which cars gain the most when remapped?
Discussion
Coolbanana said:
I've bought a DTUK tuning box for my Golf R...won't be as much gain as a remap but should add 30-50bhp to the already healthy 300bhp by all accounts from the independent reviews and tests I've seen.
The DTUK website quotes an optimistic 375bhp (standard 300bhp) and 527Nm (standard 380Nm).
Given how much fun I'm having in this little car already (more than I had in my remapped 335i and 911) an extra bit of midrange will be awesome.
I bought a tunit diesel box for my T32 Xtrail as the standard car has 128bhp and 320nm, which isn't a lot for a car of this size, and I wanted a bit more power to tow my race car around. TUNIT claim upto 40% more power which would take it to around 170bhp, but having run it for around 2000miles it feels more like 150bhp. In fact it feels very similar in performance ( when towing ) to my old X3 2.0d which had 150bhp and 330NM. The tuning box makes the Xtrail fine in terms of power ( it's an ace car in every other respect), you can feel that there is a little more mumbo, but I can't help thinking that Nissan need a range of more powerful engines. I think there is a 1.6 twin turbo diesel in the Renault range with 180bhp. That would be good.The DTUK website quotes an optimistic 375bhp (standard 300bhp) and 527Nm (standard 380Nm).
Given how much fun I'm having in this little car already (more than I had in my remapped 335i and 911) an extra bit of midrange will be awesome.
Scuffers said:
RWHP is a totally meaningless metric.
for a measurement to be remotely meaningful it must stand up to being quantifiable and empirical, and anything that involves a measurement taken with a rubber/roller interface in the middle is simply not going to cut it.
(I await the howls of how wrong I am and how they are super accurate because of XYZ).
now, if you bolt your car to a hub-dyno (ala. dynapack/Rotatest/etc) then that's a different subject, as you have a 100% direct, non-slipping connection with the power-train, and (assuming it's a decent dyno) something that can actually be calibrated.
this, however, is still not power at the wheels, but power TO the wheels.
RWHP is perfecly valid as a tuning tool, as long as it is consistant. There are plenty of race-winning cars and bikes that have been tuned on chassis dynos.for a measurement to be remotely meaningful it must stand up to being quantifiable and empirical, and anything that involves a measurement taken with a rubber/roller interface in the middle is simply not going to cut it.
(I await the howls of how wrong I am and how they are super accurate because of XYZ).
now, if you bolt your car to a hub-dyno (ala. dynapack/Rotatest/etc) then that's a different subject, as you have a 100% direct, non-slipping connection with the power-train, and (assuming it's a decent dyno) something that can actually be calibrated.
this, however, is still not power at the wheels, but power TO the wheels.
Even a hub dyno is not the be-all and end-all : we were running a drag car last night which gave 1100 hp at the hubs. It has a high-stall torque converter, and I challenge anyone to quantify how much power is absorbed by the transmission and work out flywheel power from the hub readings.
The main cause of inconsistency with dynoing turbo engines is variations in the charge temperature, due to heat soak in the intercooler.
AW111 said:
The main cause of inconsistency with dynoing turbo engines is variations in the charge temperature, due to heat soak in the intercooler.
Exactly and this is also why I am not convinced that many tunes beyond a gentle stage 1 will work well when a car is ragged hard around a race track. All that heat has to go somewhere. Often need to always and only use 99 or higher RON fuel whereas the stock mapping probably made the power on 95 RON, probably run too close to the maximum duty cycle on the injectors so chance for problems there down stream. Biggest one though that everyone seems to overlook is back pressure in the turbo, I was warned about this in person by Geoff Kershaw himself when I bought an uprated waste gate actuator from him. The T3 turbo on the SAAB 900 T16S I had at the time was not holding the boost we were running it at, two to three years later just as he warned that engine was smoking like a good un. Many are doing the same nearly 20 years later. People just don't learn and it seems are destined to keep making the same mistakes under the mistaken belief that big power gains come for free on turbocharged engines.paulmakin said:
the LPT Saabs do go straight from 150 to 225 as it's only the map that differs between the LPT, the FPT and the SE Sport. It's just turning the boost up on the shared mechanicals which are rated at 150, 185 or 205 straight out the box. The Aero's came with a TD04 and will take quite a bit more.
as per my previous post, not possible to get near 300 on the B204/5 without hardware upgrades although the B234/5 will nearly hit it
i suspect that most don't really understand who's version of "stage X" means what - i certainly don't.
For older Saabs, St1 is just make sure it's working properly and hitting required boost (most aren't), St2 is map with preferably improved induction and system, St3 is d/pipe, intercooler, MAP, FPR, at least a TD04 etc etc
paul
I'm referring to the B205E. 300hp is possible but as you say, requires full exhaust, you can get close to it though with just the down pipe. Not tried it myself though as it doesn't seem worth spending that sort of money on an old car.as per my previous post, not possible to get near 300 on the B204/5 without hardware upgrades although the B234/5 will nearly hit it
i suspect that most don't really understand who's version of "stage X" means what - i certainly don't.
For older Saabs, St1 is just make sure it's working properly and hitting required boost (most aren't), St2 is map with preferably improved induction and system, St3 is d/pipe, intercooler, MAP, FPR, at least a TD04 etc etc
paul
You will not get 300 Bhp from a 2.0 Saab 9000 with a remap and a downpipe!
My 9000 2.3 Aero had 290bhp with a Speedparts remap (like Maptune), a full 3" exhaust system and air filter.
I was in the Saab scene and saw plenty at rolling road sessions, 300bhp from anything less than a highly modified 2.0 isn't possible.
However, the 150 to 225 leap for a 2.0 LPT is one of the biggest I know of. Anything that is LPT has the greatest power increase potential.
My 9000 2.3 Aero had 290bhp with a Speedparts remap (like Maptune), a full 3" exhaust system and air filter.
I was in the Saab scene and saw plenty at rolling road sessions, 300bhp from anything less than a highly modified 2.0 isn't possible.
However, the 150 to 225 leap for a 2.0 LPT is one of the biggest I know of. Anything that is LPT has the greatest power increase potential.
Edited by JezF on Monday 23 November 21:53
My 4.6 gas V8 went from 290/295 to 344/373 with tune, injectors, fuel pump, long tube and opened intake. Almost 20% for $400 and my labor. It even gets better highway mileage now than it used to achieve. As a man of a certain age, I find this astounding because this type of gain formerly involved exotic cam grinds and many valvetrain upgrades and sometimes even higher compression via new pistons and heads. I remember thinking that OBD standards were going to be the end of the garage tuner. It actually has allowed everybody to access gains of some kind, you just need to find your comfort level. I never thought I would see 125+ horsepower per litre and a factory warranty. Isn't the new Fiesta going for 175 per liter? In a mass produced automobile? Does the government try to restrict modifications with your MOT inspections? Here in Oregon, if the car passes emissions, no other inspection needed.
Edited by HLS30 on Monday 23 November 21:59
WRT RWHP vs FWHP v hubHP- There are pluses and minuses.
If we look at the areas where inconsistencies can be introduced we can understand, objectively, which best suits our needs.
FWHP
Tyre pressure/temperature- these dynos have two contact patches which imparts more heat through tyre deflection.
Strapping down-directly effects the above and rear suspension geometry changes in IRS cars. Too tight/too loose?
Transmission temperatures. Can have some impact, but probably not significant so long as the type of oil does not get changed.
FWHP calculation methods. The adding the fixed % is hopeless, and pointless. I don't care what dyno manufacturers say about how they arrive at their fixed % number.
Coast down losses. At least IME if there is a change in strapping down or tyre pressure you are measuring the effect to some extent. If dodgy tuner makes a change to the test conditions between runs to make their map seem better than it is, you customer will see it. I have witnessed this and that IME is useful.
RWHP
Tyre pressure/temperature- these dynos have two contact patches which imparts more heat through tyre deflection.
Strapping down-directly effects the above and rear suspension geometry changes in IRS cars. Too tight/too loose?
Transmission temperatures. Can have some impact, but probably not significant so long as the type of oil does not get changed.
All the above are areas of inconsistency and to pretend that this is any more accurate than a FWHP dyno is stretching it.
Single roller dynos generally require less tyre to roller pressure and therefore put less heat in to the tyres and less geo change due to the larger contact patch which again reduces the heat put in to the tyre.
Hub dynos dont have strapping issues, nor any issues with tyres. Sure, they are more time consuming to set up, but what is the operators aim, quick turn around or repeatable results.
Something else to recognise is ramp rates and environmental corrections. You accelerate your drivetrain at 500rpm/sec and then at 250 rpm/sec, you will gain a bunch of power on your graph for nothing. You manually input a much lower barometric pressure and higher temperature you will gain something for seemingly nothing. Not that I would suggest any tuner has ever changed the ramp rate or environmental parameters to gain a perceived improvement.
To sum up, take it all with a pinch of salt.
If we look at the areas where inconsistencies can be introduced we can understand, objectively, which best suits our needs.
FWHP
Tyre pressure/temperature- these dynos have two contact patches which imparts more heat through tyre deflection.
Strapping down-directly effects the above and rear suspension geometry changes in IRS cars. Too tight/too loose?
Transmission temperatures. Can have some impact, but probably not significant so long as the type of oil does not get changed.
FWHP calculation methods. The adding the fixed % is hopeless, and pointless. I don't care what dyno manufacturers say about how they arrive at their fixed % number.
Coast down losses. At least IME if there is a change in strapping down or tyre pressure you are measuring the effect to some extent. If dodgy tuner makes a change to the test conditions between runs to make their map seem better than it is, you customer will see it. I have witnessed this and that IME is useful.
RWHP
Tyre pressure/temperature- these dynos have two contact patches which imparts more heat through tyre deflection.
Strapping down-directly effects the above and rear suspension geometry changes in IRS cars. Too tight/too loose?
Transmission temperatures. Can have some impact, but probably not significant so long as the type of oil does not get changed.
All the above are areas of inconsistency and to pretend that this is any more accurate than a FWHP dyno is stretching it.
Single roller dynos generally require less tyre to roller pressure and therefore put less heat in to the tyres and less geo change due to the larger contact patch which again reduces the heat put in to the tyre.
Hub dynos dont have strapping issues, nor any issues with tyres. Sure, they are more time consuming to set up, but what is the operators aim, quick turn around or repeatable results.
Something else to recognise is ramp rates and environmental corrections. You accelerate your drivetrain at 500rpm/sec and then at 250 rpm/sec, you will gain a bunch of power on your graph for nothing. You manually input a much lower barometric pressure and higher temperature you will gain something for seemingly nothing. Not that I would suggest any tuner has ever changed the ramp rate or environmental parameters to gain a perceived improvement.
To sum up, take it all with a pinch of salt.
I had my mk4 golf gti 1.8t remapped, allegedly from 150 BHP to 180 but the difference was outrageous. Transforms the car. I wonder if some of that is from a much more aggressive throttle map though? In my 997 I have a sport button that only affects throttle map. Hard to convince yourself that it doesn't add power though.
I also have a 2.2 Evoque I believe the engine is based on the XF / Mondeo unit. Can't say I felt the same night & day difference when superchip bluefin chipping it from 190 to 215 BHP
Also Revo tuned my old 140bhp tiguan 2.0 tdi and it was such a dog mid-range anyway I didn't notice a huge improvement
I also have a 2.2 Evoque I believe the engine is based on the XF / Mondeo unit. Can't say I felt the same night & day difference when superchip bluefin chipping it from 190 to 215 BHP
Also Revo tuned my old 140bhp tiguan 2.0 tdi and it was such a dog mid-range anyway I didn't notice a huge improvement
JezF said:
You will not get 300 Bhp from a 2.0 Saab 9000 with a remap and a downpipe!
My 9000 2.3 Aero had 290bhp with a Speedparts remap (like Maptune), a full 3" exhaust system and air filter.
I was in the Saab scene and saw plenty at rolling road sessions, 300bhp from anything less than a highly modified 2.0 isn't possible.
However, the 150 to 225 leap for a 2.0 LPT is one of the biggest I know of. Anything that is LPT has the greatest power increase potential.
I was talking about the later engine which is weaker but has a better head. Haven't tried it myself but there's plenty of evidence out there to say it is possible. My 9000 2.3 Aero had 290bhp with a Speedparts remap (like Maptune), a full 3" exhaust system and air filter.
I was in the Saab scene and saw plenty at rolling road sessions, 300bhp from anything less than a highly modified 2.0 isn't possible.
However, the 150 to 225 leap for a 2.0 LPT is one of the biggest I know of. Anything that is LPT has the greatest power increase potential.
Edited by JezF on Monday 23 November 21:53
At the other end of the scale, after remapping a number of diesels in the past and getting good gains (but destroying drivetrains each time) I decided to try some NA tuning on my 370Z to see if I could tease out a little more power whilst making it sound better. Just to qualify this I am not daft and managed my expectations accordingly as without any forced induction in the mix I knew I wouldn't be looking at any meaningful gains.
Following the tried and tested forum recipe, I have fitted a cat-back exhaust, Y pipe, high flow cats and an elaborate intake which repositions two cone filters down behind the front bumper. I then had the car remapped to tie it all together.
Whilst I didn't have a benchmark for what the car was putting out as stock, my peak figures were a measly 346 bhp and 300 lb ft of torque post map. That is a 5% increase in power versus (stated) stock and a 10% increase in torque. Admitedly it does drive more smoothly and the mid range and top end feel a tad beefier, but I was still a tad disappointed with the final power figures.
So I have proven what many others have said before - NA tuning is a fools errand! I had fun proving the theory however!
P.S. my figures are at the flywheel. I don't understand why people get so sanctimonious about gains being shown at the wheels. Surely as the stated manufacturer's power and torque figures are at the flywheel, it makes sense to me to use this figure when validating gains post-map, as then you know how much of an increase you have realised in relative terms?
Following the tried and tested forum recipe, I have fitted a cat-back exhaust, Y pipe, high flow cats and an elaborate intake which repositions two cone filters down behind the front bumper. I then had the car remapped to tie it all together.
Whilst I didn't have a benchmark for what the car was putting out as stock, my peak figures were a measly 346 bhp and 300 lb ft of torque post map. That is a 5% increase in power versus (stated) stock and a 10% increase in torque. Admitedly it does drive more smoothly and the mid range and top end feel a tad beefier, but I was still a tad disappointed with the final power figures.
So I have proven what many others have said before - NA tuning is a fools errand! I had fun proving the theory however!
P.S. my figures are at the flywheel. I don't understand why people get so sanctimonious about gains being shown at the wheels. Surely as the stated manufacturer's power and torque figures are at the flywheel, it makes sense to me to use this figure when validating gains post-map, as then you know how much of an increase you have realised in relative terms?
Simple really. If you are measuring a gain using a chassis dyno the only meaningful numbers are the before and after comparison at the wheels done on the same dyno, same conditions both environmental and the car. Dead easy to "cheat" those figures by mucking about with tyre pressures for example.
Do you work for VIZ ?jakesmith said:
I also have a 2.2 Evoque I believe the engine is based on the XF / Mondeo unit. Can't say I felt the same night & day difference when superchip bluefin chipping it from 190 to 215 BHP
Also Revo tuned my old 140bhp tiguan 2.0 tdi and it was such a dog mid-range anyway I didn't notice a huge improvement
I have had 3 maps from Superchips, all crap, couldn't even tell if it was better or not. Also Revo tuned my old 140bhp tiguan 2.0 tdi and it was such a dog mid-range anyway I didn't notice a huge improvement
And the Revo map on my A3 tdi was the same, pants.
Best tunes for me have been 535d from DMS, Braubus D6 box on the E320, and the CRT-D+ on the current 20d X3.
The two boxes are fuel rail and turbo, and seriously impressive.
N54 engine used on BMW X35i is well known to respond well to mapping. They are rated at 302bhp / BM didn't quote peak torque but rated it at 295 lb-ft from 1300-5000rpm; N54s measure about 315bhp / 335lb-ft stock.
Figures after remapping, relative to stock measurements, are + 20%; 375bhp / 405lb-ft are normal results.
This is 25% more HP and 37% more torque than the factory figures BMW publish.
Figures after remapping, relative to stock measurements, are + 20%; 375bhp / 405lb-ft are normal results.
This is 25% more HP and 37% more torque than the factory figures BMW publish.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff