XF 3.0d S Remap

[spikeymikey12000]

Ive got a 2018 3.0d s with 300 bhp. Looks like it will remap to about 350bhp which is tempting! I need it to be reliable though for daily work/family transport. Anyone remapped one?

[reddiesel]

Never done it myself as I have never owned an XF but plenty about it on the various Forums . At the age of your vehicle you won't have to worry about invalidating any warranties and I think the general consensus is that a remap is better than a chip . My main concern would be the history of and the mileage that the engine has already covered though I am guessing you have already thought about that . Keep us posted regarding what you decide .

[Buffalo]

I remapped mine at Celtic in newquay, which included a rolling road session. Mine was bang on the stock HP when it was tested, but only made 30bhp more when set up not 50. It did make a massive chunk more torque though, maybe 25% more, I could find dynonsheet if you're interested. I might take it back as I've since had dpf cleaned and a couple other things that may have limited the full power boost, but its a vanity thing really. Its pretty good as it is. A bit like driving it in dynamic mode but its just in drive, IYSWIM

[reddiesel]

Well you have been there and done it and rolled up here to tell us about it which in the end is what its all about , Can I ask out of interest whether the remap
effected the Fuel Consumption much ?

[nordboy]

I used Celtic, but they came to the house and sorted it out on my drive. Don't remember it affecting the mpg's but it definitely felt much smoother and therefore quicker after I'd had it done.

[Buffalo]

It hasn't done anything to fuel consumption, that I've noticed. Some remappers claim better fuel mileage as they say with more power and torque it is working less hard. But mine reliably does 38mpg on the dash computer (never tested how accurate it is, but thats its common value), mixed driving as a daily, which it did before and after the remap. On long mway runs cruising at indicated 82mph/78mph GPS it can manage 43mpg.

[Evercross]

2 reasons why I would avoid a remap on the 3.0 S Lion engine (although the naysayers will probably be along shortly).

1. It is already a remapped version of the non-S 241bhp engine (mechanically identical)
2. Re-mapping drastically increases the risk of crank-bearing failure due to oil dilution and will shorten the life of the plastic inlet manifolds and intercooler side-tanks (already a weak-spot on these engines).

JLR squeezed an extra 25 bhp out of the engine by changing from a hydraulic to an electric power steering pump and by some major changes to the lubrication and cooling systems. Superchips limited their remap to +20BHP because of the oil dilution issues of going further.

If you are going to do it then maybe consider changing the inlet manifolds for cast aluminium ones, and half the oil change intervals!

[bimmer528]

Evercross said:

2 reasons why I would avoid a remap on the 3.0 S Lion engine (although the naysayers will probably be along shortly).

1. It is already a remapped version of the non-S 241bhp engine (mechanically identical)
2. Re-mapping drastically increases the risk of crank-bearing failure due to oil dilution and will shorten the life of the plastic inlet manifolds and intercooler side-tanks (already a weak-spot on these engines).

JLR squeezed an extra 25 bhp out of the engine by changing from a hydraulic to an electric power steering pump and by some major changes to the lubrication and cooling systems. Superchips limited their remap to +20BHP because of the oil dilution issues of going further.

If you are going to do it then maybe consider changing the inlet manifolds for cast aluminium ones, and half the oil change intervals!

Is the crankshaft failing due to oil dilution (DPF failing to regen properly) as big of an issue in the XF's as it is in the Land Rovers though?

Plastic Manifolds I definitely agree with, though. Who ever thought that was a good idea?!

[Simon_GH]

I thought the crankshaft failure on Land Rovers was more to do with them being heavier vehicles and therefore increasing the load?

[bimmer528]

Simon_GH said:

I thought the crankshaft failure on Land Rovers was more to do with them being heavier vehicles and therefore increasing the load?

That's definitely correct. But it will just depend on how it (an XF/XJ in this case) has been handled in it's first X thousand miles. If it's been up and down the M1 all it's life and had oil changed regular then I doubt anything will ever happen.

But if it's just been pottering around then its inevitable. Problem is, how do we ever know how it's been driven before we have it? Unless it's like 5 years old and has 100K on the clock.

Sometimes with diesels, I often think higher miles in a shorter space of time is better. It's proof its been driven where it should (unless it was a taxi of course)