Synergy 2a survey
 

I fitted a box with switch to my CDTi just before I accidentally bought the ZT :D so have only done 30 minutes' testing. I'm seriously impressed though, particularly as it works on top of the 160 remap I had done a couple of years ago. I've read several anecdotal reports of damage to fuel pumps due to the increased fuel pressure which the box uses but have not read any "documented" reports which would provide evidence for this. So my question is:-

• Have you or someone you actually know of, experienced fuel pump problems (e.g. leaking seals) as a result of using a Synergy box

These have been popular add-ons over the years so a survey of owners' experiences with them will be useful. Please keep replies to actual experiences - positive or negative - rather than explanations or opinions. Thanks.

Dougie.

Seems a bit strange how the car with a "160" map is even faster when a tuning box pumps more fuel in. Seeing as the maximum power you can get with the stock turbo sits around 155bhp :shrug:

Have good read of the link below, it may give you the answer you are searching for.
https://www.the75andztclub.co.uk/for...d.php?t=174721

You can also find a lot other answers here below ;)

https://www.the75andztclub.co.uk/for...-11-p-136.html

I have had to replace high pressure pump seals on a couple of cars that have had the synergy (Or similar) Box fitted.

Do you recall the ages and mileages of the cars involved? And did/are you drawing inference that the boost boxes were to blame? I mean more than the generic assumptions made?

Dougie.

Thanks for that. In terms of an impartial investigation, these previous discussions don't bring anything properly evidential to the party although they are interesting. It's clear that there are two camps mostly inhabited by the suppliers of the synergy box and the so-called 160 remap, and their followers. That's created a reluctance by one side to become involved (or embroiled as they have said) in adult discussions, and an almost pack-like approach aiming negativity against the other side as well as providing unquestioning support for their supplier(s). All that's brought about is entrenchment which is a pity but not uncommon.

It wasn't my purpose to look at remaps as I've not seen any anecdotal evidence of damage to cars. Interestingly though, it's become clear that there is considerable doubt whether the so-called 160 map provides anything like 160bhp. There's no doubt there is some improvement but no evidence I can find to corroborate the 160 claim. Conversely, there seems to be some which negates it (technical performance limits for one). I can't find any reference to anyone having the remap checked afterwards to ascertain how much power increase their car actually had (I certainly didn't). But that's not the question here, which is about finding or challenging hard evidence of the Synergy box indirectly causing damage to the high pressure fuel pump by overstressing seals.

This excellent summary by 75Connie is well-thought through and in my view, a good and impartial summary of his investigations which ask the same questions as I'm asking.

There's a lot of coverage of the synergy -v- fuel pump assertions but I'm seeing very little informed comment; mostly personality bias which is understandable but also irrelevant.

Dougie.

I for one have also wondered about this. I can offer no evidence other than to say I had a tuning box on my 75 before the remap. I found the tuning box to give more of a 'push' up the rear when accelerating hard but the remap I found to be smoother in its power delivery. Outright performance between the two was very similar.

Following the remap I never refitted the tuning box and sold it on as the common consensus was that you couldn't use the two at the same time. I have used tuning boxes on other cars for years and haven't ever had any failure (now I've said that.....). I acquired a box recently which didn't have the correct connectors for the car to which it was intended. It did however have the connectors which would fit the Rover. So, I know you can't use both but a quick try? What harm could it do?

In all honesty the Rover is far quicker in acceleration than it was with just the remap. Not sure how that can be since the remap was the supposed max available? Maybe my remap has fallen off somehow? The car is serviced regularly and has no issues. It puts out no black smoke with the box plugged in or not.

Wether the box stays or goes I'm undecided. I tried it as an experiment and was surprised at the increase.

I have also read many anecdotal suggestions of such a box causing the HP pump to fail but would question how much a failed HP pump could be attributable to a tuning box. As I say, I've used them for years, as have friends, and I can't say I've heard directly of a failure. Maybe tuning box quality varies or the way they're used by the driver causes the failure?

An interesting conversation.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Following with interest as I have my eye on a Synergy box at the moment and my insurance is due for renewal end of the month.

The nearest T4 guy is miles away so it's looking like a Ron box might be the best option.

Regarding your comment about the map 'falling off', I wonder if it's the ECU's self adaptive parameters causing it.

Would make sense as the boxes' response would always be the same but the ECU's wouldn't necessarily?

I ran a Synergy 2a box on top of a Superchips 150bhp map and I ran a RR before and after with a few more BHP but nearly 50Lb/Ft added. I ran this for some 80000 miles with no issue.

As has been mentioned earlier and what I've been finding out, is the point that how remaps perform and behave are determined by the person setting the mapping. They also cannot of course exceed the capabilities of the car. I was also sold the remap on the basis it would eke out the maximum performance which - on two counts - has proved not to be the case. But that's what I was told, so I paid my money.

The Synergy box provides power in a different way (fuel pressure) and without doubt brings some smiley faces to the party, with or without a remap. One thing I'd not considered but which I am now, is that the (still anecdotal) fuel pump horror stories are likely more to do with commercial interests than technical ones.

Excellent feedback - thanks for that. That's not anecdotal.

Dougie.

The high pressure pump stories are certainly not anecdotal, they are very real.

All the pumps that have leaked have been the later facelift cars with a Synergy fitted, I've never seen an earlier car with the same leak so it could be a manufacturing change that causes it.

On some if you're really lucky once the Synergy is removed the leak has stopped, but the majority carry on leaking.

There's no commercial interests here I don't sell parts and have very little desire to change over high pressure pumps for people either, ;)

Russ

That's what I'm looking for, Russ. Can you let me have some actual examples please?

Dougie.

Russ are the ones that leak the ones with the modified pressure regulator do you know?

I'm considering a synergy box as no-one does a T4 within 175 miles of me.

But I also have an early facelift with a noisy, droning by-the-looks-of-it regulator.

Do they leak from the regulator seals/housing or the piston seals?

Can they be removed without mucking about with the timing chain or is at a bigger job than that do you know please?

You don't have to muck about with the timing chains (there are two), but you do need to lock the intermediate drive sprocket before removing the pump because the sprocket locates on the pump drive shaft.

Thanks so is that a cover off job or a locking pin somewhere then remove pump body?

It is a specific tool with an outer thread that screws into the timing chain cover after removing the blanking plug, an inner thread that screws into the sprocket, and a bolt that breaks the taper between the pump shaft and the sprocket, allowing the pump to be removed.


Make sure you follow the correct procedure, as it is possible to damage the timing chain cover if you don't.

Thanks Mike, doesn't sound too bad to do assuming the tool is still readily available and there isn't too much to take off around the blanking plug.

Hi Mike.
I think a few members will have to go down this route if they start to fit the Synergy along side the T4 160 upgrade in fact even if they have not had the upgrade.

Also lets not forget you have to remove the starter motor to gain access to remove the HPFP, i also find it better to remove the manifold give you more room to work.

Tool required to remove the HPFP
https://i.imgur.com/9Ne7qVql.jpg1

Fuel injector nut which can be used to remove the blanking plug.
https://i.imgur.com/w4HmGt9l.jpg2

https://i.imgur.com/M675uNbl.jpg3

https://i.imgur.com/x4CwRLfl.jpg4

Tool that breaks the taper.
https://i.imgur.com/7OK5Hz0l.jpg5

HPFP removed.
https://i.imgur.com/TDWAfRPl.jpg6

In this photo you can see the timing chain cog with the tool in the centre.
https://i.imgur.com/RdN0x4ul.jpg7

had to hold myself back a little there i was going into full how to mode :eek:

Great photos as ever Steve. :bowdown:

Interestingly my car is on the original HP pump and has never been apart, so to steer the thread back on course, if you don't fit a Synergy the seals can be good for at least 405k miles, and hopefully many more. :}
















.

Which are the seals that leak please?

The piston chamber cover seals, regulator end or shaft seal end?

Just so you know, the "160" upgrade is NOT a Rover map. It was added to the T4 software that certain traders have for easy install. There is a mild boost of fuelling in the map but nothing drastic. You will achieve around 140-145bhp if all is well with your car.

A performance map from a tuning company such as SAWS or Force Tuning can get you closer to the "160" number, but it's not possible to hit with the stock turbo, you run out of boost. With a manual boost controller set to 24psi you can hit just shy of 155bhp.

Fit a bigger turbo and you will then be limited by the fuel system to around 165bhp.

I've said time and time again that a dyno run with video and printout proof should be done for this map. There is some sketchy evidence that is an excel spreadsheet showing that a car hit 170bhp with the map and a synergy box, but it is simply not possible because of the mechanical limitations.

There are a few people that have gone from a "160" map to one that maxes at around 155bhp and they have noticed a significant performance increase. I wonder how that is?

I asked in my original post if this discussion could be kept to the matter in hand. It's gone into technical realms which are pushing focus away from the matter in hand. This isn't relevant on this post. Please carry on any technical discussions or opinions about what will/will not have to be done with remaps or Synergy boxes, on a separate thread. Thanks.

Thanks Jamie some useful info there. :)

Sorry goltho, I've got a synergy thread running too, must've forgotten what one I was on. :)

See you're still plugging your mates tuning company whilst dismissing our tunes Jamie, some things never change ;)
Depends on the dyno and how it's set up ;)
Everyone who knows anything about dyno's knows that you can test the same car on numerous occasions without modification and get entirely different readings. you can get it to read what you want.
Just because you've not managed to get a car mapped to 160 doesn't mean it can't be done.

Did you know about the two grades of engine fitted to the 75/ZT?
It's why some are far quicker than others and produce more bhp!
The A grade engines were supposed to be fitted to the top line cars the B grade to the lesser models (where possible). Towards the end they fitted what they had, it's a case of pot luck so you're never sure what you have fitted ;)
There's a thread on here in the dark recesses of the forums that was commented on by someone who worked on that part of the production line who expained this.

I've encountered it many times when identical cars with no issues have been a lot quicker than others.
I remember one particularly well was whenI lent Dave (Duotone who was a mod on here) my car to get some parts for his car. He returned and immediately commented that mine was a heck of a lot quicker than his! Same spec car built within a few Vin numbers, similar mileage, serviced regularly with exactly the same readout on all systems ;)

We've never claimed that a 160 remap will definately produce it on a particular car only that on independant Dyno's have shown that it was achieved when tested by members that had it applied.
And which 160 map were you comparing yours to, there's more than one and they're all different with slightly different output figures;)

We've never actively advertised the map it's always been done on the recommendation of others. We offered them as there were and still are a lot of really bad ones about people were paying good money and either ended up with a really rough map or one which failed the emissions test. All of ours cause no issues with the emissions test unlike some from the sources you mentioned

Here's an recent example of a comment of a forum member who was recommended by another member to have it done:

"Hello Russ
Thank you for the work you did on my 75 on Thursday
I had a V8 in Australia, now I feel like I have 308cu in under the the Rover bonnet. Smooth, instant power.
All the best John"


By the way TiRich's car, Hogwartz and JohnDotCom's cars were all dyno'd and produced 171bhp. Rich's car used a TU3b and John's a Synergy both on top of an Angel remaps tune.
A simple Google search will show the results and also the you tube link to the 162.8 run on another Rich's Auto.
Unfortunately due to Photobuckets greed a lot of the other dyno result photos on here have disappeared and as the members concerned have moved on it's not been possible to get them to resubmit them.
as you well know ;)

Russ

Russ to be honest I couldn't give a monkey's whether the 160 remap actually produces 160bhp on my car or if it is a tad shy of it. Let's face it if you were hooning a Jaguar XJ220 and only got to 212 mph (as they did on test) would you be moaning about going 8 mph faster or enjoying the ride? :D

The fact remains that this remap improves the car's performance no end giving a very tractable power delivery and makes the car far more enjoyable to drive. It also makes for safer overtaking. As a bonus fuel consumption is good, there is no increase in exhaust smoke, and it has proved to be reliable with no detriment to the pump seals or any other engine component if my car is anything to go by, which as you know is well on the way back from the Moon mileage wise.

A job well done! :bowdown:


Dougie I think you are wasting your time with this thread - there is no documented evidence of 'fuel pump problems (e.g. leaking seals) as a result of using a Synergy box'

How can there be? You would have to carry out extensive testing to prove the Synergy box was the cause of the seals failing. It can only be anecdotal evidence on a forum, and there is plenty of it on here whereby seals have failed and there was a Synergy fitted.

If you want to run with a Synergy box then do it and see how you go. But if and when the seals fail you will be yet another supplier of anecdotal evidence simply because you won't be able to evidentially prove the root cause of the seal failure one way or another.

Would there not also be the possibility that the settings of a synergy box would make difference?

Ie someone putting a box on a 150k cranked to the max?

The problem lies to the history. How would.you know that the seals were not on their last legs before hand.

Theoretically, a tuning box will accelerate the failure. The many anecdotes of them failing with a tuning box, compared to those without,is not even enough evidence, as there will be many many more without the box fitted. However, if there are roughly the same failing with the box, than without, then it would be statistically reasonable to assume.that the box is causing an issue.

Practically though, this cannot be proven without expense ie replace the seals (and the entire fuelling system) and start from scratch.

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

The 135 and 116 as I understood it were not 135 bhp nor 116 bhp.

As I understood the 160 was a 160ps (from the best tested), or close to it, as in a 2 litre m47r engine is not 2litres. But it is easier to call it a 160 map than a.zt/75 forum map (or similar). The whole.point surely of a map, certainly this one, was to produce a more usable driving car. More torque (isn't that what a diesel is about?), better response, and hopefully better economy, without looking like a twonk imitating yanks or vdubbers trying to, 'roll coal' :rofl: .

Bragging rights is another reason for mapping a car, but let's face it, from any 160bhp car simply is a non starter for brag worthiness.

Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk

Good for you. I have plenty of time to waste. The fact is though that you and several others have dumped all over this thread by expressing opinions and raising technical issues - exactly what I asked in the opening post not to happen (and ironically quoting my request for no opinions like this). And I'm particularly peed off that I've asked three times for the thread to be split so that discussions can carry on where discussions belong - on a discussion thread and not a survey one - but I understand why I'm getting no response. I can live with that.

Mods, please close this post as its work is done. Thanks.

Well if by dumping all over this thread you actually mean giving someone a bit of help who apologised for posting on your thread with a technical question then guilty as charged. :D

By all means waste your time - it's yours to waste. I have better things to do. ;)

Thread closed at request of OP.
On balance I've decided to leave it as is and not to split it as requested