|
Perhaps unsparingly the company I linked to state:
This stage 1 software for your Mazda2 (MK4) 2014 > Mazda is designed for use with standard components and is within the tolerances of your vehicle. This is classed as a fast road application which is the best all round performance for Mazda Mazda2 (MK4) 2014 > ’s.
And if the 90ps is the same car as the 115ps, and I believe (hope?) it is, then that new max power isn't that much extra.
I'm not convinced there would be much difference in brake wear - I would get the remap for improved acceleration, not to make use of higher top speed. So I guess my average speed should go up because I'm reaching the same speed quicker (when I feel like it), but significant? Ditto for suspension. Might be more of an issue for the gearbox, but if it's the same as the 115ps's unit then it should be ok.
If you wouldn't mention the remap to a potential buyer, that's good enough for me :)
|
I would get the remap for improved acceleration
And joking aside it is supposed to improve the economy if you don't use the extras, as well as the 'drivability'. Although obviously there's not much point doing it if you're not going to use it.
|
|
Screenshot of graphs from another website:
drive.google.com/file/d/1_7euaRKMm1HkkZq-OnfpaSfAY...g
Will still have to rev it :)
|
|
|
|
So where is the compromise?
I'd have thought there pretty much has to be one...
|
|
An engine in a higher state of tune might not last as long, in theory.
|
|
|
So where is the compromise?
I'd have thought there pretty much has to be one...
Fuel economy will take a hit, never come across a remap that gives better mpg even if its stated as better, it usually gets worse, brakes depending on materials used will wear more as they get harder use if using the acceleration, if you speed up faster you have to brake harder and often a driver leaves it later to brake
I thought Mazda designed their engines for best fuel economy already, so a remap isnt going to help, not that my opinion will be wanted, but if I wanted better acceleration I would buy a faster car
|
An extra 39bhp! Plus a not quite so impressive 11Nm (8lbft?). And don't forget the improved economy :)
Looked at the website and never seen such a load of fiction for ages.
To quote their site:
“Each map we install is tailored specifically for your Mazda and has been dyno tested and developed to maximize gains and minimize the risk of component failure”
So its tailored for "your" Mazda which is good but there is still a “risk of component failure” which is not so good.
Then when you look at prices they can send you the new map in a "powergate unit" which means they have never seen "your" car meaning its a generic map.
We all know the basics of getting more power, very simply its 4 things. You need more fuel and more air, a spark that ignites the mixture at the correct time and an improved exit for the exhaust gasses. All the remap can do is inject more fuel and alter the ignition timing. Gains on normally aspirated cars are traditionally small.
On the other had gains on turbo cars can be much higher, stupidly high in some cases. They can get the extra air by increasing boost and turbo cars tend to have larger bore exhausts as standard. But take the claims made by this company for our Fabia 1.0 TSi 110 PS. They claim an extra 20 bhp, ½ of the claim they make for the N/A Mazda.
So according the these people a “re-mapped” N/A Mazda will produce 129 bhp and a modified TSi Fabia will produce 129 bhp. I might just believe the latter, but definitely not the former.
Then I spotted a “fact” that confirms that the site is a work of pure fiction when I looked at the Fabia map, they also offer a remap on the Skoda Enyaq PHEV, a car that Skoda don’t appear to make, its an electric only vehicle. If they cannot get the website correct would you trust them with your car?
|
We all know the basics of getting more power, very simply its 4 things. You need more fuel and more air, a spark that ignites the mixture at the correct time and an improved exit for the exhaust gasses. All the remap can do is inject more fuel and alter the ignition timing. Gains on normally aspirated cars are traditionally small.
This is the sole reason I doubt the claims.
I have spent many an hour on the websites of remapping companies (not for a number of years now mind you!). Going by what I found then, remapping a n/a engine would liberate circa 15% more bhp, some way short of the 45% being claimed on the link provided by the OP. Just out of curiosity, I looked into what they could do for my n/a diesel Caddy van. As expected, they could take it from 70 to 79bhp.
For the OP, you say the performance of your Mazda is reasonably nippy if you give it some revs. The lack of extra torque claimed by the remapping company suggests that, even if the power claims were true, that extra power is still only going to be accessible at the upper reaches of the rev counter. If you want a car that is faster but doesn't need thrashed to do so, then you need a turbo.
Many years ago I remember reading that the then new 16V version of the Golf GTI felt no quicker than the 8V version below 4000rpm despite having an extra 25%.
Edited by badbusdriver on 04/05/2022 at 09:46
|
|
Yep I think a waste of money. Where exactly is all this horsepower going to come from, with an engine that's already designed, built and fuelled probably to near perfection? From a higher rev limit possibly, in which case it's pointless, when did you last drive to maximum revs in everyday motoring! The mediocre increase in torque will not be noticeable and it's the torque figure that's important for accessible performance. So save your money on this one! There's nothing realistic on offer.
|
|
|
|
Just been having a look around and found something very interesting. Mazda use the 1.5 N/A engine in the MX5 where it produces 129 bhp (131 PS) but it manages to produce 112 torques (152 Nm). So the mapped engine produces the same power as the MX5 but much less torque.
Here's a question, does anyone think that Mazda use exactly the same engine and ancillaries in a MX5 and Mazda 2, I don't, for starters one is FWD and the other RWD.
One simple difference is the MX5 has twin exhausts whist whilst possibly a styling feature will almost certainly be free flowing than the exhaust in a supemini.
The MX5 produces its max power at 7000 rpm, does the 2 rev that high?
The MX5 produces it max torque at 4500 rpm. Pretty high for driving a car like the 2 in its natural environment.
So a quick tap on the Casio and using the torque figures from the companies website (the OP's figures are wrong) and assuming the 2 produces this at 4500 rpm the standard 2 would be producing 93 bhp at 4500 rpm which is more than 90 bhp at max revs, never seen that before.
Looks like the website is full of errors. Snake oil.
|
|
I have had a few cars with basic remaps and found them all more responsive on the throttle and have been very pleased with the result. They have all given no noticeable decrease in MPG. There is nothing to worry about as regards the engine being damaged as all a basic remap does is get the best out of the engine.
|
|
|
One simple difference is the MX5 has twin exhausts whist whilst possibly a styling feature will almost certainly be free flowing than the exhaust in a supemini.
A larger diameter or twin pipes result in slower flow of exhaust gas. The slower the flow, the more time the gas has to cool down, leading to denser gas, resulting in greater 'pumping losses' , the ffort needed to eject the gas. This results in more back pressure, meaning the incoming charge isn't as great. Less air = less power.
|
Here's a question, does anyone think that Mazda use exactly the same engine and ancillaries in a MX5 and Mazda 2, I don't, for starters one is FWD and the other RWD.
Maybe not exactly the same, but there is no doubt that the 1.5 in the MX5 is essentially the same engine as used in the OP's 2 (and the CX3 and 3). Mazda is a pretty small player in the automotive world and it costs a shed load of money to develop a new engine. So Mazda are not going to be developing two separate 1.5 n/a 4 cyl engines (BTW, both are 1496cc).
As for using the same engine for FWD and RWD, that has certainly been done before. A very obscure reference for sure(!), but the (RWD) LDV Pilot vans so beloved of the Post Office 20-30 years ago used the legendary 1905cc Peugeot/Citroen diesel, otherwise pretty much exclusively used in FWD applications. Back in the 80's Toyota had a FWD Corolla hatchback and a RWD Corolla Coupe, both using the same n/a 1.6 16V engine.
One simple difference is the MX5 has twin exhausts whist whilst possibly a styling feature will almost certainly be free flowing than the exhaust in a supemini.
The MX5 produces its max power at 7000 rpm, does the 2 rev that high?
The MX5 produces it max torque at 4500 rpm. Pretty high for driving a car like the 2 in its natural environment.
Remember the 2 is also available with a 115bhp version of the 1.5 (also a 75bhp version for the entry level versions), which isn't that far short of the MX5. Peak power of this version happens at 6000rpm, peak torque is at 4000rpm (peak torque in our 2017 Jazz was 5000rpm).
The combination of being able to rev an extra 1000rpm plus the exhaust would easily account for the extra 15bhp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar debates crop up on the Mazda3 owners website/forum between the gen-3 in 'standard' (de-rated in my view) 2L petrol form, making only 120PS, and some of the 'top spec' (read trim not really performance) Sport models which use the same engine but remapped by Mazda to get 163PS.
The official 0-60 times (which seem not to be believeable in real life [also discussions on that subject]) are only about 0.5 sec apart.
I suspect the same would be for the 90PS and 115PS versions (officially 0.7 sec) of the 1.5 SA-G engined gen-3 Mazda2. Personally speaking, I wouldn't bother going for a remap, even if even more than 115PS could be achieved. The performance isn't that bad on the 90PS version.
All it would do is inflate your insurance premiums for likely little real-world performance benefit. In pure performance terms, buying another car with more power by design* or a 'proper' (though not recommended) mod by adding a supercharger, turbo and/or other items (if possible) would be of more benefit.
Jason of Engineering Explained on YouTube did something like that for his gen-4, 2L Mazda MX-5 with the assistance of another YouTuber (HumbleMechanic) who actually is a skilled mechanica (though mainly on VAG cars).
* A SEAT Ibiza FR or Leon SC FR 1.4/1.5/1.8 turbo might do the trick. I think the Leon SC is a lovely looking car and not that bigger than the Mazda2. Given the current situation with availability with cars and pricing, you'd likely have to spend a few Grand to change.
|
Just been having a look around and found something very interesting. Mazda use the 1.5 N/A engine in the MX5 where it produces 129 bhp (131 PS) but it manages to produce 112 torques (152 Nm). So the mapped engine produces the same power as the MX5 but much less torque.
According to the link, the remapped 2 makes 159NM of torque
|
A larger diameter or twin pipes result in slower flow of exhaust gas. The slower the flow, the more time the gas has to cool down, leading to denser gas, resulting in greater 'pumping losses' , the ffort needed to eject the gas. This results in more back pressure, meaning the incoming charge isn't as great. Less air = less power.
Not talking about a noisy dustbin sized exhaust much loved by the younger generation, I am referring to the twin pipes on the MX5 which will be a properly designed system.
|
Not talking about a noisy dustbin sized exhaust much loved by the younger generation, I am referring to the twin pipes on the MX5 which will be a properly designed system.
I did some research into exhaust sytems back in the '60s and determined they knew what they were doing decades earlier (look at the diameter of Austin 7 and similar pre war cars).
The best advice I ever heard was "the best thing to do with exhaust gas is to get rid of it". Hence the exhaust stubs on WW2 aircraft.
This may be counter to turbo technology.
If you really want to get a headache, look at the exhaust theory of 2-strokes. I tried and realised I didn't have the knowledge of higher maths!
|
|
|
|
|
|
