Anyone use anyone of these above before? These are sold on eBay ranging from £100 to £250. Does it work? Will it improve the fuel economy and provide extra power at the same time? How is this achieved?
I suspect there will be side effects to the engine, i.e reducing the life of the engine??
|
|
Lots of advice here in the forums try a search with any of "diesel, tuning, chip, remap" and you'll get plenty of information. IMO and experience I'd avoid anything on ebay and pay more for one of the leading providers and source it from an experienced installer. With regard to effects on the engine, it will invalidate your warranty if you have one but provided you choose a proven upgrade, maintain the car properly and drive it "sensibly" with respect to the clutch, I don't think you've too much to worry about. Fuel economy isn't hit too hard and the extra torque means less revving so overall you won't see much difference. I'm on my fourth remap with over 200,000 miles covered in a VW, Citroen and 2 Skodas with no issues whatsoever.
|
I'm also looking at this for my Vectra CDTi 150 and am a bit confused. There are 3 or 4 main players - Logic Tuning, Diesel Tuner, DTUK and Tunit - all offering similar plug and play units at prices ranging from £220 to £480. Has anyone got specific experience of any of these companies. Also, any feedback on which insurance companies will cover modified cars?
How do you get increased fuel economy from more power without a higher final drive gear ratio so you can cruise at then same speed with lower revs?
Thanks
Ewan
|
Big Mack,
If your Vec is a Vec C (Facelift) Auto or Estate it will have a Diesel Particulate Filter (DPF) on it which do not readily take to tuning boxes etc. They (both) increase the exhaust temp - the DPF to burn off soot, and the tuning box due to overfuelling to increase power. Together they can "cook" the DPF.....
It's happened to a few on Vectra-C.com - and is the reason why I've just removed mine..........
|
Happens on more than just Vectras. The VAG 170bhp diesel unit is known to be marginal anyway (ie DPF fires in normal state), remaps are said to make the risk of this worse.
The reason many remapped car give better fuel economy is because you're having to thrash it less to achieve similar speeds.
|
|
|
|
It's a 54 reg hatch, 1.9 CDTi 150. I already get around 48 mpg but would like to push it over the magical 50 mark. At work we are having a bit of a competition to see who car reduce their carbon footprint most, and you'll be pleased to know that the pious Prius drivers are lagging way behind!
|
>>At work we are havinga bit of a competition to see who car reduce their carbon footprint most
Not only am I heartily sick of the phrase 'carbon footprint' and all the pathetic hype surrounding it I find it worrying that what I presume are intelligent people being taken in by it.
The only real way of reducing your 'carbon footprint' to an acceptable level is to stop existing. Why not just get on with living your lives rather than being caught up in this weeks fad which in any case is merely a pretext to remove your liberties and tax you yet further.
In the spirit of 'offsetting' all the hype I'll be sure to accelerate that little bit harder in my V8 from now on.
|
Not only am I heartily sick of the phrase 'carbon footprint' and all the pathetic hype surrounding it I find it worrying that what I presume are intelligent people being taken in by it.
Carbon footprint and embedded carbon are very relevant terms, the hype surrounds the lack of joined-up-thinking, i.e you are better running your existing V8 into the ground than buying a hybrid because of the embeded carbon in manufacture af the new vehicle.
However there are all too many people leaving 18 month old 25 - 30mpg petrol cars on the forecourts of Toyota dealerships and driving out in new Priuses with a totally misguided warm feeling inside.
Should be Toyota Pious IMO!
|
'Joined up thinking' is another example of the kind of newspeak I despise.
I prefer to call it 'common sense'
|
'Joined up thinking' is another example of the kind of newspeak I despise. I prefer to call it 'common sense'
Great, despite taking issue with my terminilogy I am pleased that you agree with my sentiments.
I also prefer the term "common sense" however many people assume that they have common sense in abundance so the mere mention of the term causes them to assume that you are implying that they lack common sense, and while I sometimes might make that assumption I would not always want my comments to be perceived as such.
|
Great despite taking issue with my terminilogy I am pleased that you agree with my sentiments.
I certainly do, in terms of using the world's resources people who drive around in well maintained older cars are probably using the least.
Regarding the Prius I watched an amusing cartoon highlighting that while urban smog levels were going down thanks to hybrid owners unfortunately urban 'smug' levels were at an all time high..........
|
|
|
|
It's the effect on clutches and transmissions that concerns me as much as engine life.
The only way to increase power on a diesel engine is to increase the torque it produces, given that you cannot make a diesel engine rev much higher than the 4500-5000 RPM of a typical modern unit. A typical remap increases peak torque by 15-20%.
Do gearboxes and driveshafts on most cars really have such a large reserve torque capacity?
It's even more worrying for used buyers that such remaps can be "undone" easily leaving the buyer thinking they're buying a standard car. I wouldn't personally touch a used diesel that had been remapped.
There's also the question that if it was as easy to get a 30-50 bhp increase as sticking in a revised fuel / boost map, with no other mods and no consequences or risk, why wouldn't the manufacturers do it? People would pay a big premium for a power hike like that over a standard model, and the production costs would be the same.
Cheers
DP
--
04 Grand Scenic 1.9 dCi Dynamique
00 Mondeo 1.8TD LX
97 Ford Fiesta 1.4 16v Chicane (for sale)
|
It's the effect on clutches and transmissions that concerns me as much as engine life. It's even more worrying for used buyers that such remaps can be "undone" easily leaving the buyer thinking they're buying a standard car. I wouldn't personally touch a used diesel that had been remapped.
>>why wouldn't the manufacturers do it?
Some good points- the PD150 MKIV Golf we had was remapped to nearly 200bhp and a lot more torque. All was fine for 18K miles when the clutch started slipping in remapped mode. I simply set it back to normal (no clutch slip there) and traded it in. From the amount of axle tramp I could induce in hard acceleration from rest I presume the driveshafts must have take a bit of a hammering as well. It would be interesting to find out how the next owner got on with it. They probably have no idea it had ever been mapped unless they tried to do it themselves.
Maybe one reason the manufacturer 'doesn't do it' is that they have emmisions targets to reach and even the best remaps increase the amount of black smoke chucked out of the back under hard use.
Also I'd imagine they are looking at a 10 yr life for their products- remapping inevitably shortens the life of some components. Certainly if I planned to keep a car for the rest of my life I'd leave it standard. However as it is every forced induction vehicle I've owned has been remapped because they drive better and as I'm changing every 2 or 3 years (or maybe more frequently if I get bored) it really doesn't concern me.
|
|
note to self - don't buy a used car from OldHand :)
|
You would have no problem as long as it wasn't forced induction. The 330ci I got rid of a while back was in immaculate condition and serviced ahead of schedule. Someone got a minter.
Anyway the MKIV Golf was the only car I had that really couldn't cope with the extra power. The 330D mapped to over 250bhp never showed any signs of problems over 25K miles. I think it's engine and drivetrain were 'over-engineered'- shame about the rest of the car!
|
|
Whatever your position on climate change, surely we are all driven by any opportunity to reduce costs, whether by buying cheaper fuel or runnig your car more efficiently. FYI I'ma chemical engineer with some understanding of the background and while I'm not wholly convinced by all the evidence there's enough there to make me think that the precautionary principle is a reasonable response at the moment.
For years I drove cheap second-hand petrol cars returning 25-30 mpg and the holy grail was always 30+ on a long run. Then an ex-boss forced a VW Passat diesel on me as a company car and I suddenly saw my motoring cosst dop by about 40%. I put up with the smoky, sluggish performance because of the economy but now it's possible to have both.
An extra 5% fuel economy would make a reasonable dent in my annual fuel bill, enough to justify a tuning device with a payback of around 18 months.
So, I return to my original question - has anyone got positive or negative feedback on any of the companies offering these units?
Thanks for listenting (can you listen in a chat-room?)
Ewan
PS I'm sure there are other threads where the climate change debate is more appropriately continued
|
|
|
|
|
|
