Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rael

Diesel "rechipping" ...

Recommended Posts

Phantom Tracking here on CT offer the Quantum remap http://www. caravantalk. co. uk/community/store/product/9-engine-remaps/

 

Indeed, if you're not happy with any aspect of the remap, they'll restore the ECU to the OEM settings at no charge.

 

Take a look at many of the performance car forums and many will say that remap ain't no good unless it's done in conjunction with a rolling road/dyno session. That way, things can be tweaked to suit real world driving characteristics.

 

Indeed a remap should entail the car first being checked to see if any components are out of spec.

a rolling road test should then be carried out, and a graph printed of the results.

 

Audi engines are sometimes giving more output than those officialy quoted.

 

Car should then be remapped rolling road tested and the outputs plotted to a graph to see what and were the gains are.

I would only be happy with this type of remap personally, and I would also require some sort of back up should the dealer revert back to the original mapping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed a remap should entail the car first being checked to see if any components are out of spec.

a rolling road test should then be carried out, and a graph printed of the results.

 

Audi engines are sometimes giving more output than those officialy quoted.

 

Car should then be remapped rolling road tested and the outputs plotted to a graph to see what and were the gains are.

I would only be happy with this type of remap personally, and I would also require some sort of back up should the dealer revert back to the original mapping.

I used to have an MCC Smart car, I had it remapped by a very reputable company and they simply couldn't get it right. At times the remap worked and the performance was amazing but most of the time it didn't work and it was worse than standard. I wouldn't have another remap on anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had my Jeep remapped. A little better MPG towing. But a much smoother power delivery. And when I put my foot down it goes like a stabbed rat. Well worth the £ 160 I paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are big exceptions to all of this, the VW 1. 9TDI engines as fitted to the Golf Mk4 had 90, 110, 115, 130 and 150Bhp versions, the 150 was not simply a 're-mapped' 130, it had different head bolts and turbo I think. It's not always just a simple matter of factory de-tuning them.

 

90 had standard turbo and direct injection

 

110 some variants had standard turbo and some VNT Turbo all with direct injection

 

115 and 130 had VNT Turbo, PD injection but had differences between them.

 

150 had bigger VNT Turbo, PD injection with larger injectors and stronger internals.

 

The only 1. 9TDi that had mapped differences wad the PD130. It came with two different torque outputs depending on whether it was fitted to a 5 speed box or 6 speed box. The 5 speed gearboxes were not rated for the torque so the engine's torque had to be capped on the 5 speed model.

Unfortunately it meant if you remapped it you ended up destroying the gearbox.

 

The 1. 9TDI was a reliable lump though and the 110 and 130 responded especially well to mapping.

 

Lee

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me it implies more power but with out a penalty in fuel usage.

 

Just what I would expect from a boost in efficiency.

But do you actually see better mpg? If not, the reduced flexibility and poor response of running in 6th is a price too high, even if the chip has made this possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not when it comes to towing.

 

My last car an Xtrail had 171bhp with 266 pound feet and was ok at towing 1565kg but not great from low revs.

 

Towing the same caravan with a CX-5 around the same kerbweight due to the 27kg approx. spare wheel.

The towing performance is far better, the car pulls with out effort due to 310 pound feet of torque, but more importantly around 250 pound feet of it is available at 1500 rpm, it will happily tow at this and spends more time in top gear than the xtrail.

 

But the CX-5 uses around the same fuel towing as the xtrail did, although I do find I tend to go a little quicker at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily! The manufacturers mapping is set to achieve the best results under artificial test conditions so that they get nice numbers to publish. The real world is a different place! Modest power increase can come with better mpg in the real world, but not huge increases.

And by, do the manufacturers push the limits.

 

The EU specifies a tolerance over how level the test environment has to be, so testing centres deliberately build with a slight downward slope. And the cars aren't required to have a passenger side mirror by law, so that can come off. Tyres to max, of course, and panel gaps closed off with masking tape. Alternator disconnected, etc.

 

http://www. gloucestershireecho. co. uk/Cars-fuel-efficiency-claims-inflated-says-new/story-23229299-detail/story. html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And by, do the manufacturers push the limits.

 

The EU specifies a tolerance over how level the test environment has to be, so testing centres deliberately build with a slight downward slope. And the cars aren't required to have a passenger side mirror by law, so that can come off. Tyres to max, of course, and panel gaps closed off with masking tape. Alternator disconnected, etc.

 

http://www. gloucestershireecho. co. uk/Cars-fuel-efficiency-claims-inflated-says-new/story-23229299-detail/story. html

This has come from a newspaper, so the truth is probably somewhere in between, not sure which I distrust most!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has come from a newspaper, so the truth is probably somewhere in between, not sure which I distrust most!

Not only has it come from a newspaper but the company itself is largely run by a bunch of media people with the lower ranks hoping to increase their knowledge of emissions. :rolleyes:

The newspaper article appears to be a promotions piece to help expand their business.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has come from a newspaper, so the truth is probably somewhere in between, not sure which I distrust most!

OK, so you guys explain why the official figures keep getting better and better - but the real world economy of most cars improves by a MUCH smaller amount.

 

Here's a report which comes from a different source. Same findings, http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/business-21759258

 

"About half the official improvements in fuel efficiency during the last decade results from efforts made by carmakers during testing, rather than from real-life improvements,"

 

With careful driving, I can get close to the claimed figure for my 2007 car. But can get nowhere near on the newer ones. I realise that isn't evidence either, but I'm far from alone.

Edited by Tigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This can only be done for the relatively few models sold in the UK that are also sold in the USA with the same engine - just go on a US website and find the EPA figures for that model, convert those figures from miles per US gallon to miles per Imperial gallon (multiply by 1. 2) and the City and Highway figures will be a good clue to real world consumption.

 

The EU test has lost touch with all reality but agreement to change it needs all 28 countries to agree - so fat chance of it changing.

Edited by Black Grouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so you guys explain why the official figures keep getting better and better - but the real world economy of most cars improves by a MUCH smaller amount.

 

Here's a report which comes from a different source. Same findings, http://www. bbc. co. uk/news/business-21759258

 

"About half the official improvements in fuel efficiency during the last decade results from efforts made by carmakers during testing, rather than from real-life improvements,"

 

With careful driving, I can get close to the claimed figure for my 2007 car. But can get nowhere near on the newer ones. I realise that isn't evidence either, but I'm far from alone.

It seems to me that the newspaper source was the same as the BBC source which was in turn an old press release from the independent pressure group the official sounding Transport & Environment dated March 2013. Other postings in this topic seem to indicate that what the T&E report allege of the car manufacturers is not possible in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the newspaper source was the same as the BBC source which was in turn an old press release from the independent pressure group the official sounding Transport & Environment dated March 2013. Other postings in this topic seem to indicate that what the T&E report allege of the car manufacturers is not possible in practice.

OK, so you guys explain why the official figures keep getting better and better - but the real world economy of most cars improves by a MUCH smaller amount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had both - previous cars with 'plug-in chip' and now, car with proper re-map. I know which I prefer but at the end of the day, you pay your money and make your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much as I would like to have my diesel re-programmed (3L auto does not have any respect for fuel consunption LOL) I was put off by the likelyhood of any such alterations constitutng an MOT fail. I am not aware of the actual situation, as of now, but it needs bearing in mind. Perhaps some-one on here can give us informed info on this aspect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much as I would like to have my diesel re-programmed (3L auto does not have any respect for fuel consunption LOL) I was put off by the likelyhood of any such alterations constitutng an MOT fail. I am not aware of the actual situation, as of now, but it needs bearing in mind. Perhaps some-one on here can give us informed info on this aspect?

It will only fail if the emissions exceed the stated tolerances. In most cases a re-map will improve the emissions.

 

Other mods, including removal of or blanking of EGR valves causing dash indicator to light, de-CAT and dare I say it, de-DPF - well that's a different story B)

Edited by maplecottage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only has it come from a newspaper but the company itself is largely run by a bunch of media people with the lower ranks hoping to increase their knowledge of emissions. :rolleyes:

The newspaper article appears to be a promotions piece to help expand their business.

 

I fell over with laughter reading the above link :lol::lol:

OK, so you guys explain why the official figures keep getting better and better - but the real world economy of most cars improves by a MUCH smaller amount.

 

Actually real world fuel economy of new vehicles is getting better and better, The problem are the figures that are produced by European governing bodies, that are out of the manufactures control

"Car manufacturers have to quote official figures in brochures and websites, and are not permitted to publish alternative figures" http://www. theaa. com/motoring_advice/fuels-and-environment/official-fuel-consumption-figures. html

 

There are new World wide test procedures that will soon follow in hopefully 2015

http://www. unece. org/trans/main/welcwp29. html

Edited by Gaz40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will only fail if the emissions exceed the stated tolerances. In most cases a re-map will improve the emissions.

 

Other mods, including removal of or blanking of EGR valves causing dash indicator to light, de-CAT and dare I say it, de-DPF - well that's a different story B)

 

If you've had a "DPF Deletion" your vehicle will fail the MOT, Whether its been re-chipped to off set its removal or not.

 

You will most likely find that re-mapping away from manufacture tolerances, will also in time be a MOT failure and illegal, due to the laws on Type Approval and Taxation Class.

 

Where are the official figures that Re-maps will improve your emissions. Why aren't general manufactures offering a "retro" fitted remap on their already produced vehicles, to meet ever changing emission laws ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you've had a "DPF Deletion" your vehicle will fail the MOT, Whether its been re-chipped to off set its removal or not.

 

You will most likely find that re-mapping away from manufacture tolerances, will also in time be a MOT failure and illegal, due to the laws on Type Approval and Taxation Class.

 

Where are the official figures that Re-maps will improve your emissions. Why aren't general manufactures offering a "retro" fitted remap on their already produced vehicles, to meet ever changing emission laws ?

On your last paragraph, virtually all legislation is forward looking only, so nothing to gain by retro fitting maps to enable older cars to fit new legislation. Not to mention the fact that manufacturers do not want to admit that their cars can be improved without giving them loads of cash!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually real world fuel economy of new vehicles is getting better and better,

Really?

 

I just chose a couple of common cars at random.

 

VW Golf 2. 0 TD 2004 approx 50. 2 mpg http://www. honestjohn. co. uk/realmpg/volkswagen/golf-v-2004

VW Golf 2. 0 TD 2014 approx 52. 7 http://www. honestjohn. co. uk/realmpg/volkswagen/golf-vii-2013

 

Ford Mondeo 2. 0 TDCi 2000 approx 48. 3 mpg http://www. honestjohn. co. uk/realmpg/ford/mondeo-iii-2000

Ford Mondeo 2. 0 TDCi 2007 approx 44 (depending on model) www. honestjohn. co. uk/realmpg/ford/mondeo-iv-2007

 

I don't see any meaningful improvement in real MPGs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?

 

I just chose a couple of common cars at random.

 

VW Golf 2. 0 TD 2004 approx 50. 2 mpg http://www. honestjohn. co. uk/realmpg/volkswagen/golf-v-2004

VW Golf 2. 0 TD 2014 approx 52. 7 http://www. honestjohn. co. uk/realmpg/volkswagen/golf-vii-2013

0DCI

Ford Mondeo 2. 0 TDCi 2000 approx 48. 3 mpg http://www. honestjohn. co. uk/realmpg/ford/mondeo-iii-2000

Ford Mondeo 2. 0 TDCi 2007 approx 44 (depending on model) www. honestjohn. co. uk/realmpg/ford/mondeo-iv-2007

 

I don't see any meaningful improvement in real MPGs

 

Really Yes

 

You've posted quoted figures from the NEDC.

 

Real World driving still sees real MPG improvments against latter day vehicles. New vehicle are much more fuel efficient.

 

We have Clio Media Nav's DCI 90's now in the winter we are both returning an average of 68mpg (Motorway and city driving) We are both pleased with this against a listed 88mpg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really Yes

 

You've posted quoted figures from the NEDC.

The figures I quote aren't from the NEDC, but are the real MPGs from real people. I see very little improvement.

 

Meanwhile, the official figures (the NEDC ones) continue to rise, and the gap gets bigger.

 

I can see I'm not going to win you over. Clearly all the people who have posted their real MPGs to the HJ site are in on the conspiracy.

Edited by Tigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Really Yes

 

You've posted quoted figures from the NEDC.

 

Real World driving still sees real MPG improvments against latter day vehicles. New vehicle are much more fuel efficient.

 

We have Clio Media Nav's DCI 90's now in the winter we are both returning an average of 68mpg (Motorway and city driving) We are both pleased with this against a listed 88mpg.

2009 Clio 1. 5 Dci 88 - real life average MPG 59. 4 http://www. honestjohn. co. uk/realmpg/renault/clio-iii-2-2009

2013 Clio 1. 5 Dci 90 - real life average MPG 64. 9 http://www. honestjohn. co. uk/realmpg/renault/clio-iv-2013

 

So yes, a car which has improved. They clearly have done more than just make the test results better. Good for Renault and for you :-)

Edited by Tigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You will most likely find that re-mapping away from manufacture tolerances, will also in time be a MOT failure and illegal, due to the laws on Type Approval and Taxation Class.

 

Where are the official figures that Re-maps will improve your emissions. Why aren't general manufactures offering a "retro" fitted remap on their already produced vehicles, to meet ever changing emission laws ?

That's all shoe repairers :lol:

 

A RRSport has the same power train as the Discovery - it's just mapped differently. Incidentally, when you select the various different terrain modes in a 'proper' 4x4, you are also changing the engine mapping.

Edited by maplecottage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...