which cars gain the most when remapped?
Discussion
Yeah it does, I had the tuning box from Terry Burger, who went on to start up Burger Tuning with the JuiceBox products.
I never put it on the rolling road before, but it was showing 380hp.
It was a very, very quick car. Using an AP22 I managed to get every single run down in under 4.8 seconds and got a few 4.5 second runs on perfect condition days tweaking the box.
I never put it on the rolling road before, but it was showing 380hp.
It was a very, very quick car. Using an AP22 I managed to get every single run down in under 4.8 seconds and got a few 4.5 second runs on perfect condition days tweaking the box.
I had a tuning box on my E320 cdi , i ran it for a couple of years , according to the blurb it added 42 hp and 31lbs feet (peak)
I got around to paying with it on a mates dyno , being an auto we had issues with it kicking down but we finally got some sense out of it
what did it do ?? gave a big surge of boost related torque in the midrange but cost peak power
I got around to paying with it on a mates dyno , being an auto we had issues with it kicking down but we finally got some sense out of it
what did it do ?? gave a big surge of boost related torque in the midrange but cost peak power
Crackie said:
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.
Hers who's mapped my Saab, over the moon with it, gone from stage 1 to stage 5, he also does the N54 and had decent results (few JZW BMW YouTube vids around)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.
http://www.jzwtuning.com/product/jzw-flash-engine-...
The U.K. Distributor is on Uksaabs forum if anyone's interested
AW111 said:
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.
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.
we are not talking about using it as a tuning tool, we are talking about people using the numbers from one as if they are 100% kosha.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.
As for your drag car, what's the problem? there are hub duno's out there that can easily cope with that kind of power/torque?
As for converting to flywheel power, that's not the point is it? if you want that, bolt the engine to a bench-dyno (that said, conventional transmissions are pretty easy to 'map' their efficiency so with enough test data, you can pretty accurately know what the transmission power absorption figures are.)
stevesingo said:
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.
well said.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.
Ramp rates alone make a MASSIVE difference to the figures, as do air temp senders in coffee mugs!
One of the reasons I like Hub dyno's is that they are much easier to get repeatable results from day in day out, and they are also easy to calibrate/check for basic accuracy, combine that with a decent datalogging package (for the dyno) and you start to get some real control over the numbers.
Tyler Durden said:
I have read that certain BMW's share the same hardware but leave the factory with different levels of tune.
So a 325i can be mapped as a 328i and therefore go from 185bhp to 285bhp very easily.
Are there any other examples of this kind of thing?
BMW tend to use the same engine block in a lot of engines, but completely different ancillaries. So a 325i can be mapped as a 328i and therefore go from 185bhp to 285bhp very easily.
Are there any other examples of this kind of thing?
Edited by Tyler Durden on Saturday 21st November 10:12
For example, the e60 LCI 525d, 530d and 535d use the same M57 , but all have different inlet manifolds, injectors, turbos (x35d has two) as well as different gearboxes (530d and 535d share the same stronger gearbox).
The 525d can't be mapped to much more than the power of a stock 530d, the 530d can't be mapped to much further than a standard 535d etc.
Similar story with the newer N57 engine used in the 530d, 535d, m550d, x5m50d etc. It can be anything from a single turbo, to a triple turbo'd engine.
Tyler Durden said:
Are those gains possible with any 2.0 TFSI engine?
It depends if the high pressure fuel pump can keep up. In many cases it can't. The software will also reduce power if the EGTs get too high, which is also often the case because of the first cat converter, which sits about 2" downstream of the turbine outlet. It's fine with standard boost pressure, but many tuners bump it up from the standard 0.7 - 0.9 bar (depending on application) to 1.5 bar or more. What over-speeding the turbo to that extent does to it's life span also raises questions, plus all the extra heat the intercooler has to dissipate.It's not just as simple as turning the volume up in the software. Some hardware changes are a good idea too, like the clutch for example. 280-300lbft is about all the standard one can take, especially when it's half worn. DSG gearboxes can handle a lot more though.
Edited by SuperchargedVR6 on Tuesday 24th November 11:18
Scuffers said:
we are not talking about using it as a tuning tool, we are talking about people using the numbers from one as if they are 100% kosha.
As for your drag car, what's the problem? there are hub duno's out there that can easily cope with that kind of power/torque?
As for converting to flywheel power, that's not the point is it? if you want that, bolt the engine to a bench-dyno (that said, conventional transmissions are pretty easy to 'map' their efficiency so with enough test data, you can pretty accurately know what the transmission power absorption figures are.)
I know you love to take things out of context so you can have a good argument and patronise strangers on the internet, it appears to be your idea of fun, so I will indulge you As for your drag car, what's the problem? there are hub duno's out there that can easily cope with that kind of power/torque?
As for converting to flywheel power, that's not the point is it? if you want that, bolt the engine to a bench-dyno (that said, conventional transmissions are pretty easy to 'map' their efficiency so with enough test data, you can pretty accurately know what the transmission power absorption figures are.)
You basically said RWHP is a meaningless figure : I disagreed, and said why.
My point re the hub dyno is that flywheel power is what all the remap people use it, as they are comparing their map with the manufacturers' published figures, which are flywheel power.
A hub dyno removes the tyre/roller losses, but the transmission losses are still an unknown, especially with a torque converter auto. Assume a (very generous) 85% trans efficiency, the car I mentioned is losing 150 hp between the flywheel and hubs, and those losses vary with revs, fluid temperature and torque transmitted, along with other things.
It is also a non-trivial exercise to get engine dyno figures that are representative of how that engine performs as installed in a car, as such things a underbonnet airflow, intercooler efficiency, heat soak and exhaust behaviour are hard to replicate in a dyno cell.
Of course it can be done, and OEMs do it all the time, but it is a lot more than just bolting the engine to a dyno and turning it on.
I also know about mapping transmission losses (dur) : I may disagree with quoting flywheel power based on roller readings, but when the market demanded it, we did a lot of research and testing in order to give the best correlation we could.
ps Of course 1,000 hp is a walk in the park for some dynos, as is 5,000 Nm of torque for an engine dyno (marine diesel application
). I quoted the drag car because it highlighted the trans losses in that case.At the end of the day, some people use a dyno for diagnosis and tuning, and some for bragging rights (there may be an overlap). I am in the former camp.
Scuffers said:
Modern 2wd transmissions are nothing like that bad, typically fed stuff is more like 5-8% and they are getting better all the time.
As for autos, they usually work out more efficient these days, the days of old style torque converters are long gone.
Sorry but that's all bAs for autos, they usually work out more efficient these days, the days of old style torque converters are long gone.
ks pretty much. Do you have anything reference-able to backup any of these claims.blindswelledrat said:
nottyash said:
VW would certainly be on the phone to take a look at there current diesel issue. You could save them a few billion and the destruction of their brand.
lightthefuse said:
Corbeliere said:
My better half's V70 2.4T petrol is BSR remapped. I did it about 9 years ago and it still runs as sweet as ever.
The figures BSR quote are 252bhp & 400ft/lb. It was originally 200bhp.
The difference on the first full blast run up our drive was amazing. I was truly gobsmacked at the difference in power.
I'd love to get my Conti' GT remapped but the cost is stupidly expensive. It would no doubt be fun though.
Interesting - my better half has the 2.5T and you're quoting the same figures as hers gets (think it starts off at 209bhp mind) - it's a beautiful bit of extra oomph though, and hustled right with a manual the 2.5T in stock tune is no slouch.The figures BSR quote are 252bhp & 400ft/lb. It was originally 200bhp.
The difference on the first full blast run up our drive was amazing. I was truly gobsmacked at the difference in power.
I'd love to get my Conti' GT remapped but the cost is stupidly expensive. It would no doubt be fun though.
BSR quote 252bhp and 410NM, which is 302lbft.
300bhp/ton said:
Scuffers said:
Modern 2wd transmissions are nothing like that bad, typically fed stuff is more like 5-8% and they are getting better all the time.
As for autos, they usually work out more efficient these days, the days of old style torque converters are long gone.
Sorry but that's all bAs for autos, they usually work out more efficient these days, the days of old style torque converters are long gone.
ks pretty much. Do you have anything reference-able to backup any of these claims.http://rototest-research.eu/index.php?DN=39&Me...
404 cars tested on a hub dyno, average loss 9% with 61% in the 5-11% range when measures against certified power.
Tyler Durden said:
I have read that certain BMW's share the same hardware but leave the factory with different levels of tune.
So a 325i can be mapped as a 328i and therefore go from 185bhp to 285bhp very easily.
Then you tell your insurance company that you've modified your car (you all do that right?) and your insurance cost shoots up well above what it would have cost to insure the 328i. Plus your warranty (if any) is invalidated and you are relying on electronics / engine maps from some bloke on ebay rather than BMW AG (actually that would probably improve reliability for BMWs). All told, wouldn't you probably be better buying a 328i in the first place?So a 325i can be mapped as a 328i and therefore go from 185bhp to 285bhp very easily.
Mapping the largest engine in the model range (e.g. RS6, 535d) to have more power makes more sense to me. Or have I made an error in my Man Maths?
Oh PS, two of my cars are remapped with insurance notified.
Edited by ecs0set on Tuesday 24th November 12:40
stevesingo said:
Read this and post back!
http://rototest-research.eu/index.php?DN=39&Me...
404 cars tested on a hub dyno, average loss 9% with 61% in the 5-11% range when measures against certified power.
that's pretty much in-line with what I have seen.http://rototest-research.eu/index.php?DN=39&Me...
404 cars tested on a hub dyno, average loss 9% with 61% in the 5-11% range when measures against certified power.
they make a good point at the end, if transmission looses were anything like 20%, with a 200Hp engine, that's 40Hp 'lost', well, 40Hp = some 30Kw, just how hot would the gearbox get with that kind of heating inside it? (consider your average domestic heating boiler is likely less than 30Kw)
ecs0set said:
Tyler Durden said:
I have read that certain BMW's share the same hardware but leave the factory with different levels of tune.
So a 325i can be mapped as a 328i and therefore go from 185bhp to 285bhp very easily.
Then you tell your insurance company that you've modified your car (you all do that right?) and your insurance cost shoots up well above what it would have cost to insure the 328i. Plus your warranty (if any) is invalidated and you are relying on electronics / engine maps from some bloke on ebay rather than BMW AG (actually that would probably improve reliability for BMWs). All told, wouldn't you probably be better buying a 328i in the first place?So a 325i can be mapped as a 328i and therefore go from 185bhp to 285bhp very easily.
Mapping the largest engine in the model range (e.g. RS6, 535d) to have more power makes more sense to me. Or have I made an error in my Man Maths?
Oh PS, two of my cars are remapped with insurance notified.
Edited by ecs0set on Tuesday 24th November 12:40
...although my premium was unchanged when I notified of my engine tuning.
stevesingo said:
Read this and post back!
http://rototest-research.eu/index.php?DN=39&Me...
404 cars tested on a hub dyno, average loss 9% with 61% in the 5-11% range when measures against certified power.
Maybe that's the wrong link as it seems to only talk about static steady state and acceleration measurements. It doesn't mention anything at all about transmission losses.http://rototest-research.eu/index.php?DN=39&Me...
404 cars tested on a hub dyno, average loss 9% with 61% in the 5-11% range when measures against certified power.
Scuffers said:
As for autos, they usually work out more efficient these days, the days of old style torque converters are long gone.
Better tell honda : http://articles.sae.org/13432/. There are still a lot more torque converters on the road than DCT's.
300bhp/ton said:
stevesingo said:
Read this and post back!
http://rototest-research.eu/index.php?DN=39&Me...
404 cars tested on a hub dyno, average loss 9% with 61% in the 5-11% range when measures against certified power.
Maybe that's the wrong link as it seems to only talk about static steady state and acceleration measurements. It doesn't mention anything at all about transmission losses.http://rototest-research.eu/index.php?DN=39&Me...
404 cars tested on a hub dyno, average loss 9% with 61% in the 5-11% range when measures against certified power.
rototest said:
At Rototest we do a lot of testing ourselves. This means we can produce some interesting statistics. This figure shows a comparison of what the manufacturers claim in the engine specification and what we measured on the wheels. The average difference turned out to be about 7-9%, which can be said to be a good estimate of a normal transmission loss. However we have seen cars producing quite a lot more on the wheels than the engine spec says. At the other end there are examples of -25% difference too. If this were to be the losses then the oil would boil in the transmission.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff