1.0 Ecoboost Remaps ?
Discussion
Been out for a longer run, I dropped my dad back home and he couldn't believe how quick it was, it gives a really good shove in the back, on the way home a new 120D "M" BMW decided to show me who was boss as well pulled on to the A34 bypass and looked aghast when he appeared to be getting in the way of a basic red Fiesta he expected to drop no problem in his mighty diesel.
More Boost than Eco now though
More Boost than Eco now though
GTID said:
Dan Friel said:
The engine won't have any issue with 140bhp.. Ford are using this engine in the Fiesta R2 rally car with 170bhp, and they wouldn't risk reliability.
That isn't on standard internals though.. and I believe its around the 185bhp mark. http://www.carscoops.com/2015/03/ford-fiesta-r2-ra...
Dan Friel said:
GTID said:
Dan Friel said:
The engine won't have any issue with 140bhp.. Ford are using this engine in the Fiesta R2 rally car with 170bhp, and they wouldn't risk reliability.
That isn't on standard internals though.. and I believe its around the 185bhp mark. http://www.carscoops.com/2015/03/ford-fiesta-r2-ra...
I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to dig out the homolagation papers and see what pistons, cams etc they have.. J4CKO may want to take the fight to more than a 320D next time!
As an update, got the docs sent through for the insurance change, it added the princely sum of £18.17 for the rest of the policy which is another 10 months, they have listed it as an "Engine Management Chip" which isn't strictly correct but it does the same thing, I explained this and they were happy with it, cant do any more.
Been driving it a bit more, hoof it at low revs in second or third, bit of a delay (lag) and then it lunges forward enough that you have to have some space in front of you, bear in mind I drive a 350Z, this still feels quick, thats its party piece, once rolling it isn't quite as vivid but it still can mix it with proper cars at speed. I had to pick my eldest up earlier and gave it a boot and he asked if he could be insured on it instead of the C1, it might be a good next car for him or any younger driver looking for something that handles and has a usable level of poke, has zero VED and can be fairly economical, just not sure how much the remap may affect their premiums compared to us more mature folk. It isnt like its stupidly low geared either, it does over sixty in second.
Apparently, the 140 version (Red/Black) edition goes to nearly 180 bhp and over 200 lb/ft of torque, probably as rapid as a standard ST, perhaps even a bit quicker being that bit lighter.
I was pondering the output, 140 bhp from a 1 litre, its a lot but not that remarkable, the Peugeot RCZ R for example gets 266 bhp from 1.6 litres, 166 bhp/litre and there are loads of small capacity turbo engines making big power from low capacity, it just perhaps seems more of a big deal as its only 1 litre. Its just the way things are going.
Have to add, it doesnt sound super sporty but even the wife noticed that the engine sounded different post remap, I think remaps seem quite benign, its only numbers in a grid but it does mean the engine is working harder, so it will sound different, my Saab sounded weird after its remap, it developed a howl
Been driving it a bit more, hoof it at low revs in second or third, bit of a delay (lag) and then it lunges forward enough that you have to have some space in front of you, bear in mind I drive a 350Z, this still feels quick, thats its party piece, once rolling it isn't quite as vivid but it still can mix it with proper cars at speed. I had to pick my eldest up earlier and gave it a boot and he asked if he could be insured on it instead of the C1, it might be a good next car for him or any younger driver looking for something that handles and has a usable level of poke, has zero VED and can be fairly economical, just not sure how much the remap may affect their premiums compared to us more mature folk. It isnt like its stupidly low geared either, it does over sixty in second.
Apparently, the 140 version (Red/Black) edition goes to nearly 180 bhp and over 200 lb/ft of torque, probably as rapid as a standard ST, perhaps even a bit quicker being that bit lighter.
I was pondering the output, 140 bhp from a 1 litre, its a lot but not that remarkable, the Peugeot RCZ R for example gets 266 bhp from 1.6 litres, 166 bhp/litre and there are loads of small capacity turbo engines making big power from low capacity, it just perhaps seems more of a big deal as its only 1 litre. Its just the way things are going.
Have to add, it doesnt sound super sporty but even the wife noticed that the engine sounded different post remap, I think remaps seem quite benign, its only numbers in a grid but it does mean the engine is working harder, so it will sound different, my Saab sounded weird after its remap, it developed a howl
Edited by J4CKO on Thursday 13th August 16:38
Very interesting thread and I've heard nothing but good things about the 1.0 Ecoboost.
I do wonder what impact these remaps will have on engine life and far they can safely get pushed! I've watched Impreza's getting pushed very hard over the years and the 2.0 engine can take a huge amount of power before having issues. Some folk have run 500bhp+ on the standard internals although its not really recommended.
I quite like the idea of these engines getting pushed hard and surprising cars with their performance.
I do wonder what impact these remaps will have on engine life and far they can safely get pushed! I've watched Impreza's getting pushed very hard over the years and the 2.0 engine can take a huge amount of power before having issues. Some folk have run 500bhp+ on the standard internals although its not really recommended.
I quite like the idea of these engines getting pushed hard and surprising cars with their performance.
J4CKO said:
Apparently, the 140 version (Red/Black) edition goes to nearly 180 bhp and over 200 lb/ft of torque, probably as rapid as a standard ST, perhaps even a bit quicker being that bit lighter.
Don't forget that the ST goes to 200bhp on overboost, although the Red Edition also gets to c.150bhp in standard form.. Having spoken to a couple of tuning companies, to get real gains on the Red Edition you have to improve flow (induction, exhaust and intercooler), and that makes perfect sense. Drive train is likely to be the weakest link, although completely depends on how you drive it!Edited by J4CKO on Thursday 13th August 16:38
Dan Friel said:
J4CKO said:
Apparently, the 140 version (Red/Black) edition goes to nearly 180 bhp and over 200 lb/ft of torque, probably as rapid as a standard ST, perhaps even a bit quicker being that bit lighter.
Don't forget that the ST goes to 200bhp on overboost, although the Red Edition also gets to c.150bhp in standard form.. Having spoken to a couple of tuning companies, to get real gains on the Red Edition you have to improve flow (induction, exhaust and intercooler), and that makes perfect sense. Drive train is likely to be the weakest link, although completely depends on how you drive it!Edited by J4CKO on Thursday 13th August 16:38
I too will be interested in longevity of the engine and transmission.
There are differences between the 100hp version and the 140 Red Edition, namely to the transmission to cope with the extra power.
To be honest I could never buy an off the shelf chip/map and without getting it checked professionally on a dyno first, why take the risk?
Heres mine anyway
62mpg around town to work and back, and down to around 32mpg around the evo triangle. Great engine and great chassis.
To be honest I could never buy an off the shelf chip/map and without getting it checked professionally on a dyno first, why take the risk?
Heres mine anyway
62mpg around town to work and back, and down to around 32mpg around the evo triangle. Great engine and great chassis.
GTIAlex said:
There are differences between the 100hp version and the 140 Red Edition, namely to the transmission to cope with the extra power.
To be honest I could never buy an off the shelf chip/map and without getting it checked professionally on a dyno first, why take the risk?
Heres mine anyway
62mpg around town to work and back, and down to around 32mpg around the evo triangle. Great engine and great chassis.
Checked in what way ?To be honest I could never buy an off the shelf chip/map and without getting it checked professionally on a dyno first, why take the risk?
Heres mine anyway
62mpg around town to work and back, and down to around 32mpg around the evo triangle. Great engine and great chassis.
The car is running well and inly has 12,000 miles, the existing map was analysed by Superchips and the appropriate upgrade was sent, it is a standard configuration so not sure why it would need optimising any further on a dyno, ford don't do that when they are new ?
The Red and black editions have revised gear ratios, what else is done to the gearbox ? I can't find any reference to any other changes, am interested in what changes they make as they torque limit them in the lower gears anyway.
They do look rather good the red edition, you need to get the 175 bhp map !
J4CKO said:
so not sure why it would need optimising any further on a dyno
I'm not saying it does. But one reason for dyno tuning is, not every car and engine are equal, when pushed, they can and do behave differently.Part of tuning is to optimise the A/F ratio, as cars usually run rich in stock trim. While leaning them out will promote power, too much can cause pre-det and high temps.
And when remapping with a turbo, you might program it to expect more airflow, but sometimes the turbo won't be able to deliver it, which means it screws up the A/F and might make a power dip or flat spot, but not on every vehicle the map is applied too.
One way to minimise this to offer a conservative map, so chances are it'll work with any car of that type, might it might not be optimised for your exact car.
J4CKO said:
ford don't do that when they are new ?
They most certainly do, or at least whoever had been contracted to do the engine work. Hours, days, weeks will be spent on the map. But they need to ensure it's a map that will meet all their criteria, which is engine/transmission preservation, ability to cope with different fuel grades, world market distribution, emissions for Type Approval (some items are not tested after Type Approval, so aftermarket doesn't need to care about meeting them) and mpg across a range of uses.J4CKO said:
The Red and black editions have revised gear ratios, what else is done to the gearbox ? I can't find any reference to any other changes, am interested in what changes they make as they torque limit them in the lower gears anyway.
Torque limiters have been common for years and years. The 1.7 Ford Puma ECU limits torque output in 1st and 2nd and maybe even 3rd gear. Main reason is probably to preserve the gearbox, but in some cases it's also to make the car more drivable with less torque steer and wheel spin if FWD. My 1999 Camaro also has a torque limiter on 1st gear, again to preserve the gearbox.Yeah, am aware it might not be optimised to that specific car but with being new and a known quantity with no other mods it should be fine.
What I meant with "Ford Dont do that" isnt that they dont do any development work, they do years of it, they dont map every individual car differently, standard engines get the exact same map, they dont put each Fiesta on the Dyno before they leave and optimise it, its a commodity item.
I am sure with a talented mapper and some road and dyno time what we have could be improved on but that goes from £399 to something more expensive, and to be honest I can justify the £399 but not any more, at the end of the day its my wifes shopping car, but having an extra 40 percent grunt for that money is a no brainer.
It may break something, but most of the time it isnt at full throttle, its just for when you need it, at the moment its a novelty and I cant stop borrowing it, but it isnt going to distract me from my 350Z for long.
What I meant with "Ford Dont do that" isnt that they dont do any development work, they do years of it, they dont map every individual car differently, standard engines get the exact same map, they dont put each Fiesta on the Dyno before they leave and optimise it, its a commodity item.
I am sure with a talented mapper and some road and dyno time what we have could be improved on but that goes from £399 to something more expensive, and to be honest I can justify the £399 but not any more, at the end of the day its my wifes shopping car, but having an extra 40 percent grunt for that money is a no brainer.
It may break something, but most of the time it isnt at full throttle, its just for when you need it, at the moment its a novelty and I cant stop borrowing it, but it isnt going to distract me from my 350Z for long.
J4CKO said:
Yeah, am aware it might not be optimised to that specific car but with being new and a known quantity with no other mods it should be fine.
What I meant with "Ford Dont do that" isnt that they dont do any development work, they do years of it, they dont map every individual car differently, standard engines get the exact same map, they dont put each Fiesta on the Dyno before they leave and optimise it, its a commodity item.
I am sure with a talented mapper and some road and dyno time what we have could be improved on but that goes from £399 to something more expensive, and to be honest I can justify the £399 but not any more, at the end of the day its my wifes shopping car, but having an extra 40 percent grunt for that money is a no brainer.
It may break something, but most of the time it isnt at full throttle, its just for when you need it, at the moment its a novelty and I cant stop borrowing it, but it isnt going to distract me from my 350Z for long.
I agree with both posts. What I meant with "Ford Dont do that" isnt that they dont do any development work, they do years of it, they dont map every individual car differently, standard engines get the exact same map, they dont put each Fiesta on the Dyno before they leave and optimise it, its a commodity item.
I am sure with a talented mapper and some road and dyno time what we have could be improved on but that goes from £399 to something more expensive, and to be honest I can justify the £399 but not any more, at the end of the day its my wifes shopping car, but having an extra 40 percent grunt for that money is a no brainer.
It may break something, but most of the time it isnt at full throttle, its just for when you need it, at the moment its a novelty and I cant stop borrowing it, but it isnt going to distract me from my 350Z for long.
Individual maps are usually superior and should be able to achieve more from the car and also safely by making sure all parameters are optimized and in safe tolerances.
However by the same token, Superchips are a very well known (and respected) brand and on a completely standard engine it should (hopefully) be fine although there are no guarantees something won't go wrong given there are many differences that occur even on standard engines.
I have a large amount of changes to my car engine and I purchased a aftermarket ECU + mapping and the cost was about 4 x that of the Superchip.
I do love the idea of this car and I also think they look absolutely fantastic!
Can't remember if this is MED17, but nearly any modern Euro/Bosch type ECU has closed loop fuel, ignition/knock, airflow/boost/torque management with temperature controls and failsafes, and a good generic map could be considered virtually self tuning up to the limits set in the tune to suit the detected operating conditions/knock/temperatures etc.
john banks said:
Can't remember if this is MED17, but nearly any modern Euro/Bosch type ECU has closed loop fuel, ignition/knock, airflow/boost/torque management with temperature controls and failsafes, and a good generic map could be considered virtually self tuning up to the limits set in the tune to suit the detected operating conditions/knock/temperatures etc.
The old Bosch ME7.5 on 20vt's would adjust timing itself, noticeable with a map and when you chucked the "wrong" fuel in (95 when you have it mapped for 98, 98 when you have it mapped for 95) you could see it add or remove ignition advance with data logging software.I found this bit of info about the specific turbocharger differences between the 100 and 125 versions,
"The turbine wheel in the 100PS version is made from an alloy called IN713C and the 125PS version is MARM246"
Any Metallurgists/Engineeres (Max Torque you there ?) in who can confirm whether that sounds plausible ?
The 140 (Red/Black) version can be remapped to 177 bhp and 200 lb/ft so there may be some physical difference there as well.
Really interested to get to the bottom of the differences and specific capabilities, early days yet but this unit could make an amazing, compact conversion for other stuff. Wonder what the highest mileage ones have on now and whether, apart from the coolant pipe issue, what other failures there have been, if any ? what will that bottom end take, have heard mention of the ST turbo being fitted.
"The turbine wheel in the 100PS version is made from an alloy called IN713C and the 125PS version is MARM246"
Any Metallurgists/Engineeres (Max Torque you there ?) in who can confirm whether that sounds plausible ?
The 140 (Red/Black) version can be remapped to 177 bhp and 200 lb/ft so there may be some physical difference there as well.
Really interested to get to the bottom of the differences and specific capabilities, early days yet but this unit could make an amazing, compact conversion for other stuff. Wonder what the highest mileage ones have on now and whether, apart from the coolant pipe issue, what other failures there have been, if any ? what will that bottom end take, have heard mention of the ST turbo being fitted.
J4CKO said:
I found this bit of info about the specific turbocharger differences between the 100 and 125 versions,
"The turbine wheel in the 100PS version is made from an alloy called IN713C and the 125PS version is MARM246"
Any Metallurgists/Engineeres (Max Torque you there ?) in who can confirm whether that sounds plausible ?
The 140 (Red/Black) version can be remapped to 177 bhp and 200 lb/ft so there may be some physical difference there as well.
Really interested to get to the bottom of the differences and specific capabilities, early days yet but this unit could make an amazing, compact conversion for other stuff. Wonder what the highest mileage ones have on now and whether, apart from the coolant pipe issue, what other failures there have been, if any ? what will that bottom end take, have heard mention of the ST turbo being fitted.
Mar-M246 has higher heat resistance than Inconel713 - that's why it's used for the higher power version"The turbine wheel in the 100PS version is made from an alloy called IN713C and the 125PS version is MARM246"
Any Metallurgists/Engineeres (Max Torque you there ?) in who can confirm whether that sounds plausible ?
The 140 (Red/Black) version can be remapped to 177 bhp and 200 lb/ft so there may be some physical difference there as well.
Really interested to get to the bottom of the differences and specific capabilities, early days yet but this unit could make an amazing, compact conversion for other stuff. Wonder what the highest mileage ones have on now and whether, apart from the coolant pipe issue, what other failures there have been, if any ? what will that bottom end take, have heard mention of the ST turbo being fitted.
Both nickel based alloys
Jacko - you might have heard people running anti lag saying they're after a Maram shaft compressor wheel. The wheel in those cases is made from Mar-M247 which can take temps of over 1000 deg C. A normal Inconel wheel would melt usually by 1000 deg C so wouldn't be too good in a turbo running anti lag
They're basically brand names for heat resistant alloys - the more heat resistant, the higher the cost
Edited by s m on Friday 14th August 23:42
Gassing Station | Ford | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff