Just buy the cheaper one and remap it....

[tankplanker]

rtz62 said:

SWMBO has owned three Fabia vRS (the tdi model), two had the ASZ engine code, and the last the BLT code.
The ASZ and BLT are both later by VAG as being 130bhp.
Now, the first ASZ she had was standard, the second she had mapped, bigger injectors, more efficient Intercooler etc and was running at a rolling road proved 185 bhp
However the latter, BLT, despite its nominal 130bhp rating by VAG wasn't.
To quantify that, when it went to a well known re-mappers, they put it on the rolling road to obtain baseline figures, and it delivered 152bhp; the rolling road operator said that every BLT engine car they had worked on had shown 150-ish (and to be fair, he offered that figure BEFORE the car went near the RR)
Thus a st1 remap that would nominally deliver 170bhp on the ASZ engine sounds a bigger increase than the same/similar map on the BLT which gave 174bhp. Or more with some tweaking...
I'm not sure of the truth of things, but on her last car with the 185+bhp, I fitted uprated headbolts (they are known for head-lift under higher boost and power), with uprated boost hoses etc.
As an aside, I've just taken delivery of a new Skoda Octavia 2.0tdi estate with the DSG box; it performs adequately 'out of the box' but I'm already considering a remap. My only concern would be whether the DSG gearbox has a torque limit and if the map I choose would push it to the edge of its capacity, which is why I won't look for a map that gives the highest headline figure, but one that is....'safe', if you get my meaning.

Most maps topped out around 170/180 BHP because the standard clutch would start slipping on the Fabia vRS. Next area of weakness was the intercooler, tiny side mount one that limited performance on a warm day with a prolonged heavy right foot. Fix the clutch and the intercooler (the official Seat Sport one was popular) and you can get close to a reliable 200 BHP assuming you've sorted the intake and exhaust. Next limiting factor is the turbo and injectors, possible to get to 240 BHP with standard injectors and a hybrid turbo but more than that and the duty cycle on the injectors is getting very long. Sort the injectors and you've got over 260 BHP. Mine ran about 220 BHP for 30k or so before I sold it because I wanted a safer mapping.

Didn't they swap the turbo between the BLT and ASZ? I'm sure that most ASZs had a slightly smaller KKK Turbo.

[3795mpower]

daveco said:

So if this is the possible with the E9x 3.0 litre unit, are there any relatively simple mods that can improve power in the E46 3.0 litre engine?

In the U.S they supercharge them, I know a couple of people over here stroking them but in my opinion
It's a lot of money to sink into it.
You don't have many sensible manifold upgrade options really but a rolling road remap will at least optimise
What they've got.

[andburg]

csd19 said:

dme123 said:

I believe the 5 cylinder Volvo D3/D4 engines were just software differences. The Polestar map for both engines take them to exactly the same outputs.

Another pair of Volvo engines are the Euro IV compliant 2.4D(163bhp) & the D5(185bhp), this was purely a software difference between these two.

engine may be same but drivetrain is not.
The 163bhp 2.4d has a smaller clutch and flywheel than the 185 or so I was led to believe on the Volvo forums a few years back.

[smilo996]

This always impressed me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KfMY96v_Gc

Seeing as it was Chris Harris then it is clearly as it was.

Apart from anything, why buy a new car. Buy a second hand one and upgrade.

[MaxA]

I'd be happy to order a car with a factory endorsed and warranted remap, like Mountune on a Ford, but other than that, I'd want a properly custom remap from a specialist, to run on 98 or higher octane fuel, with whatever supporting mods might be a good idea (anything from a new intake to a downpipe, bigger injectors, intercooler, fuel pump, AFR gauge etc.).

I don't believe in the one-size-fits all canned tunes, and I wouldn't buy the car with the detuned engine, there's always something extra to be done to make it work properly.

[Toyoda]

benboy123 said:

Hi all,

purchased a brand new fiesta ecoboost red edition 140bhp standard but was lacking at points in the rev range.

After a fair bit of research went with the superchips bluefin map and the transformation is unbelievable!! Its now putting out roughly 165bhp which from a 1 litre is impressive, the torque is roughly the same as the ST model.

Best £320 I have ever spent!

Not bad for a car with £20 road tax and 55mpg

Will be interesting to see how long it lasts. I know blown motors are the future but you're well into unchartered mainstream territory with that sort of remapped output in a 1 litre.

[ModernAndy]

andburg said:

csd19 said:

dme123 said:

I believe the 5 cylinder Volvo D3/D4 engines were just software differences. The Polestar map for both engines take them to exactly the same outputs.

Another pair of Volvo engines are the Euro IV compliant 2.4D(163bhp) & the D5(185bhp), this was purely a software difference between these two.

engine may be same but drivetrain is not.
The 163bhp 2.4d has a smaller clutch and flywheel than the 185 or so I was led to believe on the Volvo forums a few years back.

I thought there'd have to be something different.

Getting back to the original point which I might now rephrase slightly; is there actually any car you can buy where there's a more powerful version of the exact same engine and the ONLY difference between the 2 cars is a remap. That now includes exhausts, clutches, gearboxes, materials the components are made of, size of turbo actuators, etc.

There's been so many examples given but it seems they've all been unpicked in some way.

[mike9009]

Toyoda said:

benboy123 said:

Hi all,

purchased a brand new fiesta ecoboost red edition 140bhp standard but was lacking at points in the rev range.

After a fair bit of research went with the superchips bluefin map and the transformation is unbelievable!! Its now putting out roughly 165bhp which from a 1 litre is impressive, the torque is roughly the same as the ST model.

Best £320 I have ever spent!

Not bad for a car with £20 road tax and 55mpg

Will be interesting to see how long it lasts. I know blown motors are the future but you're well into unchartered mainstream territory with that sort of remapped output in a 1 litre.

I imagine the boost pressure of the turbo has been tweaked upwards a little. Bringing more hot gases over the turbine wheel on blade tips which are 0.4mm thick will be interesting. Lets hope the allowable inclusion defects of 0.2mm have not found themselves lodged in one of the blade tips. The creep resistance of these materials is also finite. The standard turbo spins to 250,000 rpm already - the bearings will also take a pounding with the extra revs required to create the boost, plus the heat transfer through the turbine wheel - shaft - to the bearings will be an interesting experiment. I don't know the design envelope for these few features - but I am sure the superchips team have it covered though....


Mike

[Jakg]

ModernAndy said:

I thought there'd have to be something different.

Getting back to the original point which I might now rephrase slightly; is there actually any car you can buy where there's a more powerful version of the exact same engine and the ONLY difference between the 2 cars is a remap. That now includes exhausts, clutches, gearboxes, materials the components are made of, size of turbo actuators, etc.

There's been so many examples given but it seems they've all been unpicked in some way.

TheAngryDog said:

Mg Zt / rover 75 cdti 114 was identical to the 131 engine apart from a remap.

A lot of "remappers" don't realise this.

Jakg said:

^ this ^

Started life in a 115 tune, then (supposedly once BMW had left) a 135 tune was developed. Same engine, different mapping only, no other differences.

Upgrade was offered as an optional extra (from the factory), or as a dealer-fit retrofit for existing owners.

Again - identical everything, same ECU, different mapping. Only difference was £600 when new.


The story is that when the Rover 75 was developed, Rover was owned by BMW. They used the same engine (M47) as used elsewhere in the range (e.g. E46 320d), but with some components downrated (small turbo, cast not forged crank), and deliberately low power output (114HP vs the 147 ish in the BMW) to make sure they wouldn't be a direct comparison. When BMW left Rover, the engineers had free reign over the software and realised they could easily get 131HP out of the unit with nothing more than a software map, and so initially offered both models for sale, with the upgrade available at dealers as a retrofit with a warranty - eventually the lower power model was dropped altogether.

The gearbox (manual or auto), brakes, suspension etc was common between both power variants, whether comparing between Rover 75's or MG ZT's, although obviously each model had different suspension to each other (e.g. 75 vs ZT)

Edited by Jakg on Tuesday 15th March 21:26

[poing]

Toyoda said:

Will be interesting to see how long it lasts. I know blown motors are the future but you're well into unchartered mainstream territory with that sort of remapped output in a 1 litre.

I don't think 165 from a 1 litre is that much now, considering a Mercedes A45 AMG is a 2 litre with 376bhp from the factory so who knows what it'll do when the tuners start playing. I agree that it will be interesting to see how these things last though.

Mike above has mentioned the turbo on the Ford 1 litre and I guess that's just because of choice of spec by Ford. Most of us know there are some risks to boosting the power but that's where a bit of research with the aid of helpful people at least gives you the chance to know what you might face.

[MrBarry123]

poing said:

I don't think 165 from a 1 litre is that much now, considering a Mercedes A45 AMG is a 2 litre with 376bhp from the factory so who knows what it'll do when the tuners start playing. I agree that it will be interesting to see how these things last though.

Mike above has mentioned the turbo on the Ford 1 litre and I guess that's just because of choice of spec by Ford. Most of us know there are some risks to boosting the power but that's where a bit of research with the aid of helpful people at least gives you the chance to know what you might face.

Yeah but the A45 example is entirely different. That is a 2.0L engine designed from the off for ultimate performance and therefore has all the necessary supporting hardware to cope with the extra power: large intercooler, strengthened pistons and block, uprated fuel pump etc.

The Fiesta has a 1.0L engine designed for economy, not performance. My take would be that the little EcoBoost engine is already pretty wound up as it is in standard form; to take it even further is, in my opinion, quite risky.

[James91250]

Does anyone know anything about the 3 different power outputs in the Renaultsport Megane Coupe 2010-2015

250bhp
265bhp
275bhp

I have a 290bhp Megane 250, so have I just bought a cheaper one and remapped it? In terms of engine and intake anyway..

[df76]

mike9009 said:

Toyoda said:

benboy123 said:

Hi all,

purchased a brand new fiesta ecoboost red edition 140bhp standard but was lacking at points in the rev range.

After a fair bit of research went with the superchips bluefin map and the transformation is unbelievable!! Its now putting out roughly 165bhp which from a 1 litre is impressive, the torque is roughly the same as the ST model.

Best £320 I have ever spent!

Not bad for a car with £20 road tax and 55mpg

Will be interesting to see how long it lasts. I know blown motors are the future but you're well into unchartered mainstream territory with that sort of remapped output in a 1 litre.

I imagine the boost pressure of the turbo has been tweaked upwards a little. Bringing more hot gases over the turbine wheel on blade tips which are 0.4mm thick will be interesting. Lets hope the allowable inclusion defects of 0.2mm have not found themselves lodged in one of the blade tips. The creep resistance of these materials is also finite. The standard turbo spins to 250,000 rpm already - the bearings will also take a pounding with the extra revs required to create the boost, plus the heat transfer through the turbine wheel - shaft - to the bearings will be an interesting experiment. I don't know the design envelope for these few features - but I am sure the superchips team have it covered though....


Mike

Mountune also now has a map for the 140bhp engine (plus quite a bit of add on kit), and the same turbo is used in the fiesta r2 rally car (170bhp plus). Would be interesting to hear what they've encountered over the last year or so.

[ORD]

df76 said:

Mountune also now has a map for the 140bhp engine (plus quite a bit of add on kit), and the same turbo is used in the fiesta r2 rally car (170bhp plus). Would be interesting to hear what they've encountered over the last year or so.

I doubt any road driver would tolerate the level of maintenance and repair that those cars will see! A turbo might last, what, a race?

[stevesingo]

I dare say all the M-Sport Fiesta R2 engine components go through a quality inspection process that is far more rigorous than the production line items. Those turbines with 0.2mm inclusions which are allowable in a production line turbo will be rejected and the recommended service life will be reduced I expect.

WRT Mountune and warranties, just because Ford will cover a Mountune modified car it does not mean that the reliability will be equal to a standard car. Ford will look at the chance of failure against the number of cars predicted to be in circulation and from there work out a cost over the product life. Mountune remapping a small, in % terms, number of Fiestas may not increase the warranty cost over time by a significant amount.

[Zigster]

thinkofaname said:

Yeah, and they give the 74 HP engine lower gearing, which makes it seem quicker. Whether this is to satisfy people who think they're getting a better engine, or for technical reasons, who am I to say? (It certainly fools most reviewers, who declare the 74 HP version "better for motorways" when it is in fact worse due to more engine noise.) If you look at the torque curves they are identical up to the mid-4000s rpm, which is probably higher than most Up owners ever go.

We've got a 74bhp Mii Sport as our around town car. It actually gets thrashed pretty regularly (when on appropriate roads) as it only has 74bhp ... That lack of power is actually one of the things that makes it enjoyable - reminds me of the cars I had when I was younger.

[1Addicted]

SwissJonese said:

If that is the 6.2 N/A engine then I very much doubt it. My 3.5 V6 in my Merc C350 can get no real performance increase just with ECU re-map. Turbo cars are where the biggest change is seen.

The "normal" C63 came with 457bhp limited by a throttle that didn't open fully, and stood alongside a Performance Pack option which took it to around 480bhp. There were some internal difference such as forged crank (maybe forged pistons) as found in the SLS which allowed the engine a slightly more free-revving nature (not that it wasn't already) but it was the ECU that allowed an extra 20ish BHP to be extracted by allowing he throttle to open a little more.

You then had the 507 edition which was based upon the Performance Pack car yet with an extra 27bhp, again allowed by letting the throttle open some more.

A "remap" that allows the throttle to open fully will take all three cars (and the Black Series) to around 520bhp regardless of internals. The limiting factor from there-on is the exhaust and if changed can allow approx. 560bhp to be extracted and therefore the full-fat version found in the SLS.

I'm not sure what the SLS GT had over the standard SLS, but it gained 20+bhp again which must be due to internals as nothing more can be had from the C/E Class 6.2L past remap/exhaust aside from supercharging that I know of.

[J4CKO]

MaxA said:

I don't believe in the one-size-fits all canned tunes

Every car comes with a canned tune from the factory, a remap alters that, not sure why it needs to bespoke to raise boost, ignition and fuelling assuming all other things are equal, part of me says I would go with a tried and tested map uploaded to the car rather than someone manually adjusting the map, unless you are absolutely sure they 100 percent know what they are doing, I would go bespoke when I had a car that had a load of other modifications.

[underphil]

ModernAndy said:

I thought there'd have to be something different.

Getting back to the original point which I might now rephrase slightly; is there actually any car you can buy where there's a more powerful version of the exact same engine and the ONLY difference between the 2 cars is a remap. That now includes exhausts, clutches, gearboxes, materials the components are made of, size of turbo actuators, etc.

There's been so many examples given but it seems they've all been unpicked in some way.

Current Mazda 3 & 6

[ModernAndy]

Jakg said:

Again - identical everything, same ECU, different mapping. Only difference was £600 when new.


The story is that when the Rover 75 was developed, Rover was owned by BMW. They used the same engine (M47) as used elsewhere in the range (e.g. E46 320d), but with some components downrated (small turbo, cast not forged crank), and deliberately low power output (114HP vs the 147 ish in the BMW) to make sure they wouldn't be a direct comparison. When BMW left Rover, the engineers had free reign over the software and realised they could easily get 131HP out of the unit with nothing more than a software map, and so initially offered both models for sale, with the upgrade available at dealers as a retrofit with a warranty - eventually the lower power model was dropped altogether.

The gearbox (manual or auto), brakes, suspension etc was common between both power variants, whether comparing between Rover 75's or MG ZT's, although obviously each model had different suspension to each other (e.g. 75 vs ZT)

Edited by Jakg on Tuesday 15th March 21:26

Well that sounds like the winner unless somebody can come along and say they were different in some way. What you're saying makes sense I suppose.