|
||
|
22nd December 2021, 22:14 | #21 | |
Posted a thing or two
Alpina D3 Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Cheslyn hay
Posts: 1,002
Thanks: 58
Thanked 294 Times in 227 Posts
|
Quote:
|
|
22nd December 2021, 22:34 | #22 | |
This is my second home
Rover 75CDT, Jaguar XF-S 3.0V6, V'xhall Omega V6 Estate, Twintop 1.8VVT, Astra Estate and Corsa 1.2 Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 7,078
Thanks: 283
Thanked 624 Times in 440 Posts
|
Quote:
I do understand how mapping works. I agree that 131 is PS not bhp, my mistake in quoting. But where do you get doubling of torque as stated above? Also, I do understand that the standard M47 engine's torque is a peak of 221lbft. But it peaks at 1900RPM. If you push the peak torque point up in the rev range, the power increases but the torque does not. With a diesel, you drive below 2200RPM most of the time and this is the rev range where torque is most useful in a diesel engine. I am challenging that claiming a high peak power output is necessarily a good thing in a diesel engine if this is achieved by pushing the peak torque higher up the rev range. It is the torque curve up to around 2200RPM that is really useful in a diesel engined car which is why I assume people who have had the 160 remap find the driveability to be so much improved. As long as this is achieved, the actual vale of peak power is rather irrelevant. |
|
23rd December 2021, 07:22 | #23 | |
Posted a thing or two
Alpina D3 Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Cheslyn hay
Posts: 1,002
Thanks: 58
Thanked 294 Times in 227 Posts
|
Quote:
Imagine having a stock 116ps map and only having 192lbft of torque, shooting up to 320lbft would be a very dramatic increase. If peak power is irrelevant then the map on here should be sold as a moderate drivability improvement map, not a “160” map as it isn’t an achievable peak number. |
|
23rd December 2021, 09:31 | #24 |
I really should get out more.......
Vauxhall Insignia CDTi; MG TF 135 Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Norn Iron
Posts: 2,942
Thanks: 942
Thanked 378 Times in 297 Posts
|
Very illuminating discussion – though, as usual, people who do seem to understand the topic having contradictory different opinions on it. But I’m particularly interested in the claim that the famed club “160” map does not – and perhaps CAN not – produce 160bhp (or ps or whatever we use nowadays).
I had my CDTI (131ps) remapped with the 160 map at a club meet something like 9 or 10 years ago. I’m going to commit sacrilege here, and say that I was very disappointed in the results – driving home, I couldn’t detect any difference at all in the car’s performance. Brim-to-brim fuel consumption tests before and after revealed no difference there either. I’ve always been very reluctant to post this, as the members involved in producing the map have been extremely helpful to me in the past, and to countless others here over the years. But I’ve always struggled to understand why so many posted that the map had transformed their cars, when it had no measurable effect on mine… I guess, if in reality it’s a struggle to get even close to 150, mine can’t have increased that much from its 131 starting point. Regarding maps in general, back in 2001 I had a new chip (that’s how you did it in those days) put in my 1988 325i. It was supplied by a notorious West Midlands “chipper” – and, as with the Rover, had no noticeable effect. By chance, my car back then was maintained by a local BMW specialist, who also ran a small E30 Beemer-based racing team. I asked him about chips – he said, for normally aspirated cars, they were a con, as there was simply no way to boost their power significantly by altering the map. They’d tried every chip on the marketplace in their racing machines, and none provided significant extra power. In fact, what they did find was that some of the most heavily-promoted ones were mapped to reduce the engine’s power below, say, 3500rpm, then bring it back up to normal again – making the power curve more peaky gave a great illusion of extra power. Turbocharged cars, he pointed out, were a different story.
__________________
Past cars: MGB GT; Escort 1300 Sport; Vauxhall VX4/90; Marina Coupe TC; Celica ST (1972); Montego Turbo; Astra GTE 16V; Astra GSI 16V; Golf GTI 16V (Mk II); Sierra XR4x4 Estate; BMW 325i (E30); BMW M3 3.0; BMW M3 3.2 Evo. Left some of the more embarrassing ones out. And about 30 motorbikes. |
23rd December 2021, 09:59 | #25 |
Posted a thing or two
R 75 Tourer diesel Conny 2002, V6 Conny saloon petrol 2003 Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Taunton
Posts: 1,119
Thanks: 212
Thanked 406 Times in 223 Posts
|
Big Russ remapped my Tourer diesel to 160 must be 5+ years ago. Transformed the car. Never had any problems: car now at 149K miles. Far more responsive than my petrol 2.5 V6 which is also in fine fettle.
__________________
Rover 75 Tourer Conny 2002 remapped 160 auto, R75 V6 2.5L auto Connoisseur 2003 |
23rd December 2021, 10:38 | #26 | |
This is my second home
Rover 75 Saloon & Tourer Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 14,890
Thanks: 1,630
Thanked 3,032 Times in 2,181 Posts
|
Quote:
I cannot say if the 160 remap has given me 160bhp, I may not have put across what I was trying to say very well so I hope this helps. The remap (i wont call it a 160 remap for sake of argument) that I had done via a forum trader has made my car much better for towing and general driving. I am not heavy on the right foot and so dont thrash the engine but the car is a better performing car and 160bhp or dont, I would suggest having a CDT rempped is a worth while thing to do particularly if like me you want to tow with it. macafee2 |
|
23rd December 2021, 10:46 | #27 |
This is my second home
Rover 75CDT, Jaguar XF-S 3.0V6, V'xhall Omega V6 Estate, Twintop 1.8VVT, Astra Estate and Corsa 1.2 Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 7,078
Thanks: 283
Thanked 624 Times in 440 Posts
|
Here's my take on remaps. I will say however that I do not have the 160 remap - I am of the school that if the standard engine configuration is not enough then buy a car with superior performance. For me, the 131 PS (129bhp) tune does all that I need from a Rover 75.
Quoting power (bhp or PS) is not very informative, as a power increase can easily be achieved by moving the ramp part of the torque curve to higher RPM. What is far more important is that the improvement in torque occurs in the RPM region where the engine spend most of its time. For a diesel, that is up to 2500RPM (or 2200RPM for towing) as this equates to 71MPH (62MPH) in 5th gear for our cars. In my view what really matters is how responsive the car feels to the driver. It is this driveability that is most important, not the peak power number. My comments in this thread were driven by claims that the 160 map providers were telling lies. This is an unnecessary claim and one that is contrary to the experience of a huge number of members who have had the 160 map. Hopefully it is obvious why I don't think its important whether the '160 map' actually leads to a power output of 160bhp (or PS) or not. In relation to post #23, personally I would consider it poor show to uplift a car's maximum torque from 192lbft to 320lbft for normal road use. This represents an uplift of 67% whereas around 30% is the maximum that I would entertain for normal road use. If a driver really feels the need for a power increase from 131PS to say more than 150PS, I would suggest that he/she should be looking for a different drivetrain i.e. a different car. hogweed - sometimes there is a component that limits the engine's performance irrespective of the map. In you case I would have gone back to remapper so that he could diagnose the cause of your performance limitation. Here are a couple of old threads that people may wish to peruse. https://the75andztclub.co.uk/forum/s...d.php?t=144735 https://www.the75andztclub.co.uk/for...=Remap+problem PS I am not a performance shy person - our XF-S benefits from 600Nm of torque at 2000RPM which I quite enjoy! Last edited by MSS; 23rd December 2021 at 10:49.. |
23rd December 2021, 10:48 | #28 |
Premium Trader
75 CDT Tourer,2.5 Launch Saloon, Omipro MG/Rover (T4) Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Liversedge, West Yorkshire
Posts: 5,405
Thanks: 1,105
Thanked 1,340 Times in 661 Posts
|
Let's make one thing perfectly clear here, we never developed the maps ( yes there's more than one. ) to produce "160" it was developed to improve drivability of the car which as many, many owners who have had it done have testified countless times to be the case.
It only became known as the 160 map after the results that were published on here found by other owners. Now as you should well know Jamie, you can put the same car on the same Dyno 20 times on the same day with the same settings and get 20 different results. The Dyno manufacturers themselves state that and that any map that noticeably improves the drivability of the car can be considered to be a good map. That is what we've provided, at a reasonable cost. Russ
__________________
Replacement Key Service http://https://the75andztclub.co.uk/...d.php?t=244732 Full T4 Testbook diagnostics available. Diesel ECU repair and replacement. Options enabled or disabled as required. Diesel X-Power 135 and 160bhp, Rover 1.8T 150 to 160 MG 160 V6 to 177 upgrades available P.M. for details. Last edited by BigRuss; 23rd December 2021 at 11:03.. |
23rd December 2021, 11:41 | #29 | |
I really should get out more.......
Vauxhall Insignia CDTi; MG TF 135 Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Norn Iron
Posts: 2,942
Thanks: 942
Thanked 378 Times in 297 Posts
|
Quote:
Yeah... but Phil did actually do a T4 session before applying the map, and found everything fine to proceed. As Russ says, perhaps I was misled by all the people on the forum describing it as "160" - I wasn't aware that this wasn't "official". Back in the (pre-ECM) day when I used to get my kicks from tuning motorbikes, it was generally accepted that you wouldn't feel less than a 10% power increase... so if mine started with 131, it would have needed an increase of 13 to be noticeable, ie up to 144, which is getting close to what appears to be a 150 limit... I dunno. Doesn't really matter now. As regards "drivability", responsiveness etc, these things are very subjective. Again, all I can say is that I didn't feel any difference
__________________
Past cars: MGB GT; Escort 1300 Sport; Vauxhall VX4/90; Marina Coupe TC; Celica ST (1972); Montego Turbo; Astra GTE 16V; Astra GSI 16V; Golf GTI 16V (Mk II); Sierra XR4x4 Estate; BMW 325i (E30); BMW M3 3.0; BMW M3 3.2 Evo. Left some of the more embarrassing ones out. And about 30 motorbikes. |
|
23rd December 2021, 13:26 | #30 | |
Posted a thing or two
Alpina D3 Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Cheslyn hay
Posts: 1,002
Thanks: 58
Thanked 294 Times in 227 Posts
|
Quote:
Also your signature states 160bhp. Last edited by Jamiewelch; 23rd December 2021 at 13:28.. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|