which cars gain the most when remapped?
Discussion
From experience, the biggest noticeable difference is in the power delivery/flexibility rather than outright 'horses'.
Mine has gone from 310 to 380 bhp (and 460b ft to c540 lb ft).....although only the 'after' figures were dyno'd, if feels noticeably different, but its more the flexibility and power delivery that has made the difference, rather than the increase in peak power.
But then 'feel' is totally subjective.
Mine has gone from 310 to 380 bhp (and 460b ft to c540 lb ft).....although only the 'after' figures were dyno'd, if feels noticeably different, but its more the flexibility and power delivery that has made the difference, rather than the increase in peak power.
But then 'feel' is totally subjective.
My Nissan 180SX (SR20DET) went from 205hp to about 250, same torque.
However it wasn't the outright hp that impressed me, more two other things. First, the car really blasted forwards, it was very responsive and torquey (albeit it then often broke traction). Second, it was getting high 30s mpg, which I thought pretty impressive for an old performance car.
Essentially I ended up being quids-in as the petrol savings outweighed the cost of the chip, car was quicker and better to drive as well. Even if it hadn't given any more hp, it would have been well worth it for that car.
I had to upgrade the clutch, otherwise the driveline took the torque fine.
However it wasn't the outright hp that impressed me, more two other things. First, the car really blasted forwards, it was very responsive and torquey (albeit it then often broke traction). Second, it was getting high 30s mpg, which I thought pretty impressive for an old performance car.
Essentially I ended up being quids-in as the petrol savings outweighed the cost of the chip, car was quicker and better to drive as well. Even if it hadn't given any more hp, it would have been well worth it for that car.
I had to upgrade the clutch, otherwise the driveline took the torque fine.
blindswelledrat said:
My current Phaeton V6 Diesel, however, has had a remarkable response to it. I don't remember the figures (perhaps 230bhp-280 and a similar torque increase) but it has transformed the car from a bit of a bloater to a genuinely quick car. Even more remarkably, from the moment it was done I got mpg increase of about 25%. Actually 25% and not just internet speak 25%.
Long term average previously was around 23 mpg and it has been 30+ ever since.
So you are telling me the VW got 25% too much fuel in the original cal? Pull the other one. if you are actually doing 25% more miles per gallon, it's because you are driving it slower or in a more economical way........Long term average previously was around 23 mpg and it has been 30+ ever since.
Max_Torque said:
blindswelledrat said:
My current Phaeton V6 Diesel, however, has had a remarkable response to it. I don't remember the figures (perhaps 230bhp-280 and a similar torque increase) but it has transformed the car from a bit of a bloater to a genuinely quick car. Even more remarkably, from the moment it was done I got mpg increase of about 25%. Actually 25% and not just internet speak 25%.
Long term average previously was around 23 mpg and it has been 30+ ever since.
So you are telling me the VW got 25% too much fuel in the original cal? Pull the other one. if you are actually doing 25% more miles per gallon, it's because you are driving it slower or in a more economical way........Long term average previously was around 23 mpg and it has been 30+ ever since.
You have to be careful with some of the remaps, those claiming massive improvements . . . will the engine stay together when you've got 5 adults plus luggage in 40C temp doing 90+mph on a French toll road ? That's a much harder environment to live in than a quick schlep up the bypass with your mate for 10 mins in the UK autumn.
Max_Torque said:
blindswelledrat said:
My current Phaeton V6 Diesel, however, has had a remarkable response to it. I don't remember the figures (perhaps 230bhp-280 and a similar torque increase) but it has transformed the car from a bit of a bloater to a genuinely quick car. Even more remarkably, from the moment it was done I got mpg increase of about 25%. Actually 25% and not just internet speak 25%.
Long term average previously was around 23 mpg and it has been 30+ ever since.
So you are telling me the VW got 25% too much fuel in the original cal? Pull the other one. if you are actually doing 25% more miles per gallon, it's because you are driving it slower or in a more economical way........Long term average previously was around 23 mpg and it has been 30+ ever since.
A lot of people on here are quoting the figures they've read from remapping company websites which have a history of being pretty optimistic.
When you read into some of the big claims they are quite often relating to cars that have had further mods, i.e. exhaust, induction etc upgrades which will push the cost up significantly.
I know some make the big numbers from a simple remap but you don't have to look hard, i.e. on owners clubs where people have actually had their cars mapped, to find many disappointed customers.
Personally, i've just had my Evo mapped and it made 10% extra up top, 15% in the midrange.
A work colleague had his T5 mapped as has been covered earlier in this thread and it recently blew the turbo, hardly a surprise when you push a standard part to nearly double its normal rating.
When you read into some of the big claims they are quite often relating to cars that have had further mods, i.e. exhaust, induction etc upgrades which will push the cost up significantly.
I know some make the big numbers from a simple remap but you don't have to look hard, i.e. on owners clubs where people have actually had their cars mapped, to find many disappointed customers.
Personally, i've just had my Evo mapped and it made 10% extra up top, 15% in the midrange.
A work colleague had his T5 mapped as has been covered earlier in this thread and it recently blew the turbo, hardly a surprise when you push a standard part to nearly double its normal rating.
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
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 enquired recently about products for my car as I do fancy some extra 'oomph', and got this back:
"The Mini Cooper S (F56) 2014> takes the power from 189bhp up to 284bhp and the torque from 206lb/ft up to 293lb/ft. This stage of software is designed as a software upgrade only meaning it is all within safe tolerances of the engine and drivetrain and requires no hardware modifications."
Perhaps in the new year..
"The Mini Cooper S (F56) 2014> takes the power from 189bhp up to 284bhp and the torque from 206lb/ft up to 293lb/ft. This stage of software is designed as a software upgrade only meaning it is all within safe tolerances of the engine and drivetrain and requires no hardware modifications."
Perhaps in the new year..
With the Saabs, the biggest jump in BHP would be.
9000 CS 2.3t (170bhp stock). 270bhp with a Stage2 remap via Jules_HT on the UK Saabs forum. A full 100bhp jump.
The 9000 CS Aero 2.3T will go from 225BHP stock to 275BHP with a Stage2 remap. Add a 3" downpipe and decent exhaust for 300bhp.
All the old Saabs have the B2x4 series engines. So are good for 400+ BHP with zero engine mods.
9000 CS 2.3t (170bhp stock). 270bhp with a Stage2 remap via Jules_HT on the UK Saabs forum. A full 100bhp jump.
The 9000 CS Aero 2.3T will go from 225BHP stock to 275BHP with a Stage2 remap. Add a 3" downpipe and decent exhaust for 300bhp.
All the old Saabs have the B2x4 series engines. So are good for 400+ BHP with zero engine mods.
Corbeliere said:
As for my other half's V70, it's a bit too powerful off the mark and easily spins the wheels. That's a problem with most FWD's though.
Indeed, you are most correct Sir. After not having driven ours for a good few months, I was out and about all day in it and got around 120 miles under my belt. On my way home from the office, forgot what car I was in (170bhp in the A5 vs. 250-odd in the V70) and wellied it past an eejit van driver causing issues at a set of lights. Cue an almighty tyre-shredding sound as I lit up the fronts, and I'd just put the winters on as well. 
Max_Torque said:
blindswelledrat said:
My current Phaeton V6 Diesel, however, has had a remarkable response to it. I don't remember the figures (perhaps 230bhp-280 and a similar torque increase) but it has transformed the car from a bit of a bloater to a genuinely quick car. Even more remarkably, from the moment it was done I got mpg increase of about 25%. Actually 25% and not just internet speak 25%.
Long term average previously was around 23 mpg and it has been 30+ ever since.
So you are telling me the VW got 25% too much fuel in the original cal? Pull the other one. if you are actually doing 25% more miles per gallon, it's because you are driving it slower or in a more economical way........Long term average previously was around 23 mpg and it has been 30+ ever since.
An explanation on the phaeton forum was something along the lines of premap the torque wasn't great from low revs so you used a lot of fuel trying to make the 2.6 tonnes accelerate, whereas the new increased torque was also available from much lower down the Rev range so acceleration is far more economical than before. I'm sure I've explained it incorrectly but I have definitely seen those gains and I definitely drive quicker
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff