Ford Focus ST ecu remapping

[marcellus]

that's all anyone knows of at the moment but there's a view that it still doesn't turn it off 100%....

Where abouts are you based (North West(ish) I guess!!!

[g77]

Whilst idea of chipping to gain extra power is appealing, as am sure that you are all aware, nothing in life comes for free (and I am not just talking about the inital cash outlay). The increased performance gain from any of the chippers will ultimately affect the long term durability of the engine.
All OEMs will make sure that their products last until at least the end of the warranty period as it is obviously in their best interests. But in general they are aiming at a product lifetime of 10 years / 150,000km for the majority of powertrain components.
Just so that we are clear, chipping an engine will totally invalidate the OEM warranty. No ifs and no buts - regardless of what the chippers claim.
And although some chippers offer a warranty themselves, I would check the terms and conditions very carefully to see what is covered.
Just remember that OEMS spend tons of money and test ( / sacrifice sometimes) many different engines to ensure that the end product delivers the performance repeatable and durably. I am pretty sure that the the chipping companies do not test to anywhere near the same integrity before signing off their products.
I would imagine if you are the first owner, you probably won't have a problem but any subsequent prospective buyers should be careful if you are buying a chipped vehicle.
Not trying to be a doom and gloom monger but just trying to balance out the picture.

[damian s]

In principle you are correct. but as the chippers state (and its a fair statement) 'chipping the car does not affect the reliability, its down to how you drive it'.

A properly chipped car that has been serviced correctly, always filled with high grade fuel, and generally looked after (not booted until warmed up, and cooled down correctly, etc) shouldnt really be any less reliable than a standard car.

[g77]

damian s said:

In principle you are correct. but as the chippers state (and its a fair statement) 'chipping the car does not affect the reliability, its down to how you drive it'.

A properly chipped car that has been serviced correctly, always filled with high grade fuel, and generally looked after (not booted until warmed up, and cooled down correctly, etc) shouldnt really be any less reliable than a standard car.

Sorry but a chipped car will be more unreliable than a standard car - or perhaps to put it another way; a chipped car will cost more to maintain than a standard car as the life of the powertrain components will be reduced.
And you do run a higher risk of a catasrophic failure - as I said the OEMs spend hundreds of thousands of pounds testing engines and vehicles to ensure that they minimise the risk to the customers. I can't see the chippers have the same time, inclination or resources to do this.
Unless you uprate all the engine components, by chipping an engine you are moving outside of the operating parameters that engine was designed for, so your risk of failure increases.
If the chipped car were as reliable as the standard one, why wouldn't the manufacturers warranty still be valid?
And the chippers would claim that the car will be equally as reliable - it is hardly in their interests to say otherwise. And equally well they know that the owner which fits the chip is unlikley to have any problems - it is the next owner or the owner after that who will be effected. And I am sure that it is only the original purchaser of the chip who is covered by the chipper's warranty

[theponce]

g77 said:

Sorry but a chipped car will be more unreliable than a standard car - or perhaps to put it another way; a chipped car will cost more to maintain than a standard car as the life of the powertrain components will be reduced.

I presume you can back these claims up with scientific evidence? Or is this your opinion?

g77 said:

And you do run a higher risk of a catasrophic failure - as I said the OEMs spend hundreds of thousands of pounds testing engines and vehicles to ensure that they minimise the risk to the customers. I can't see the chippers have the same time, inclination or resources to do this.

Again, any chance of backing your claims up with evidence? if a tuner offers a warranty, and has a zero failure rate, then that somewhat counters your claims.

g77 said:

Unless you uprate all the engine components, by chipping an engine you are moving outside of the operating parameters that engine was designed for, so your risk of failure increases.
If the chipped car were as reliable as the standard one, why wouldn't the manufacturers warranty still be valid?

Completely incorrect. You clearly don't understand this at all.

Manufacturers often make engines which they themselves can tune, ie they detune the engine for marketing purposes. Classic examples are the Audi 2.0 TFSI, available as 180 bhp (Seat), 200 bhp and 220 bhp. SAME ENGINE! No uprating required.

So, what's the problemn in tuning the 180 to 220 for example? Absolutely none.

Another reason why engines are tuned to a certain level is for tax reasons, so that the emissions fall into a bracket affordable by company car buyers.

Another reason is marketing - a lower tune will be cheaper to insure, therefore more people will be able to afford to run it.

The are billions of reasons why manufacturers do this. But rest assured, tuning (when done correctly and appropriately) does not take the engine outside it's safe operating range.

Edited by theponce on Tuesday 9th January 11:32

[Podie]

theponce said:

g77 said:

Sorry but a chipped car will be more unreliable than a standard car - or perhaps to put it another way; a chipped car will cost more to maintain than a standard car as the life of the powertrain components will be reduced.

I presume you can back these claims up with scientific evidence? Or is this your opinion?

Likewise - can you back up yours..?

My comment about the intercooler came from a colleague (I work for the Blue Oval) who works in the appropriate area. It is also the view held by Graham Goode Racing - yet you denounced it, but did not provide any "scientific evidence"...


EDIT - your profile doesn't indicate the nature of your work, nor any cars you own (or have owned)

Edited by Podie on Tuesday 9th January 12:09

[g77]

To the ponce

Yes I can back up all my claims as I work for an OEM currently doing a project on turbo warranty, and the majority of the warranty claims that we have can be traced back to chipped vehicles.

And in terms of the chippers warranty - have you actually investigated what is covered and who is covered? If you check the terms and conditions very carefully you might find that your coverage is not as comprehensive as you think.

And where is your evidence to back up a zero claim rate? From the chipping company themselves? Well duh obviously they advertise a zero rate.

THe VAG family of engines are often assumed to be exactly the same engines and that they only differ by the map - this is completely incorrect. The engines are never exactly the same. This is a myth perpetuated by car magazines which is then picked up by people. Higher rated engines have higher rated components - why would an OEM waste money fitting higer cost components to an engine that doesn't need it? (NB econonies of scale is not a valid argument when considering the production volumes of VAG)

Cheaper to insure? Tax reasons?
Check the topic - we are talking specifically about Focus STs

And how do you or the tuners know what the safe operating range is?
Unless you have designed the engine from scratch you don't.
And do the chippers consider manufacturing and assembly tolerances that are inherent in every engine?
They will have designed the chips to work on the single engine that they have tested and not considered these tolerances, again affecting performance and durability.
I am not saying don't do - but understand the risks and implication inherent with chipping when you do it.

[damian s]

damian s said:

A properly chipped car that has been serviced correctly, always filled with high grade fuel, and generally looked after (not booted until warmed up, and cooled down correctly, etc) shouldnt really be any less reliable than a standard car.

I stand by this statement

[theponce]

g77 said:

THe VAG family of engines are often assumed to be exactly the same engines and that they only differ by the map - this is completely incorrect.

Please list the difference in the engine (not the components such as turbo) that are different between engines in the OEM "tuned" models. In particular, please list the differences in the following examples:

Audi 2.0 TFSI (200 bhp and 220 bhp)
Volvo V70 2.4 normally aspirated 140 and 170 bhp
Mini One 90 bhp / Mini Cooper 127 bhp normally aspirated

I know this is not specific to the Focus ST, but I'm really interested in this particular point.

[theponce]

damian s said:

damian s said:

A properly chipped car that has been serviced correctly, always filled with high grade fuel, and generally looked after (not booted until warmed up, and cooled down correctly, etc) shouldnt really be any less reliable than a standard car.

I stand by this statement

I do too!

[theponce]

[quote=Podie

My comment about the intercooler came from a colleague (I work for the Blue Oval) who works in the appropriate area. It is also the view held by Graham Goode Racing - yet you denounced it, but did not provide any "scientific evidence"...


EDIT - your profile doesn't indicate the nature of your work, nor any cars you own (or have owned)

[/quote]

I already provided the scientific basis for the reason why I denounced it. Read it earlier in the thread - it's about the air flow capability of a rolling road fan. As for the actual scientific evidence to support this, all it would require is for me to obtain the raw data taken during the testing to prove the point.

[Podie]

theponce said:

[quote=Podie

My comment about the intercooler came from a colleague (I work for the Blue Oval) who works in the appropriate area. It is also the view held by Graham Goode Racing - yet you denounced it, but did not provide any "scientific evidence"...


EDIT - your profile doesn't indicate the nature of your work, nor any cars you own (or have owned)

I already provided the scientific basis for the reason why I denounced it. Read it earlier in the thread - it's about the air flow capability of a rolling road fan. As for the actual scientific evidence to support this, all it would require is for me to obtain the raw data taken during the testing to prove the point.
[/quote]

So you reckon that Ford's own rolling roads aren't up to the job..?

[theponce]

Podie said:

So you reckon that Ford's own rolling roads aren't up to the job..?

That is not what I said. besides, I think they use engine dynos don't they?

let me give you an example -

I take my Focus ST to a rolling road with a small dyno fan and it produces say 240 bhp. The same rolling road then decides to swap to a huge dyno fan, and the car then produces 260 bhp. So, I've suddenly found 20 bhp which I had lost due to inefficient air flow through the intercooler.

Please note, all I am saying is that the efficency of the intercooler on a rolling road will be determined by the dyno fan capability.

[Podie]

theponce said:

Please note, all I am saying is that the efficency of the intercooler on a rolling road will be determined by the dyno fan capability.

Agreed.

However, the people that I have spoken with, maintain that the intercooler should be larger anyway. The standard vehicle is built to a price and therefore if you modify the car, then the intercooler should be one of the priorities.

[damian s]

Ive never understood why manufacturers save themselves a few quid by fitting a pissy little intercooler. A better intercooler is cheap extra ponies, and helps prolong the engines life (cooler charge temps -> less detonation).

[Podie]

damian s said:

Ive never understood why manufacturers save themselves a few quid by fitting a pissy little intercooler. A better intercooler is cheap extra ponies, and helps prolong the engines life (cooler charge temps -> less detonation).

Everything is a balance. Why fit something above what is required for reliability..?

If a bulb costs $1 extra to buy and fit, then do you put the price up accordingly of the vehicle, or do you lose that $1..? Over the volume of cars built, that soon adds up...

[damian s]

dont you think the sort of person who would buy an ST would happily pay say another 100 quid for a version that produces say 10 bhp or possibly even 15bhp more, and with better consistency? (not unrealistic if the standard one isnt up to the job, and the turbo is small but producing reasonable levels of boost)

Edited by damian s on Tuesday 9th January 14:37

[marcellus]

Not a technician in anyway but didn't Ford spec the ST around several criteria and not just price?

Criteria I've herard suggested thus far are;
> Price (obviously)
> Performance (0-60 & top end)
> BHP (I believe that they actually had s target figure of 225 in mind)
> CO2 emmissions (I believe theat they were told to ensure that it was not in the top level)

I further think I;ve heard that the reason for the specified size of intercooler is to acheive criteria 3 & 4, which they tested to. I also understand that the standard intercooler is the standard intercooler for the ST and the XR5 (the Australian version of the ST - where I suspect (and not specific factual data to support it) that it is on average warmer than in the UK & Norther Europe

[Simmo_J]

theponce said:

don kalmar union said:

The other question to be asked by prospective buyers of software for either brand is 'how do you effect the software change?'; through the OBD socket, by plugging directly into the ECU, or by opening the ECU and removing the 'chip'. The answer to this question will tell exactly how much expertise and knowledge your prospective supplier really has in relation to current ECU technology.

Well, this shows your lack of understanding!!! There is no chip on this ECU to remove in the old fashion sense. This ECU is programmed via the OBD2 port. Also, although the software is different on the Ford, it can still be copied (using the correct tools) and compared to and original file, so your suggestion that these copy claims are weak, are themselves weak and yet again due to a lack of knowledge and understanding.

You may both want to have a look at THIS THREAD

Done by a company that promote OBD2 only programming and the invisibility of the tuning that has taken place.

Nice picture of a non soldered chip uploaded via OBD2..... NOT

theponce said:

damian s said:

interesting. so do you think we will be seeing an influx of STs with melted pistons in the future? with owners trying to squeeze too much out of them.

No, highly unlikely, and certainly not if tuned properly. The ECU is also very good at protecting the engine.

Well it isn't an ST, but there you go and this had just 4 hours after leaving the UK arm of RICA.

And this engine here was obviously tuned real well by the guys at RICA UK, and here's the evidence!

theponce said:

All of you with Superchips on your ST225 probably have an early version of RICA software, which is no surprise since RICA are the gurus of Volvo tuning. This also suggests that superchips don't actually understand how to tune cars, which is why they have to resort to copying.

Guru's with full pistons unlike their customers! It would suggest the "Guru's" at the UK arm of RICA haven't got the foggiest either on how to do a custom job!

Edited by Simmo_J on Thursday 30th August 00:04

[kertrish]

To tune an ME9 ECU you either have to bench flash or flash via OBD2. I don't think it's possible to do a chip change on the new ST225.