What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
'Chipping' - more power = less fuel ? - arnold2
How's that done then ?

Surely, if you up the power, the engine uses up more fuel. Looking at BR posts, especially with diesels, most people who have had their engine 'chipped' find the car uses LESS fuel.

Any ideas ?
'Chipping' - more power = less fuel ? - daveyjp
Increased torque = fewer gear changes.
'Chipping' - more power = less fuel ? - trancer
An accelerating car is less fuel efficient than when it is at cruising speed. The sooner you get your acceleration done is the sooner you get to a more fuel efficient operating mode.
'Chipping' - more power = less fuel ? - arnold2
Makes sense;

One thing, though, doesn't chipping the engine (ytpically turbo's) increase the stress on the engine ?

What is the trade/off - will the engine (injectors, etc) wear quicker ? Does the engine need more frequent oil changes/fully-synthetic oil ?

Upsolute, for instance, offer a 25% power increase for the VW 130 BHP TDi engine - quite a hike !
'Chipping' - more power = less fuel ? - RichardW
When you chip a TD engine, the boost pressure is increased. Higher boost = higher thermal efficiency, hence in normal driving the car will running more efficiently and use less fuel. Of course if you boot it all the time and use all the extra power, mpg still likely to do down!


--
RichardW

Is it illogical? It must be Citroen....
'Chipping' - more power = less fuel ? - Dude - {P}
The increased torque, if fully utilised, will eventually place considerable stress on the entire transmission system and premature failure.

With the increasing number of company cars, particularly BMWs and VAG, that are now being chipped and thrashed, I would take close heed of any transmission whines when buying second hand.
'Chipping' - more power = less fuel ? - PR {P}
It also alters the fuel air ratio. On the Alfaowner site one lad had his 147 GTA (thats a 3.2V6)on a dyno, where the huy told him at higher revs it is fuel rich at a ratio of 10:1 whereas he reckoned it should be more like 13:1, so this would make it more efficient and more powerful, which begs the question why it isnt like this as a factory setting!!
'Chipping' - more power = less fuel ? - arnold2
I think the torque issue is the one thing that concerns me - taking a 130bhp engine to 150-160 is one thing, but going from just over 200 to nearly 300 lb/ft of torque must surely put a strain on the clutch, apart from anything ?
'Chipping' - more power = less fuel ? - Malcolm_L

Torque is the problem especially on turbo-diesels where full torque is present at around 2k.

However, your example is a little extreme.

Upsolute who have a good reputation increase the output on the
VAG 130 PD unit by 33bhp (+30%) and 70nm (+32%), I would steer clear of huge increases precisely for the reasons you mention.

It's not just the power and torque increase either, if it's well set up the car responds far better to throttle input.

'Chipping' - more power = less fuel ? - Cardew(USA)
There was discussion on this subject before - with No Dosh's Alfa. See:

www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=12070

I simply refuse to believe that you will get more power and economy whilst using that power - and you will see that the 'driveablility' of the Alfa suffered despite more torque.


'Chipping' - more power = less fuel ? - Malcolm_L
Agreed, you can't have your cake and eat it, but the key phrase here is 'using that power '.

Any car will return less mpg the more power is used, chipping gives you more power and torque if you choose to use it, you don't drive faster because you've got more power (you do tend to get there quicker though!)

Yes, No Dosh wasn't impressed with the tuning box but tuning boxes are the cheaper end of the market - IIRC he was investigating the chipping route which would suggest he's not completely put off by the experience.

'Chipping' - more power = less fuel ? - Truckosaurus
A little real example for you all....

My Saab 9-5 has been 'chipped' from 170bhp to a claimed 250bhp and from 220lb/ft of torque to 300.

The fuel consumption (on the trip computer) has dropped from an average of 29.5mpg to 28.0mpg. The car is considerably faster than when standard and I accelerate at full whack out of the several roundabouts on my route to work (NSL dual carriageway) and the car will spin its front wheels at 70mph if one is brutal with the throttle. It has also done 125,000 miles in total with the last 20k done with the increased boost. The original turbo has recently blown, whether the increased boost contributed to its demise is open to discussion, but people with standard cars have replaced turbos at half this mileage.

I'm certain in absolute terms a modified engine will last fewer miles than a similarly treated standard engine but, to my mind, the engine will outlast my ownership of the vehicle which is all I care about (for good or ill).