Factory ECU mapping fail
Discussion
Captain Muppet said:
hairyben said:
hyperblue said:
Aftermarket tuners have no warranty considerations 
Hear this regularly enough, but are there many citable cases of engine implosions put down to remaps?It's none isn't it?
Manufacturers will do a lifetime of abuse on tens of engines and then strip them down to check tolerances on everything. Tuners won't.
How many miles/years are the warranties? Manufacturers often offer 3 years, 90,000 miles. How do the re-mappers compare? Also, although manufacturers cover 3 years, they all have tolerances so they don't all go bang in the 4th year! (wouldn't do their reputation any good!) Many last 10/15 years etc.
I would have confidence in a remap if it came with a 3 year 90,000 mile, largely unconditional, warranty on the engine/turbo/clutch/exhaust/driveshaft/etc. Do any exist?
No doubt there are some cars that can easily cope with a re-map, however as the poster above said, re-mappers don't run many engines on lifetime analysis and strip down etc. so everyone is effectively a guinea pig for them. Great if you get lucky and your car is one with great tolerances, not so great if not.
I suppose what is needed is a great independent group to test various re-maps over many engines/lifetime analysis etc. Who would pay for that though.
If you use the car as you used to and take advantage of extra power only now and then, the engine should be safe with a good remap. But if you push the engine really hard (track time, extreme autobahn driving), over time components will start to fail one by one. On most engines anyway. With factory map, this kind of use will not harm the engine too much.
1. Manufacturers build tolerances into the engine ECUs to allow for crap fuel, crap maintenance and long life, and so that they can make their cars look economical on the advert.
Anarki - prepare to be bullyrammed by your insurer. And don't even THINK about not telling them, because they CAN tell.
I did try and the two are clearly linked.
http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/understanding-exhau...
but since you`d rather just make dismissive remarks than have a discussion with someone who was genuinely interested in what you had to say I`ll bow out.
http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/understanding-exhau...
but since you`d rather just make dismissive remarks than have a discussion with someone who was genuinely interested in what you had to say I`ll bow out.
R26Andy said:
I did try and the two are clearly linked.
http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/understanding-exhau...
but since you`d rather just make dismissive remarks than have a discussion with someone who was genuinely interested in what you had to say I`ll bow out.
Thatink is to the Janet and john version of the subject.http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/understanding-exhau...
but since you`d rather just make dismissive remarks than have a discussion with someone who was genuinely interested in what you had to say I`ll bow out.
Mot test is little more than a Cat function test, period.
EU test is a closed cell, 40 something minute drive test with total emmisions capture performed to strict criteria from stone cold.
To give you some idea, last time I paid for one, it was some £800+vat a pop
So we're all in agreement then, the idiot car manufacturers don't know diddly-squat about programing an ECU and they should really just admit this, in future outsourcing engine management to a man in a shed on the outskirts of Bristol who has discovered how to get more power and torque out of an engine without increasing fuel consumption or compromising reliability.
Fastdruid said:
The remapper doesn't care about a fraction of the things the manufacturer has to.
NVH, emissions, longevity, part throttle response are just a few things that they care about that the mapper doesn't.
Don't also forget that it may simply come down to cost, while the engine *may* be able to make the power the gearbox/clutch may be rated far lower. Its cheaper just to restrict power. Of course they're likely to be able to take it (the rating is likely conservative) but they'll wear out faster or run a higher chance of breaking.
Don't forget that if they tune the engine for maximum performance they will need more engines in their range rather than states of tune, VAG had their 1.9 diesel at anything from 90 - 130 bhp.NVH, emissions, longevity, part throttle response are just a few things that they care about that the mapper doesn't.
Don't also forget that it may simply come down to cost, while the engine *may* be able to make the power the gearbox/clutch may be rated far lower. Its cheaper just to restrict power. Of course they're likely to be able to take it (the rating is likely conservative) but they'll wear out faster or run a higher chance of breaking.
I think the OPs original questions have been well covered already.
What's noticeable from reading this thread is that the consensus seems to be that remapping is a bad idea.
To me it's bloody obvious that if more torque is made available, for more of the time, then something is going to wear out faster. But I'm still toying with the idea of having my 550i remapped. Not because it needs more power/torque, but because I'm interested in improvements in throttle response and power delivery, and not so much the peaks. I'm used to older cars (previous was an E36 325i non-vanos and obviously a cable throttle) and miss the consistent throttle feel power delivery. The 550i is fantastic but I can feel it doing calculations and adjusting things through the rev range, especially below 3000 rpm with a large throttle inputs. Above that, it feels perfect.
It's something I've been thinking of having done for over year and what has put me off is the lack of data forthcoming for the tuners. They only advertise the peak gains, and I haven't yet had a decent dialogue about the more subtle changes I would see (the 'driveability'), even from companies who are very well rated on forums etc. Even power curves aren't forthcoming sometimes. Speaking of which, Superchips have curves but the main thing I notice is that the updated curves aren't as smooth as the original, which puts me off:
http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/650ci367bhp.pdf
It seems that there are so many companies out there who are buying in the maps, then applying them without much understanding of what is going on. By the way I haven't spoken to Superchips yet so can't comment on their knowledge or helpfulness.
It doesn't help that very few of the remapping experiences I read about relate to NA petrol engines.
What's noticeable from reading this thread is that the consensus seems to be that remapping is a bad idea.
To me it's bloody obvious that if more torque is made available, for more of the time, then something is going to wear out faster. But I'm still toying with the idea of having my 550i remapped. Not because it needs more power/torque, but because I'm interested in improvements in throttle response and power delivery, and not so much the peaks. I'm used to older cars (previous was an E36 325i non-vanos and obviously a cable throttle) and miss the consistent throttle feel power delivery. The 550i is fantastic but I can feel it doing calculations and adjusting things through the rev range, especially below 3000 rpm with a large throttle inputs. Above that, it feels perfect.
It's something I've been thinking of having done for over year and what has put me off is the lack of data forthcoming for the tuners. They only advertise the peak gains, and I haven't yet had a decent dialogue about the more subtle changes I would see (the 'driveability'), even from companies who are very well rated on forums etc. Even power curves aren't forthcoming sometimes. Speaking of which, Superchips have curves but the main thing I notice is that the updated curves aren't as smooth as the original, which puts me off:
http://www.superchips.co.uk/curves/650ci367bhp.pdf
It seems that there are so many companies out there who are buying in the maps, then applying them without much understanding of what is going on. By the way I haven't spoken to Superchips yet so can't comment on their knowledge or helpfulness.
It doesn't help that very few of the remapping experiences I read about relate to NA petrol engines.
Here it is because of taxation levels, you can get a lot of cars and motorbikes with the same engine but at different power levels. A couple of examples: Landrover Discovery 3 (and 4) with the 3l V6 engine you can get in a restricted power version as it comes into a much lower tax band when new and for on going yearly tax. My friend and I both bought FJR1300 motorbikes, same age but different power, mine was 80kW his 105kW, mine is made for the French market where there is a maximum power allowed for a motorbike of 80kW but here in Belgium it also brings it into a lower tax band.
It is a 15 minute job to bring it back to full power by just changing the rubbers on the intake
It is a 15 minute job to bring it back to full power by just changing the rubbers on the intake
rohrl said:
So we're all in agreement then, the idiot car manufacturers don't know diddly-squat about programing an ECU and they should really just admit this, in future outsourcing engine management to a man in a shed on the outskirts of Bristol who has discovered how to get more power and torque out of an engine without increasing fuel consumption or compromising reliability.
anarki said:
Plenty of remaps claim to offer better MPG, are you suggesting the government don't want this? (rhetorical question)
EFA.We have a standardised test for fuel economy, and yet to date, i have never seen an aftermarket tuner release any figures for their mapped car over this test cycle? In the grand scheme of things, the approx £2k cost to have this test done is insignificant, so why don't they have it done ............................. ?
The other side to this argument is that if your willing to fit updated parts to support the remap then ???
From my own experience my remapped focus Rs has been very reliable but I have spent money upgrading the turbo, exhaust system & other parts that would have likely been to expensive for ford to develop for mass production.
From my own experience my remapped focus Rs has been very reliable but I have spent money upgrading the turbo, exhaust system & other parts that would have likely been to expensive for ford to develop for mass production.
R26Andy said:
I did try and the two are clearly linked.
http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/understanding-exhau...
but since you`d rather just make dismissive remarks than have a discussion with someone who was genuinely interested in what you had to say I`ll bow out.
Try this link: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/environment...http://www.safermotoring.co.uk/understanding-exhau...
but since you`d rather just make dismissive remarks than have a discussion with someone who was genuinely interested in what you had to say I`ll bow out.
The test cycle is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_European_Driving_...
Max_Torque said:
anarki said:
Plenty of remaps claim to offer better MPG, are you suggesting the government don't want this? (rhetorical question)
EFA.We have a standardised test for fuel economy, and yet to date, i have never seen an aftermarket tuner release any figures for their mapped car over this test cycle? In the grand scheme of things, the approx £2k cost to have this test done is insignificant, so why don't they have it done ............................. ?
neiljohnson said:
The other side to this argument is that if your willing to fit updated parts to support the remap then ???
From my own experience my remapped focus Rs has been very reliable but I have spent money upgrading the turbo, exhaust system & other parts that would have likely been to expensive for ford to develop for mass production.
This is the thing, if you uprate one thing it sets of a cascade of other things needing uprating until you disappear up your own arse!From my own experience my remapped focus Rs has been very reliable but I have spent money upgrading the turbo, exhaust system & other parts that would have likely been to expensive for ford to develop for mass production.
I have a cosworth engined kit car at roughly 450-500bhp and the uprate list is bloody endless! If the factory RS500s had left the factory using all their potential then a number of things would have happened: no one would have bought them as they`d have been around £75k, Bob the builder/solicitor/accountant would kill himself and longevity would be cut by half.
I still don`t expect to get any more than 30-40k miles until rebuild time, probably even less. That`s with over 20 years of tuner experience on this engine.
I`d never remap my daily drive, reliability is paramount.
DJFish said:
Another thing to consider is that a manufacturer like VAG will be using the same engine in many different models and trim levels of car, they can charge more for an Audi bling-tronic but use the same engine in a Skoda Blu-rinse just with different mapping.
Is it really the same engine though, or do they grade parts with the better tolerances ending up in the vindaloo versions and the items that pass to a more "generous" % ending up in the cabbige pie version?jones325i said:
But I'm still toying with the idea of having my 550i remapped. Not because it needs more power/torque, but because I'm interested in improvements in throttle response and power delivery, and not so much the peaks. I'm used to older cars (previous was an E36 325i non-vanos and obviously a cable throttle) and miss the consistent throttle feel power delivery. The 550i is fantastic but I can feel it doing calculations and adjusting things through the rev range, especially below 3000 rpm with a large throttle inputs. Above that, it feels perfect.
Yes, I feel the same about the van- merc V6 TDI propels it along more than adequately when it's in the mood, but the throttle response can be comically slow. Especially in certain situations, eg when your go from braking>going eg approaching a roundabout, it's in the supertanker category and bordering on dangerous to the unwary. You push it all the way to the floor and nothing, nothing, nothing nothing, nothing, roll out in front of someone who gestures at you like you're a d
head then BAM WOOSH ooh look at me I'm an exocet missle. Yeah thanks.currybum said:
Sorry I’ll try and make it clear
When you are discussing engine reliability and robustness a “should” or an “I recon” is a poor assessment of the reliability of a component or system. Unless you have data, testing or the original signoff specifications to hand..it’s pretty much impossible to make an assessment.
It is, because engines are not overengineered these days.When you are discussing engine reliability and robustness a “should” or an “I recon” is a poor assessment of the reliability of a component or system. Unless you have data, testing or the original signoff specifications to hand..it’s pretty much impossible to make an assessment.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff