OEM tuning packages - Manufacturers missing a trick?
Discussion
Reading the recent Fiesta ST Mountune article got me thinking: Why stop at boosting already good performance? Are manufacturers missing a trick with regards to performance upgrades and 'gaming' of CO2/car tax/BIK? We all know they're a load of cobblers anyway.
Why don't they sell the cars with severely detuned engines, a map that just happens to get stupendously low CO2 for perpetually cheap tax/BIK, then allow the full spec to be unleashed with an 'upgrade kit' for a nominal charge as a dealer-fit activity?
The Fiesta could be sold with about 100bhp and a 119g/km EU sticker on it, benefitting buyers by avoiding first year tax if and long-term with low renewals (£30/yr vs £125-140/yr), but then a quick post-sale dealer remap drops the proper map in giving the 180bhp.
Obviously there would be limits - frictional losses in larger engines and lack of a turbo would limit the potential somewhat - but the savings could be greater even assuming a lower absolute reduction.
Who wouldn't prefer to take, say, an M6 with 250bhp and a 199g/km sticker, saving £365 in the first year and £215 every subsequent year?
Chuck the dealer £99 for the "Performance Pack" before it rolls off the forecourt and you've got yourself the full 560bhp though!
Could this work? Not really more of a fiddle than the ill-gotten CO2/MPG figures manufacturers are adept at getting when gaming the EU cycle tests nowadays.
Why don't they sell the cars with severely detuned engines, a map that just happens to get stupendously low CO2 for perpetually cheap tax/BIK, then allow the full spec to be unleashed with an 'upgrade kit' for a nominal charge as a dealer-fit activity?
The Fiesta could be sold with about 100bhp and a 119g/km EU sticker on it, benefitting buyers by avoiding first year tax if and long-term with low renewals (£30/yr vs £125-140/yr), but then a quick post-sale dealer remap drops the proper map in giving the 180bhp.
Obviously there would be limits - frictional losses in larger engines and lack of a turbo would limit the potential somewhat - but the savings could be greater even assuming a lower absolute reduction.
Who wouldn't prefer to take, say, an M6 with 250bhp and a 199g/km sticker, saving £365 in the first year and £215 every subsequent year?
Chuck the dealer £99 for the "Performance Pack" before it rolls off the forecourt and you've got yourself the full 560bhp though!
Could this work? Not really more of a fiddle than the ill-gotten CO2/MPG figures manufacturers are adept at getting when gaming the EU cycle tests nowadays.
AlexIT said:
First thing that comes to mind:
Laws are not the same all over Europe. A Mountune pack would result in an infringement for example here in Italy.
Manufacturers have always offered different specs and trim levels in different markets.Laws are not the same all over Europe. A Mountune pack would result in an infringement for example here in Italy.
These could be specific UK models, nothing to stop them selling the normal specs in places that forbid such malarkey such as Italy (surprised they're so strict on stuff like that tbh).
I can see some merit in it, but only for extremely specialist markets, and in honesty they don't need to follow the fleet emissions limits anyway, so there's not much point.
The problem with it is that you would have to advertise the car with the detuned power spec, the detuned performance figures, send it to press tests detuned, etc etc and it would look crap. You would not be permitted to advertise performance modifications, dealer approved or not, so tight are the EU rules on car advertising. As a result, nobody would know what the idea of the car was, and the manufacturer would not be allowed to publicly say! Even if you could announce it, it looks like a sidestep, and the vast majority of the car-buying public wouldn't trust it.
The problem with it is that you would have to advertise the car with the detuned power spec, the detuned performance figures, send it to press tests detuned, etc etc and it would look crap. You would not be permitted to advertise performance modifications, dealer approved or not, so tight are the EU rules on car advertising. As a result, nobody would know what the idea of the car was, and the manufacturer would not be allowed to publicly say! Even if you could announce it, it looks like a sidestep, and the vast majority of the car-buying public wouldn't trust it.
Toyota announced plan to do this a few years ago, including a turbo package for the MR2 and other models. It never transpired, and Toyota then axed the MR2 altogether! 
Personally I don't think large manufacturers would want the hassle and development costs. Many aftermarket tuning packages offer quite large compromises such as reduced engine life or reduced comfort on bumpy roads, and I'm not sure a large manufacturer would want the bas press such add-on kits would bring.
Personally I don't think large manufacturers would want the hassle and development costs. Many aftermarket tuning packages offer quite large compromises such as reduced engine life or reduced comfort on bumpy roads, and I'm not sure a large manufacturer would want the bas press such add-on kits would bring.
RobM77 said:
Personally I don't think large manufacturers would want the hassle and development costs. Many aftermarket tuning packages offer quite large compromises such as reduced engine life or reduced comfort on bumpy roads, and I'm not sure a large manufacturer would want the bas press such add-on kits would bring.
I'm not talking add-on kits, I'm talking deliberately hobbling the showroom model to avoid attracting VED/BIK then 'flicking a switch' post-sale to enable the real performance you're paying for.A borderline tax fiddle, true, but no more than these Mountune kits are already. If Ford offered the Mountune version as a normal model, as opposed to a dealer-fit package, you can bet that it would attract a higher rate of tax and be that bit less attractive to buyers as a result.
Why not go the other way and really show the tax regime up for what it is, a bit of a sham.
loudlashadjuster said:
Reading the recent Fiesta ST Mountune article got me thinking: Why stop at boosting already good performance? Are manufacturers missing a trick with regards to performance upgrades and 'gaming' of CO2/car tax/BIK? We all know they're a load of cobblers anyway.
Why don't they sell the cars with severely detuned engines, a map that just happens to get stupendously low CO2 for perpetually cheap tax/BIK, then allow the full spec to be unleashed with an 'upgrade kit' for a nominal charge as a dealer-fit activity?
The Fiesta could be sold with about 100bhp and a 119g/km EU sticker on it, benefitting buyers by avoiding first year tax if and long-term with low renewals (£30/yr vs £125-140/yr), but then a quick post-sale dealer remap drops the proper map in giving the 180bhp.
Obviously there would be limits - frictional losses in larger engines and lack of a turbo would limit the potential somewhat - but the savings could be greater even assuming a lower absolute reduction.
Who wouldn't prefer to take, say, an M6 with 250bhp and a 199g/km sticker, saving £365 in the first year and £215 every subsequent year?
Chuck the dealer £99 for the "Performance Pack" before it rolls off the forecourt and you've got yourself the full 560bhp though!
Could this work? Not really more of a fiddle than the ill-gotten CO2/MPG figures manufacturers are adept at getting when gaming the EU cycle tests nowadays.
There would still be a cost implication. Car companies exist to make money, not save consumers money.Why don't they sell the cars with severely detuned engines, a map that just happens to get stupendously low CO2 for perpetually cheap tax/BIK, then allow the full spec to be unleashed with an 'upgrade kit' for a nominal charge as a dealer-fit activity?
The Fiesta could be sold with about 100bhp and a 119g/km EU sticker on it, benefitting buyers by avoiding first year tax if and long-term with low renewals (£30/yr vs £125-140/yr), but then a quick post-sale dealer remap drops the proper map in giving the 180bhp.
Obviously there would be limits - frictional losses in larger engines and lack of a turbo would limit the potential somewhat - but the savings could be greater even assuming a lower absolute reduction.
Who wouldn't prefer to take, say, an M6 with 250bhp and a 199g/km sticker, saving £365 in the first year and £215 every subsequent year?
Chuck the dealer £99 for the "Performance Pack" before it rolls off the forecourt and you've got yourself the full 560bhp though!
Could this work? Not really more of a fiddle than the ill-gotten CO2/MPG figures manufacturers are adept at getting when gaming the EU cycle tests nowadays.
So the incentive is low and they'd likely want to charge a lot.
Also regs. even if they could fully side step type approval and charges in this way. Laws would soon change and prevent it being so.
In fact I'm amazed that car makers get away with to the level they currently do. Not that I think it's a bad thing.
loudlashadjuster said:
Why not go the other way and really show the tax regime up for what it is, a bit of a sham.
At the moment it's a pretty limited market, if main dealers started doing it someone would pretty soon spot that it's exploiting a loophole on the tax laws and change the way the tax worksloudlashadjuster said:
Monty Python said:
Do you really think the Government would allow this? They'd make damn sure you paid the right amount of tax.
It's not exactly within the spirit of the law I grant you, but it's not really any different to these Mountune packages when you think about it.It's certainly a fair idea!
loudlashadjuster said:
Monty Python said:
Do you really think the Government would allow this? They'd make damn sure you paid the right amount of tax.
It's not exactly within the spirit of the law I grant you, but it's not really any different to these Mountune packages when you think about it.Even the 2002 Trans Am had 'air pumps' to reduce emissions at start up, but that switch off after 'x' seconds.
Because, broadly speaking, a cars drive cycle Co2 emissions are NOT directly linked to it's ultimate engine performance. i.e. a car only needs something like 60bhp to be able to drive the cycle, so generally they get nowhere near WOT on the cycle. As such, de-tuning the peak power number, as long as it is anywhere above the 60bhp necessary for the test cycle, will not have any effect. Obviously here i am talking about calibration changes only, not hardware. So you could sell ALL your cars with 1.0l engines, and then retro fit the 5.0l V8 post registration. In reality this will never happen on a large scale as:
1) too much trouble to do
2) introduces a load of post registration potential for warranty / durability issues
3) the VCA would look poorly on the matter.
Back in the day when Prodrive did the PPP kits, this was really a bit cheeky and was just tolerated as it was being done by an "aftermarket" firm, rather than the OEM. And even here, they had to demonstrate that the PPP car still passed the relevant emissions/noise legislation etc
1) too much trouble to do
2) introduces a load of post registration potential for warranty / durability issues
3) the VCA would look poorly on the matter.
Back in the day when Prodrive did the PPP kits, this was really a bit cheeky and was just tolerated as it was being done by an "aftermarket" firm, rather than the OEM. And even here, they had to demonstrate that the PPP car still passed the relevant emissions/noise legislation etc
Max_Torque said:
Because, broadly speaking, a cars drive cycle Co2 emissions are NOT directly linked to it's ultimate engine performance. i.e. a car only needs something like 60bhp to be able to drive the cycle, so generally they get nowhere near WOT on the cycle. As such, de-tuning the peak power number, as long as it is anywhere above the 60bhp necessary for the test cycle, will not have any effect. Obviously here i am talking about calibration changes only, not hardware. So you could sell ALL your cars with 1.0l engines, and then retro fit the 5.0l V8 post registration. In reality this will never happen on a large scale as:
1) too much trouble to do
2) introduces a load of post registration potential for warranty / durability issues
3) the VCA would look poorly on the matter.
Back in the day when Prodrive did the PPP kits, this was really a bit cheeky and was just tolerated as it was being done by an "aftermarket" firm, rather than the OEM. And even here, they had to demonstrate that the PPP car still passed the relevant emissions/noise legislation etc
+1 its a lot of hassle for not much benefit to the manufacturer.1) too much trouble to do
2) introduces a load of post registration potential for warranty / durability issues
3) the VCA would look poorly on the matter.
Back in the day when Prodrive did the PPP kits, this was really a bit cheeky and was just tolerated as it was being done by an "aftermarket" firm, rather than the OEM. And even here, they had to demonstrate that the PPP car still passed the relevant emissions/noise legislation etc
.. and it wouldn't take long until this was spotted as a deliberate attempt to bypass the rules, probably leading to a situation where the Government of the day may knee-jerk and end up banning this and maybe also all ecu modifications or some other draconian response.
Subaru had the right idea on the last STI - defaults to "std" map (so this what the c02 rating is based on) driver turns the dash knob to get the full fat map/more power.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff