerned if I had to drive in towns I'd drive a small petrol.... as I hardly do any of that I drive a big diesel... most of my riding is suited to a mid-travel... if I lived elsewhere I'd ride a completely different bike... of course people are free to buy downhill rigs and ride them round XC courses that are their only local riding.... or ride their XC down FW DH if they so desire... but I prefer to use the right tool for the job.

unfortunately know what my mum had to put into her small petrol when used outside its environment.

You know that not all small petrols are like that don't you?

but I prefer to use the right tool for the job.

280bhp isn't the right tool for any job except perhaps towing huge loads or some sort of racing. You like it, fine, but don't go on about tools for jobs. Admit it, you just like going fast.

Asside from the remap car. Who holidays at the top of a road with a 100% gradient (what a 45 degree slope would be)

Has anyone got the source for the 'Maxtorque' post on page 1? It contradicts everything I've read about remapped engine emissions (not that's there's much) and ties in with a load of horror stories of MOT failures which don't seem to happen in real life.

For my sins I had the 140bhp VW CR engine in my Exeo mapped to 180bhp, it was a cheap back-street map (the lad proudly told me it was a hooky REVO map). He was fairly honest about it - the differences between my car and the version that would I have been 180 out of the box was a smaller turbo, smaller injectors and slightly smaller brakes (the 180 is a bit quicker too end, but as I rarely drive more than 80 and my brakes are excellent it didn't seem a problem).

This is where it went above my head a bit - but this is how I understood it these days maps are "3D" so there's a lot more to it than just engine speed and load at play. At a constant 70mph the engine will be doing largely what it always did - chugging along doing 50+ mpg (he said it would be 2/3% more effecient because of fine tuning but I'm not so sure) it only when you really floor it (throttle pedal down, high engine speed) when it will do whatever it does to make it faster. So as per 99% of the time, more fuel (which I assume more emissons) when you're 'giving it some'.

Longevity wise I was told if you drive like a nutter all the time it will wear turbo, injectors and engine in general at a higher rate than if you drove a standard engine like a nutter all the time, but if you drive as you always do it'll be slightly kinder on your engine and it all sort of balances out.

And the fun police will along soon to stop any other non approved forms of enjoyment... 🙁

You know that not all small petrols are like that don't you?

Well that one was particularly crap but non of the small <1.2 Turbo's are designed to do 200,000 miles... not just the engine but the whole car is made to fail like so many modern disposable items lil printers and washing machines etc.

280bhp isn't the right tool for any job except perhaps towing huge loads or some sort of racing. You like it, fine, but don't go on about tools for jobs. Admit it, you just like going fast.

I got over fast years ago.... in terms of 0-60 its not much faster than most hot hatches.and 0-30 there are quite a few 1.6L would beat it.. 50-80 it is effortless though... when I was younger I had quite a few fast cars... I thought diesel was for granddad's....

Now if truth be known I like the idea i could go fast if I wanted .... I just choose not to 😀
I could get the speed limiter removed for example but given I don't usually go past 50% of the limited speed it seems a bit pointless....I could have the M-Sport suspension and even have a limited slip diff fitted and .... but mostly its just a sort of latent power that makes it nice to drive.

It is REALLY nice to drive.... in a grown up sort of powerful car way more than my younger years cars. Its much more civilised and doesn't seem to be trying to jump forwards the whole time ... My previous tuned hot hatches were for example a nightmare in a traffic cues... you let your foot of the clutch and the car wanted to leap forwards... the big diesel just handles it all in a very civilised way.... and at the end of a 300 mile drive you step out feeling like you just drove 10 miles...

Asside from the remap car. Who holidays at the top of a road with a 100% gradient (what a 45 degree slope would be)

My brother has a mini (original) in Ibiza and he can't even get up the road to the drive and his moped needed pushing to get up the drive! The 2l Jeep this year got up no problem though.... the 1.6 petrol last year... lets just say won't have the clutch long... indeed it's probably dead by now

Actually the whole hill has the makings of a great DH track.... 😀

Maxtorque posts on here and pistonheads. His is a pretty good realistic on remapping.

I first met Maxtorque about 12yrs ago when he was building his WRC-a-like car

If he says it, it's right when it comes to this kind of stuff.

[quote=stevextc ]The Fiat is meant to be a standard non-polluting car .. except it isn't designed to last or be driven at 70 mph for extended periods.... I'm sure nipping into the local town and back it was very economical and non polluting.... but on the motorway it's running above it's comfort zone the whole time and as it gets hotter it gets worse.

Sure, but that still doesn't make it a valid comparison - the correct comparison is the diesel which isn't remapped. Or maybe just mine which has half the power of yours before remapping, but still cruises effortlessly on the motorway.

Exactly but it's not small cars as such....its more the fact they need to be revved hard to even move...
...
The OH just swapped from a 2.2 diesel to 2l petrol and she is constantly saying it was a mistake...
...
When you own a high powered diesel (or after the first few weeks) it actually stops being something you drive like a hire car and it just becomes effortless to drive.
...
The thing I think your missing is the smooth but effortless power delivery a big tuned diesel delivers

I think you're missing the point that I own a diesel, so I know about the effortless power delivery - because you don't need a big one, let alone a remapped one to get that.

Out of interest... what is the premium increase for chipping/remapping?

I was toying with the idea of getting an MX5 and a supercharger... but that was getting a bit silly for insurance 😉 Thinking of other ways to get my jollies!!!

like lots of things it depends on he driver - 40yo Man 2 kids and diesel estate, didn't make a difference. 18 year old with a chipped Focus ST may well get done dry and hard.

I was toying with the idea of getting an MX5 and a supercharger... but that was getting a bit silly for insurance

A friend has just that. It's bonkers mad!
Insurance is £250 ish for a 50yr old living in London.

I often wonder when threads like this appear, the Power Outputs and Max Power Outputs...

During any typical day, where and how would anyone use 280hp?

It's a question I ask myself because if I hazard a guess about how much power I use in a typical day it's probably about 70-90hp... and for me that's quite enough.

Emissions wise it'll be the same as the stock car if driven in the same way, though I do wonder if NOX emissions would go up due to higher torque.

I found that in ECO mode the gearbox seemed to shift at the same points and fuel economy was just as shocking afterwards as before.

(V60 diesel, went from 190bhp to 220(?) and a wedge more torque with Polestar)

Flaperon - Member

Emissions wise it'll be the same as the stock car if driven in the same way,

Assuming egr/dpf/cat deletes aren't performed.

During any typical day, where and how would anyone use 280hp?

That's not the point though. If you have more power you can drive more slowly. Anyone in a small, feeble, boring car tries to overtake you, you can show them who's boss!

Emissions wise it'll be the same as the stock car if driven in the same way, though I do wonder if NOX emissions would go up due to higher torque.

They'll reduce EGR which will affect it at normal driving speeds, and they may advance injection timing which may also increase NOx. Probly reduce particulates though.

During any typical day, where and how would anyone use 280hp?

Well I only have 250hp and 340 torque things. I use them everyday on my commute. Not for long but at some point, prob 5 miles or so it's nice just to use it.

The rest of the time I never really use more than about 100hp. In fact most of my 45mile commute can be done using about 30hp, but then it does use about 150 torques instead.

Torques make a car enjoyable to drive power is always top end revving and helps pulling at high speed.

Be carful what your looking for...

but this is how I understood it these days maps are "3D" so there's a lot more to it than just engine speed and load at play. At a constant 70mph the engine will be doing largely what it always did - chugging along doing 50+ mpg (he said it would be 2/3% more effecient because of fine tuning but I'm not so sure) it only when you really floor it (throttle pedal down, high engine speed) when it will do whatever it does to make it faster. So as per 99% of the time, more fuel (which I assume more emissons) when you're 'giving it some'.

My 3L diesel is more efficient at 70 mph with the remap the extra torque means it goes into the super economy mode mostly... (There being 3 main modes in the 3D space....) The factory one is more efficient at a constant 56 mph... because that's either the speed people drive on motorways OR the test the regulators devised! (pick one)

As soon as I go up a hill it slips to the more normal mode... and unless I really hammer it it's in "normal mode" (yep as you say its more of a 3D space but I see the distinct changes on the instantaneous mpg... )

The extra torque seems to let it select the more economical mode which is in the non tuned engine used when using engine braking going downhill.... and 70mph on the flat is more or less the weight of my foot and shoe.

bikebouy - Member

I often wonder when threads like this appear, the Power Outputs and Max Power Outputs...

During any typical day, where and how would anyone use 280hp?

Without context 280 is just a number. Why would anyone need a house with six bedrooms, that's just selfish. Well maybe they've got six kids. In a 2200kg estate 280bhp /300 lb·ft is just about the right amount of power to have nice usable performance.

"I can't understand why anyone would want more than I have" just kind of hints at jealousy.

The new "entry level" Tesla has 260bhp, 317 lb·ft (430 N·m) and weighs 1900kg. Seems like a gratuitous, you might even say dangerous amount of power for a family car unless you want to drive like a tool but I don't think we'll hear any criticism about it.

I think you're missing the point that I own a diesel, so I know about the effortless power delivery - because you don't need a big one, let alone a remapped one to get that.

You own a diesel with half the power so how are you comparing ??

Its like riding the same trail with a 100mm and a 160mm and the bloke with 100mm has the fork set hard, gets to the end and say's I only used 90% of my 100mm travel so your 160mm is just 60mm wasted ... you don't need it because my 100mm fork only used 90mm

The difference being the 160mm fork had small bump sensitivity, good ramp up... but the 100mm was just set high pressure and LSC failed right up and provided a horrible ride

I'm not saying a smaller diesel is a horrible ride.... I'm just pointing out that comparing a 140 bhp with x nm to a 280 bhp with x nm means the mid range etc. are completely different just as a petrol turbo with 140 bhp and X/1.5 nm of torque is different.

In my case the engine was 240 and went to 280 ... torque obviously increased ad the difference is it feels nicer in the mid ranges.... no EGR deletion, no DPF removal...

Another way to see this from the other side is your legs stay the same....but you change from a 5 speed 11-26 or a 11-40 cassette to a 10 speed 11-40 ... the 5 speed 11-40 is full of holes... but the 11-40 is much better...

For most people they prefer the 10 speed... even though the range is the same as it has less jumps and they can get a decent cadence. With more torque and horsepower the engine delivery is just more smooth...

You can argue a single speed is all that is strictly necessary and it's [u]mostly[/u] true but the extra gears can make riding more pleasant. In the same way the extra HP/TQ just make driving more pleasant ... and the engine is taking it easier to deliver the same

I'm not jealous, far from it. Buy whatever you like..

My question is a simple one, out of those 280 horses under the bonnet.. how many do you actually use in a normal daily drive ? My guess is about 25%
I maybe wrong here but aren't there some super cars that switch off half the cyclinders of the engine when cruising ?

I've got a diesel engined SUV thingy ATM, and apart from a stab of the go peddle at junctions, it'll cruise along barely using any input from me. But I'll admit I drive like a grandad in his slippers.

Without context 280 is just a number. Why would anyone need a house with six bedrooms, that's just selfish. Well maybe they've got six kids. In a 2200kg estate 280bhp /300 lb·ft is just about the right amount of power to have nice usable performance.
I can't understand why anyone would want more than I have" just kind of hints at jealousy.

There is this 😀 but its mainly lack of understanding that the majority of the benefit is the part you DON'T use...

6 bedrooms and 6 kids is one thing but 6 bedrooms 4 kids and 6 bikes is another. The estate agent might call it a bedroom but obviously it's a bike room with large screen TV hooked yup the the trainer...

The fact is the ability not to pack each bedroom with beds is nice to have...of course if you live in a 1 bed flat with 6 kids that might make you jealous

The new "entry level" Tesla has 260bhp, 317 lb·ft (430 N·m) and weighs 1900kg. Seems like a gratuitous, you might even say dangerous amount of power for a family car unless you want to drive like a tool but I don't think we'll hear any criticism about it.

What's not to like.... how many bikes does it carry and does it come with a pull out bed... can I stand up inside whilst working on my bikes.... sounds ideal... can you charge these in the BPW car park or do I need to buy a new one to get home???

bikebouy - Member

I'm not jealous, far from it. Buy whatever you like..

My question is a simple one, out of those 280 horses under the bonnet.. how many do you actually use in a normal daily drive ? My guess is about 25%

Depends when the engine delivers peak power. Generally somewhere around 70/80% of the rev range. Maybe an overtake, maybe a junction exit, whatever. If you regularly overtake you're probably more likely to be using peak power in a 120bhp car than 300bhp.

I maybe wrong here but aren't there some super cars that switch off half the cyclinders of the engine when cruising ?

That's true. It's been around for ages. I drove a dodge ram in 2004 iirc which could do that.

My LWB T5 had 174bhp, and pulled like a train. 150bhp in a much smaller and lighter car seems adequate.

It didn't have 6 bedrooms mind, or any kids.

150hp is fine for pretty much any family car. We used to have a VAG diesel with 140hp

It delivered all the power in a very narrow range and was therefore very annoying to drive, it didn't need more power, just could have done with a broader power range.

Mrs FD has one of the 100bhp fiestas very easy to drive, plenty of low down torque for overtaking the only time it suffers is at motorway speeds when it struggles with power.

My Volvo was 200bhp..trust me, it needed it because it was quite a heavy lump.

My fiesta was 150 and was very nippy.

My mates panda was lighter still and 100bhp, very rapid but made out of crisp packets and sticky tape.

Depends on the car really.

FunkyDunc - Member

150hp is fine for pretty much any family car.

If it has loads of torque. Like......

a VAG diesel with 140hp

My question is a simple one, out of those 280 horses under the bonnet.. how many do you actually use in a normal daily drive?

I drive a 4.0 v6 Prado with 280HP. To be honest it takes most of that power to get out of a junction 🙂

150hp is fine for pretty much any family car. We used to have a VAG diesel with 140hp

It delivered all the power in a very narrow range and was therefore very annoying to drive, it didn't need more power, just could have done with a broader power range.

Inevitably making the range wider gives more power at peak....
You can play about with multiple and multistage turbo's... as a means to reducing the peak power but this seems to usually lead to a decrease in efficiency not to mention having more parts to fail.

To give an example BMW make the 3L flat 6 .. you can get the x25, x30 and x35 and now the x40 but they are all the same engine block..

The 30 to 25 is just detuned and some restricting parts whereas the x35 is a dual Turbo with low boost (or something)

The x35 is only available auto though as the torque shreds the clutch faster on a manual... but the fuel economy is significantly worse and the remapped x30 delivers a similar range of power/torque but the clutch can suffer but it does this with a better mpg ...

That's all broad brush strokes but ....what I mean is there are ways to lower the max power AND have a wider delivery but then its possible all you are actually achieving is limiting peak power....without an actual reason except saying "xxx ps is enough" so lets build an engine that delivers less power, probably is less efficient and such just to academically meet something....

Now in some ways it's interesting ... for example you can't change torque being linked to power.. it's how its defined and you don't necassarily want too much or it strains the clutch and can't be delivered to the road effectively so in some ways this is a useful thing...

Meanwhile, though I rarely ever use the peak power I do use the mid range all the time .. my clutch lasts OK because I don't drive like I'm trying to lay down 280hp the whole time ....

.

We used to have a VAG diesel with 140hp

It delivered all the power in a very narrow range and was therefore very annoying to drive, it didn't need more power, just could have done with a broader power range.

Yeah the old ones are like that, the new ones not. I used to have an old one, you jsut had to drive it differently.

Quoting peak bhp is willy waving and not particularly relevant for every day driving. Low down torque increases are the thing you should be searching for. Have a look a dyno charts from your proposed mapper. Look at the torque curve not the peak bhp numbers that we are all drawn to (including the mapper!)
[img] ?t=1427792005[/img]

so lets build an engine that delivers less power, probably is less efficient

Guesswork.. I think you should step away from the technical stuff....

This is quite funny. People picking random BHP numbers out of thin (tho presumably polluted) air that are 'enough' regardless of the who/what/why/when stuff. 🙂

[quote=stevextc ]My 3L diesel is more efficient at 70 mph with the remap the extra torque means it goes into the super economy mode mostly...

You need to check out maxtorque's post on the first page. The theoretical extra torque available due to the remap makes no difference at all when cruising at 70mph - the torque the engine is actually providing is exactly the same as before the remap, hence in order for the remap to improve the fuel economy then it's found some magical way to do this with less fuelling than the factory map at the same engine speed. Presumably you reckon the people designing the factory map didn't bother optimising the economy at 70 (your implication seems to be that they optimised it at 56 instead, which fundamentally misses the reason it's possible to have a remap in the first place!)? As maxtorque suggests, your lighter right foot is just due to a changed pedal map.

[quote=stevextc ]You own a diesel with half the power so how are you comparing ??

Because you were talking about the quality of the power delivery and a diesel with half the power is still "effortless to drive" with "smooth but effortless power delivery". Your biking analogies don't really apply, because the quality of the driving experience is much the same - having to use 3/4 of the pedal travel rather than 1/4 doesn't really change that.

[quote=boblo ]This is quite funny. People picking random BHP numbers out of thin (tho presumably polluted) air that are 'enough' regardless of the who/what/why/when stuff.

Well the OP has 150 (and wants more) in a car which is almost certainly no bigger or heavier than mine which is adequate with 120.

hence in order for the remap to improve the fuel economy then it's found some magical way to do this with less fuelling than the factory map at the same engine speed

It's not magic - it's less EGR.

Ah, so more polluting?

To give an example BMW make the 3L flat 6 .. you can get the x25, x30 and x35 and now the x40 but they are all the same engine block..

The 30 to 25 is just detuned and some restricting parts whereas the x35 is a dual Turbo with low boost (or something)

The x35 is only available auto though as the torque shreds the clutch faster on a manual... but the fuel economy is significantly worse and the remapped x30 delivers a similar range of power/torque but the clutch can suffer but it does this with a better mpg ...

Not so, the x25 and x30 (which are no longer available) were a different block to the x35. The x25 and x30 did use the same block but with differnet ancilliaries to give different power outputs, these were also non-turbo, so getting more power out of these is not as simple as re-mapping the engine to gain more boost. More likely changes to displacement and upgraded engine parts would be required to get any noticeable difference. The x35 was a different block and at first was a twin turbo which laterly changed to a twin scroll (single turbo). These can be mapped more easily than the NA engines.

The newer x28 and x30 are now 2.0L 4 cyclinder turbo units rather than the 3.0L straight 6 units (not flat 6).