160 Remap - pros (and cons?)
 

I picked up a new (to me, of course) diesel tourer 115 and completed the first 140 of, hopefully, many many miles on less than a 1/4 of a tank of diesel. 190,000 on the clock she runs very sweetly and is a credit to her former owner (take a bow Jim, you know who you are). The only difference I noticed is the power delivery. It is progressive and feels relentless where as my previous diesel tourer, which the seller told me had had an xpower upgrade / remap had a real push in the back once the turbo was properly spinning. Would this have been the 160 remap I've seen mentioned and, if so, what are the cons to go with the "pros"?

well i had mine done at 185k and the cars now done 276k and i havent found any cons to having the map on, the cars about to die but thats due to rust not mechanical failure.

con, some insurance companies wont insure the 115 once remapped to 160 as the % increase in HP is too much for them. Adrian Flux however does insure them.
Apart from that cant think of any other cons

At 115 which is what my saloon was it is a bit of a dog and when fully loaded you will notice it struggle.

Pro, wont struggle when fully loaded and can merge a lot better with cars already going faster as it can within reason match their speed.

The CDTI's with the extra BHP already, do not seem to need a remap unless towing a caravan in my experience.

macafee2

If you opt for the remap - and as others have said no cons as such i would PM Bigruss a trader on here who will be able to remap you to 160 - he is just up the M1 from you at Liversedge.:xmas-smiley-008:

Cheers, yes I have Big Russ' No. following my woe's of my previous Tourer locking me out. Presumably the power boost has an adverse effect of mpg (hey, I am an adopted Yorkshireman......). The torque band seems wider on the 115 than my previous car but maybe it is just flatter(?)

No change in fuel consumption under normal driving.. Of course you may be tempted to use the extra ooomph more often which may not help :icon_razz:

I must firstly start this post by saying that all modifications should be declared to your insurance company.

But let's be honest, these are old cars now and we're talking about a relatively small power/torque increase over the original, which simply makes them more driveable in modern traffic - it's not turning them into a racing car.

Equally, if an insurance company were to get involved with writing off a 75/ZT, they're highly unlikely to spend thousands of pounds getting the cars ECU interogated to check what tune is present, as I doubt they'd have the knowledge to even know that a 160 version exists ?

With no visual identification that there's been an increase, I'd be amazed if an insurance assessor has the time, funds or facilities to bother checking whats contained in what must now be deemed as an 'oldie' :icon_rolleyes:

Unless I'm missing something, of course...??? :xmas-smiley-008:

:icon_lol::icon_lol:[QUOTE=Rogue;2852317]No change in fuel consumption under normal driving.. Of course you may be tempted to use the extra ooomph more often which may not help :

hahaha - just when over-taking on the Snake Pass! :-)

The thought had briefly crossed my mind. I think a call to Russ or Jules, since my Mum lives in Chester, is on the cards for the new year.

Thanks for everyone's thoughts and comments.

You shouldn't have a push in the back if the car is working as it should, the stock turbo spins up that quick the power should be smooth and taper off around 3750rpm when the turbo runs out of puff. Sounds like you had a faulty MAF.

There are different remaps available, the only thing I can say is, if you have a "160" map put on, have the car put on a dyno afterwards and see what the real number is. Drop a PM to SewerMan on here, he has experienced the "160" maps and beskpoke remaps.

Pros:
Slightly more power than a stock 131
No smoke at all

Cons:
There are maps that can achieve more power, without smoke if the EGR, Manifold and Intercooler are clean.

If you fancy the drive to Cannock I can plug the T4 in and give the car a health check.

Reading the original post properly is probably better than jumping in feet first ;)


The OP owned a car previously which had been XPower upgraded, so 129 BHP, not unlike my own.


He then went on to say his previous car gave you a kick in the pants over a certain rev range which you said would be likely a MAF sensor fault, well that might be the case, it certainly wasn't when it came to my car though it was a defective EGR causing the fault, which was masked when unplugging the MAF sensor.


So after this fault was diagnosed correctly by someone with a lot of experience of these cars, the symptoms all disappeared when I took the garage's advice as to the root cause.


My car now runs beautifully with smooth power delivery across the rev range, a bit like the OP's new car.


So digging a little deeper you will find the new car was previously looked after by Phil-T4, a man with some standing on the forum, so it's quite likely the OP's car has had Phil's expert eye cast over it, and the usual foibles of the diesel sorted out.


Now to the slightly distasteful aspect of this post, and it would appear many others that you make, every time a thread like this is posted on the forum, you immediately jump in with how wonderful your product is as compared to another.


This smacks of desperate marketing, something that should be avoided at all costs.


When I visit a pub or club to speak to the landlord about siting my equipment I never under any circumstances decry the incumbent supplier irrespective of poor service, poor quality equipment etc.


What you find if you do, then people will often question your intent.


Now I'm not saying this will be the case always, but if it is then word will travel quickly within the licenced trade.


Back to the here and now, this forum is a very intimate environment in as much as many of your prospective customers will be members here, and by usage of marketing strategies that are so obviously biased against your competition then you are likely to be judged upon those actions.


I have no axe to grind either way, I have no intention whatsoever of having my car upgraded, be that a 160 remap, or a custom remap as I'm perfectly happy with the car as it came from the factory.


However if I were, I would not be making use of the services offered by a trader that uses a policy of talking down the opposition in favour of their own product ;)




Alf

Have a 160 map and have a dyno run and you will see why I mention it. There isn't enough fuelling to produce 160bhp. If you've no intention of having of a map, then why bother commenting? I now have access to a dyno and can produce the results of a a 160 mapped car, and then it returned to a stock map with the T4. I could post the results but will people believe me? I doubt it. How about I make an offer, someone with a 160 mapped car can have a free dyno run and have a printout of the power, that way I can't have anything to do with the map and it will be a randomers car.

The 160 map is better than stock, and it isn't a bad map, it will do for most people, I'm just saying that there are more powerful maps out there. If you want a moderate increase of driveability, go for it. If you want maximum power (which some people don't want) then there are other maps available.

Feel free to come to a Nano meet when they are back on if you wish to speak to me in person, I can show you how remapping works and the values that are altered and what things can be altered in a map.

You've mentioned your EGR before on a post. It is typically the MAF sensor that causes a loss of low end power and what feels like turbo kick, not always, but it normally is. Unplugging the maf takes like 10 seconds and is easy to test.

Unplugging the MAF takes 10 seconds? and unplugging the MAF disables the EGR.


John told me the most common misconception people make when faced with the symptoms of a lack of power under 2000 RPM was to suspect the MAF, when in fact nine times out of ten it is a problem with the EGR.


He demonstrated this to me in real time, explained the cause and the fix....job done.


Back to your sales pitch, that is the reason I commented Jamie ;)


You can have the best product in the market, however if you need to resort to talking down the opposition then it's never going to be as good as you claim it to be ;)


I see you own several BMW models, I've had a few of those in the past including a rather nice 850 Ci coupe I bought new in 1992.


That was a rapid car, I spotted one driving around locally and soon after headed to the showroom and treated myself.


This car propelled me along at a respectable pace, having the M70B50 under the bonnet.


The point being this, I drive a ZT-T because I'm less likely to have the thing keyed, or otherwise vandalised while parked outside a pub, plus my customers don't get the wrong sort of impressions based upon the type of car I'm driving at the time......that say for instance turning up in a Porsche 911 might convey :icon_rolleyes:



I've been in business for a long time, profitably I may add, and one thing I've learned is to make progress you don't slate the opposition either publicly or privately, and to do so shows a distinct lack of business acumen.


Alf

I've found the opposite is normally true, that 9/10 MAFs are out of spec. I can only comment on what I have personally found. People who I have told have a faulty MAF and have replaced them with brand new Bosch ones have then had their power restored and the MAF reads within spec.

I'm talking down the opposition because their numbers aren't correct. Find me a 160 mapped car, and let me see it on a dyno in person and I will be quiet if it hits 160bhp. I've spoken to a few people who have put 160 mapped cars on different dynos and seem to get around 140-145bhp. Like I said, it is an improvement over stock, but more power can be had.

People on here are too complacent and just believe what certain people say to be the truth.

Jamie I don't care whether you can make my car produce 500 BHP for ten pence, you miss the point I'm trying to make ;)

You do not get on in the business world by talking down the opposition, it's a really simple concept that has seen me in good stead in many years in business, by the way my business was established in 1968 after the Gaming Act of 1967 was enacted to counter the sort of practices made popular by the likes of Vince Landa and Michael Luvaglio......I'll let you google those names ;)


By the way sending immature private messages to me regarding other traders only reinforces the opinion that is forming about the way you conduct yourself, and that is not in a good way I'm afraid.


Not good at all.


Alf

From one of the motoring programs I have seen, I don't think you could take a car off the street test it and state what the top BHP is, you would need to service it first. Although it was a petrol they were looking at, a test before and after a "service" gave different results.

macafee2

Chaps, to be clear, the new car delivers very smoothly and I havn't tried it yet on the only road where I ever seem to have a need for get up an go - the Snake, where I don't want to follow the sort of driver that brakes down to 30 on every bend and puts his (or her, let's not be 'ist about it) foot down again to the legal 50 on every straight. My old car, which was bought cheap and, to be honest, was as rough as a badgers' rough bits did however show a turn of "oomph" when asked. It just delivered in the manner of a 1980s-style turbo. I couldn't care less what the figures are on a rolling road I just "think" the car would be improved with a bit more "get up and - gone" on the few occasions that I ask it to, but not at the expense of pushing it to the limit, reliability, or day-to-day driving. I had a diesel mondeo a few years ago that was quick enough but the powerband was about as wide a fag paper. I also had a non-turbo escort van and you had to plan your overtakes in that with a calendar so my badly phrased question was simply trying to eek out any compromises that might have to be made is diverging from "factory".

The company i work for make it clear that none of it's staff should denigrate the opposition and if you get caught doing so to make a sale then you are likely to get hauled up to explain yourself. It has earnt it's reputation through hard work and fair trading to the extent we rarely advertise as most of our business comes through recomendation and repeat customers.

You can find out what it’s outputting there and then, how can the say you’ll get 160 without seeing the car or even knowing if it’s mechanically sound? Surely there should be an acceptable range of BHP you would typically get, or the average that cars achieve. Fresh oil, fresh air filter, spotless manifold, egr and intercooler would achieve the most power, but you won’t tend to lose a huge amount of power if it hasn’t had a service. I always recommend cleaning the intake system so it’s spotless prior to a remap, that way you can get the most air in, and make use of the extra fuel a remap puts in. Calling it a 160 map and only achieving 140~ bhp on an average diesel on a dyno would be a bit off putting to me. There should be a dyno day where a handful of cars are ran, the average worked out and go from there.

I think they got back about 8-10 bhp, may not sound much but it is the difference between a car having what is claimed and not having what is claimed. Also I understand that a vehicle loses bhp over time through wear and tear of components. This would lead me to believe that a brand new engine with a remap will have the new claimed bhp but an old engine that has already lost bhp due to wear and tear, cannot get to that new engine remapped bhp. Is this the crux of the "dispute", worn engine with reduced bHP and not a new engine with all it's bhp?

I have a 160 remap, my car is insured as if it has 160 BHP, if it has 140 BHP I am not sure I am bothered as the car goes well enough for my driving style and pulls the caravan along so much better which was the reason for a remap.... mind you a CDT needs something to help it along


macafee2

I am only disputing the number. It is better than stock. If the majority of cars can't achieve it, it shouldn't be advertised as it is. I wonder what the quoted torque is of the 160 map though? Torque is what you really feel.

My 5 series is remapped, dynod and the next limiting factor is the gearbox map, it pulls the fuelling back when you hit 550nm of torque, I wondered why it appeared to hit a wall at 550nm and found out the gearbox needs an xHP map to remove the limit.

Ok let’s be clear here, is a remap worth it, YES it is

Are there different remaps out there, yes there is, are they all called a 160 remap, well most yes.

So I had my car already come with a remap and yes it was faster than stock, I had already got one of Arctic’s magic EGR bypass’s. Then I had one of Jamie’s remaps (Not called the 160) and with the new map the car was even faster. I then added a manual boost control and run another 5psi on the turbo, this now kicks ass and pulls from the bottom to the top of the rev range.

Jamie compared my original map with the general “160 map” and it was identical, so I had been running that map which was a good map and felt quick, but jamie’s map had something extra and you could feel it straight out the box it just made the car more responsive and quicker.

If you ask anyone from the Midlands Nano meets that’s had a Jamie remap they will all say the same as myself, well worth getting it done, but yes you will also need to have a car that’s well maintained for example if the EGR or Manifold are full of muck and the intercooler “O” rings are gone no amount of remapping will give you more power.

Downside to remapping – NONE….

:wot:

Increasing the maximum bhp is only going to be felt with a screaming engine and that's not what diesels are all about.

Simon

On a CDT it is also very noticeable when pulling a heavy weight such as a caravan. On a CDTI, still noticeable but not as much

macafee2

Still plugging you own stuff and knocking others Jamie some things never change ;)

Which particular 160 map are you talking about? If you really knew, you'd know there's more than one 160 tune ;)

As I've said before there can be huge differences between identical cars with similar mileages and service history.

This can be down to a lot of things, how the car has been driven and even which grade of engine was fitted at the factory! That can have the biggest impact as all engines are dyno'd on assembly as you should know ;)

We've never "advertised" the map at all and we never claim it will provide 160 what we have shown is that it will improve performance and driveability and that it has produced those figures on owners cars when they have had them independently tested ;)



Russ

Interesting post Jon, I wonder how, or indeed why Jamie could have compared what was programmed originally to your car to a "general 160" map.


I was of the understanding that any programmed information in the car's ecu was pertinent to the car it was from, so how can a comparison be made or am I missing something?



I would suggest given the private message I received from Jamie last evening which pointed towards a petty dispute with another trader on this forum, which included references to a third party, whom you have plugged here previously (the person from Leominster who fitted your car with the manual boost controller just in case you are wondering), so all in all nothing has been said here that would not point towards an "old pals" network at play, with a concerted attempt at discrediting other peoples products in order that your own take precedence.


This is just as it appears from outside the frame by someone making an observation that every time one type of remap is mentioned, Jamie pops up and immediately starts talking it down, surely if his own remaps are so much better then that should not be necessary.

I don't know you, Jamie, or indeed anyone else from this forum as I've yet to attend a meet, for all I know he could be a nice young bloke, however given the way he conducts himself here, if I felt I was in need of more power from my car, he would be the very last person I would approach.




On the latter point, I would wholeheartedly agree with you, my own ZT-T was transformed following the cleaning out of the EGR, and inlet manifold along with the intercooler o rings and new hoses I fitted on recommendation after I had a running issue diagnosed locally.


Finally "Rogue" made a very salient point earlier in this thread for which I thanked him, where he pointed out his employer takes a dim view of downselling a competitor in order to gain a sale.


In the past when I employed salesmen, if I discovered they were employing those type of practices, they were immediately hauled into the office and given a dressing down and warned that any repeat of this type of behaviour would result in immediate dismissal.


That is why I feel so strongly about the selling practices being employed by Jamie, they reflect badly upon him, and by association the services he is providing irrespective of how good they may be.



Alf

Thanks for that clarification Russ, I see I'm not the only person to notice sharp selling practice going on here.


If I read this right, then my own car which is a 135 could be tested on a dynamometer and produce the figures that were claimed by MG Rover, and another seemingly identical car produce less even when new?


It is also interesting to see that people who have had their car upgraded by you, and then have gone on to have them tested independently and they have produced the figured as stated, yet the tone of the previous posters in this thread would suggest this is not the case?


I've no foot in either camp here, but given the balance of probabilities I know whom I'd be inclined to believe.


Alf

Yes Alf that's correct there were two main grades of engine fitted from what has been told by an ex-mgr employee.
Red and Blue were the two designations don't ask me which way round they were but it's on here somewhere ;)
The better output ones were supposed to be fitted to the better spec cars but in the later years they used anything they had ;)

Due to Photobucket's greed many of the photo's disappeared showing the results and many of those that posted them have moved on so we can't ask them to resubmit them. But some of the results are available if you search thoroughly enough, can take a bit of time though.

Russ

The map section can be lifted from the ECU and compared within software, there is no encryption or anything like that possible. You can dump any EDC15C4 fitted to the 75 and read and compare the map.

People need to be given the option. And BigRuss, there are different maps, but of all the ones I have looked at they all seem to contain the same numbers... What torque figure should be expected from a typical map? I get there will be some lower and some higher, but the typical car, what sort of numbers should we expect?

So say my figures as my car is completely standard are 129BHP and 300Nm of torque, how does that compare to what you are offering Jamie?


What figures would a custom remap achieve, and at what cost?



I would be also interested in what Russ has to say too :xmas-smiley-008:


It is all hypothetical in my case of course, but interesting nonetheless to hear it from the technical bods.


Alf

I had my remap done by PhilT4 about 6+ years ago and have been well pleased from day 1.
I had the car put on a dyno about 3 years later not specifically for engine power check but to try and fault find an overheating/fan issue and was told that the car was producing 130bhp at the wheels which allowing for transmission loss leaves power at the crank not too far off what we understand as our clubs '160 remap'
As stated, regardless of what the actual power figure is I have 150K on the clock and the car is a dream to drive so wouldn't hesitate in recommending anyone to have the same remap. Mixed motoring around UK I get just short of 40mpg with 44/45 on several long high speed trips down to the Algarve which for an auto I think is very acceptable.

That is the first time I've seen anyone independently quote dynamometer figures Tony, so if you enter your 130BHP at the wheel figure into this online calculator I've just found and enter the options of FWD automatic, then a flywheel figure of 159BHP comes out, and for a manual car 156BHP


Anyone can try it, the link is here


LINK


The disclaimer does say it is a guesstimate, but the calculations must have been derived from something tangible :shrug:


Alf

When a car is run on a dyno, the dyno calculates the losses of the car on the rundown, far more accurate than a guessing calculator. That calculator classes a 5 speed automatic as modern and 3 speed automatic as typical, I wouldn't have thought their values would be accurate for more modern cars.

I have 2 dyno figures, a car that had the 160 map which produced 146.5bhp and 266.1lbft of torque. Like I said, better than stock.

I then mapped it myself and the same car on the same dyno produced 160.2bhp and 317.7lbft of torque.

Those appear to be impressive figures, for instance over 130Nm extra peak torque over my standard car.


Were those figures obtained from a manual or automatic car? and would it be possible to upload the dynamometer printouts for comparison?


Alf

Manual MK2. The torque is what you feel, that's why there is noticeable difference. I'll find the graph for the run with my map and upload it later on, I'll ask if the dyno guy can send the graph for the 160 as it should still be stored on the PC.

Just out of interest then, and again purely theoretical, what sort of lifespan would you expect from a standard clutch when increasing the torque to a figure that is 143% of the original?


Would increasing the torque output by such a large margin, not lead to premature failure, and does it require an uprated unit to be fitted.


I'd definitely be interested in the graphs should you be able to upload them :xmas-smiley-008:


Alf

I don't have access to the figures for each of the 160 maps as they're on an old laptop that isn't with me at the moment, as I haven't used it in years and it's in storage.

Will do some digging and see what I can find.

If you want to have a look at some graphs though then do a Google search for rover 75 180 remap then try 171 remap and also Rob Drinkwater who tuned one too 190ps with a few tweaks and modifications, the transmission really complained about that. ;)

Edit: found a few approx figures, I know we limited the power output to protect the transmission and clutches I think the manuals to approx mid 340Nm and the auto's to just under 360 Nm as the automatic gearboxes have a greater tolerance to torque. Anything much above those sorts of figures and the clutch or transmission may start to suffer.

Russ

Alf, IIRC the dyno operator said the transmission loss would be about 15 - 20% which stacks up somewhere near.
Unfortunately I didnt get a graph as the printer was out of action but I wasn't too fussed because I was chasing a more specific issue. The dyno owner seemed pretty clued up, he had been doing development work for a motor manufacturer which I think was MG who were local and assembling cars at that time.
Also I can't say what state of tune the car was in, I always keep my cars well serviced but didn't freshly service it especially.
Tony

So can I ask, was your map based upon a standard NNW5991 tune then Jamie, or piggybacked?

Now that I'd be interested in seeing for myself


Yes it would Alf ;)

I can explain why too :cool:

The outer diameter of the standard CDTi clutch is 228mm, the inner diameter is 150mm, and the friction coefficient of the driven plate 0.25 with an axial clamping load of 6600N provided by the pressure plate.

This means the calculated maximum torque rating of the clutch is 370Nm or 273 ft/lb ;)

These final output figures were obtained during several dyno runs at Ron Perry A19 Test & Tune nr. Hartlepool in 2012

Automatic car 159.4 BHP peak torque 359Nm

Manual car 157.9 BHP peak torque 345Nm


There are minor variations between non EOBD and EOBD compliant cars, but these are minor.

When the fuelling was increased to the point where the turbocharger was unable to supply sufficient air charge to completely combust the injected fuel, then the clutch in the manual test car began to slip.

The mean figures were arrived at as there was the desirability to improve the standard driveability of the car while maintaining reliability, rather than any other aim

I still have some of the beta tunes and one of the development variants of the NNN500340 manual tunes produced just shy of 163 BHP and peaked out at 390Nm, however it was very smoky and could certainly provoke slipping of the clutch under harsh acceleration.

As Russ pointed out previously that power output with a couple of minor mechanical modifications can place figures close to 180BHP, however as I said previously, the main aim was to improve driveability in otherwise standard cars, but not at the expense of reliability.

The torque output of the automatic version is higher than the manual, as the safe limits of the Jatco autobox allow this. ;)

I see you are not that far from me, once the current restrictions are relaxed, if you wish to pop over to my place I'll let you take my car for a spin and see how it compares to yours :)



Brian :D

Just found this from a few years ago
http://i.imgur.com/AugJJ.png
Thread here https://www.the75andztclub.co.uk/for...d.php?t=129619

Something definitely not right with that 170bhp run. The stock turbo can’t produce enough air for that power, you need a larger turbo for it. But it’s an excel spreadsheet with information entered, as soon as I saw 170bhp out of a stock turbo I can’t believe those numbers. No impressive torque numbers though, I can get around 430nm of torque out of a diesel. Those maps wouldn’t feel significantly different to stock.

I’d like to see that 170bhp diesel on a properly calibrated dyno. A dyno can be tweaked to give higher numbers if needed, it’s results are only as good as it’s calibration.

Anyone fancy a free dyno run? The offer is there for anyone with a 160 mapped car as long as the results can be posted, and you get a free printout of your power :)

IIRC Hodgy's car the one reported at 170, had an absolutely horrible map on it not one of ours it smoked very badly too.

I drove it and it was more than a little rough.

It did have one or two tweaks to the turbo operation but can't remember exactly what, I've slept a bit since then ;) I think he was also running a Synergy as well as the map.

I wasn't there but he might just have got 170, after all Jakg did with a similar setup as did Johndotcom with their cars ;)

Russ

Jamiewelch

“ I can get around 430nm of torque out of a diesel.”

Not out of a standard CDTI clutch you won’t, just not going to happen, I’m not going to argue because when you know you know.
Mick

Thanks for that was going to say something similar, there's no way on the planet can you get 430nm out of a standard clutch.

The clampling forces on the clutch are far far less than that ;)

If you're going to come out with numbers at least come out with something credible.

Russ

I'm not sure what clutches you guys have been fitting, but a decent clutch will definitely handle it. Below is a printout from a proper dyno, not an "OBD dyno" that Rob Drinkwater used. We can put a 160 mapped car on the same dyno if anyone wants a run? I've blanked the car owners details from the photo. Torque is in lbft and Power is in HP.

You can see how the power line is very smooth and it is very straight, this is what happens with a stock turbo at 24psi, it just can't get enough air in there for the power to go any higher.

https://i.imgur.com/aj1jNuj.jpg?1

Jamie you really don't have a clue, do you?
It's not a case of what clutch is fitted, you cannot exceed the physical properties of the clutch.
A particular clutch can only take a certain amount of power based on the diameter, surface area, and friction material of the clutch along with clamping load from the pressure plate.
You can look these up if you want all the information is available.
Beyond the specified limits the additional power at first causes micro slippage but this quickly accelerates to destruction of the clutch.
That torque figure is also beyond the capabilities of both the Getrag and Jatco gearboxes.

Rob Drinkwater found that out when he destroyed the transmission shaft on his car.

By the way before you criticize Rob you should really should look up who he is and what his achievements are ;)

Russ

Just because your map can't achieve the torque values, there is no need to talk down the opposition.

You should ask people who have gone from the 160 to a much more torquey map. As you can see from the graph, that is peak torque and doesn't run at 300lbft+ all the time.

I have posted a dyno run proof of the results, much more than anyone has done for the 160 map. My numbers are more credible than an excel sheet and a video of people sat on a car to keep it on the dyno...

I've spoken to Rob on Facebook, he is adamant that an OBD reading will give accurate numbers, even when a gear change is done in the middle of it...

Why is it that people here have never trusted something new? Ever since I have tried to offer something on here people always moan and say to go to one of the T4 guys. When you guys eventually leave there will be no one left if anyone new gets pushed out.

Thanks for the accurate figures Brian, my guesses on them were pretty good ;)

Russ

Car returned to stock with a T4 to NNW005991 then done from scratch.

Not much of a torque increase, you'd barely feel it. 390nm on the other hand, that would be much more like the numbers I would have liked to have seen.

On the smokey car with 390nm I assume the manifold, egr and intercooler were spotless? That is normally what causes the excess smoke providing there are no boost leaks, there shouldn't really be much smoke if its all in good order.

I'd like to see a car run 180bhp with a stock turbo and stock fuel system.

When restrictions are reduced Brian, how would you feel if we tried one of my maps on your car and you can see for yourself? As I know any car of yours will be looked after and in good mechanical condition. You may be impressed, it might not be the map for everyone, but you're welcome to give it a try.

We have plenty of maps that are higher output than the ones we provide for the "160" remap the reason we didn't go higher is to keep the torque settings at a level that would minimise the effects on the clutch and transmission.

In what way is pointing out the fact that at the torque figures you're talking about they could definitely cause premature clutch failure could be described as talking down the opposition.

Running 300ft/lbs+ even for short periods will induce minute slippage that will have a detrimental effect that will exacerbate wear.

If people are happy to prematurely change clutches or transmissions by running maps at that level then fair enough but I know most people would rather not have to do that.

Jamie you're not doing or offering anything new, it's all been done before.
In fact all the stuff you're advertising in your signature is because of other people's hard work, who spent an awful lot of time and money to discover how to do these things.
You then have the cheek to put down those people's services and promote your own.

Russ

Perhaps I am reading this all wrong? (and I have no axe to grind with anyone regarding maps etc)

The graph you posted Jamie, suggests a max torque around the 2200 rpm mark, at that RPM in 5th in my auto (without lock up), it is around 70 mph if I recall. I imagine that a manual would be similar RPM. To me, this would be placing maximum torque on the clutch for sustained periods? for motorway driving at least and it wouldnt be required at this point either, as you would be cruising (or at least should be lol). Or do I misunderstand dyno runs?

If I am correct, would it not be more useful to have the maximum torque slightly lower down the rev range for reliability, allowing it to be 'switched off' when an upshift took place? Therefore containing its power to shorter use.

The curve is a run at 100% throttle in 4th, when you’re driving around the way torque is delivered is different, unless you drive around with your foot to the floor all the time. You can’t really get the max torque any lower down the Rev range as the turbo takes time to spool, more fuel can be added but then you’ll end up chucking lots of smoke out for a little more low down torque, it’s not worth the smoke. Between 2k and 3K is where you’ll typically spend most of the time driving so this is where most people would want the torque. Of course a map can be adjusted to suit the driver :). Full on smoke maps for those nutters who want them is achievable, but not advised at all. Of course if someone wanted a map with less torque that’s definitely achievable. Remapping isn’t a one size fits all, it’s more of a one size fits most, quite a lot of people want the maximum, but others just want a moderate increase to help make the car feel like it can keep up with modern traffic easier.

I suspect the need to visit in person could be avoided Jamie, I would have thought the file could be sent via email, as you might do in a slave/master tuner arrangement ;)

However I would be somewhat reticent to subject a clutch with a maximum service torque rating of 370Nm to the sort of abuse that exceeding that figure by 60Nm and the resultant damage caused.

That is not down to clutch quality although poor quality components will be the first to fail, it is a simple calculation based upon total surface area of the friction material along with it's friction coefficient, and the clamping load of the clutch cover, these are not variables but known figures.

Figures that were arrived at during the design of the car to incorporate safety margins of components, the sort of limits that would not have been ever exceeded under normal circumstances.


Longer than I have been actively involved in motoring it has been known that tuning cars can result in reduced lifespan of components, back in the 1970's Leyland Special Tuning catalogues warned about the voiding of manufacturer warranties for various tuning products, and these were offerings not of a third party, but the manufacturers themselves.

That was of course then, but many of the exact same principles apply to this day, and huge increases in diesel torque output was of course just as possible eight years ago as it is now.

The top and bottom of the matter is simple, I drive with a degree of mechanical sympathy, as do many others especially in the case of the demographic of most owners here.

But it would be fairly blinkered to view things that way, we are all individuals after all, and there are enthusiasts myself included, who might occasionally wish to make rapid progress by driving spiritedly.

This of course is a trade off between functional performance and reliability, and to say otherwise is not true, however it is perfectly possible to enjoy a happy compromise.

The decision was made at the time to develop something to further enhance the driveability of the car without compromising reliability and allow the car to lift it's skirts once in a while if required, without creating a trail of unhappy owners with broken cars.

The cars themselves were never designed to be anything other than a test mule for the all new Bosch common rail technology, so if it all went horribly wrong it wouldn't reflect badly upon the parent company BMW.

Further to this the only reason R40 was fitted with the M47R and the output limited to 116PS and 270Nm as to not make the car a direct competitor for the E46.

When BMW divested themselves of Rover Group, the first thing the newly formed company did was to launch a touring version of the car and up the output in some models from 116 to 131PS and up the torque output from 270 to 300 Nm.

You can ask anyone who has driven both variants that even this modest increase in power is very noticeable.

So why did Rover not increase the power further? there are a few good reasons although it was of course technically possible to do so.

The main reason was type approval, it would not have been possible to obtain EU3 emission approval even with the development of a new generation of DDE4 with output greater than that offered by the original XPower diesel tune upgrade.

So given that originally an upgrade from 116 to 131 in XPower format cost in the region of £500, it was an option few actually chose.


It is a personal choice of course, and there is room for either type of tune, or indeed none at all.......it is not possible to please everybody all of the time, or indeed some of the time, or in extreme cases not at all.

Some people will be happy to accept that by effectively "overclocking" a car will result in better performance and accept this will also have a detrimental effect upon reliability, others not so, or others who simply don't care one way or the other as they're perfectly happy with the car as it left the factory.

Finally Hodgy's tourer which achieved 170 BHP and 360Nm on the dyno run previously mentioned, had a manual boost controller and the wastegate modified to prevent overboost from popping the intercooler hoses, and was being run in conjunction with a synergy 2.

The tune installed in the car was written by Darkside Developments, which brings this post nicely to it's conclusion.

Here is a link to explain how to read a dyno printout, something you and I may not need, but will provide valuable insight to people not familiar, the text being especially pertinent ;)

LINK

Brian :D

This thread must be leaving people confused about what is possible to safely achieve
on a diesel let alone achieve.

May be there should be a meeting between Jamie and one of the 160 remap guys each supplying a diesel car.
Both cars have Jamie's remap and then a dyno test and both cars are given the 160 remap we generally talk about and again the cars dyno tested. Video both cars tests and see where we go.

I feel silly suggesting it but how else to put this to bed?

macafee2

I’ve offered a free dyno run on a 160 mapped car a few times and no one takes it up :(. I wouldn’t be able to supply a car of my own though as I no longer own a Rover, but I know someone who wouldn’t mind using theirs.

In all seriousness, if someone with a 160 car does want a dyno run with both maps and is local to the Midlands drop me a PM.