Remapping

[bpsorrel]

Just thought I'd say a word about remapping. This morning I got my Saab "Hirshed" which is a remap, by Hirsch and fully authorised by Saab and takes the power and torque of my 1.9 ttid up to 200 hp and 400 nm torque!

It was pricey, but I would definately recommend it!! The engine is much smoother, the turbo lag has almost disappeared and the shove in the mid-range is eye watering!!

So, to those wondering if it's worth doing, I'd say, so far, yes!! (assuming a reputable remap of course!)

 

[JasM]

Are you going to get your S211 remapped as well?

 

[bpsorrel]

Probably not as it seems quick enough already and doesn't have the annoying turbo-lag the Saab had. Saying that, I wonder how it would feel if I did...

 

[Adam230K]

Your 320cdi will be an absolute rocket if you got it remapped by the right people....

 

[BTB 500]

Surely there are lifespan implications when getting that level of bhp and torque from a 1.9 litre engine

I mean, fundamentally it's just running with more boost pressure.

What was the effect on your insurance?

 

[bpsorrel]

I think lifespan limitations may only be relevent if you're booting it around all the time. Also, the reason Saab authorise (and cover by the original Saab warranty) the Hirsch upgrade is that it's done within acceptable parameters,so as not to over stress the engine or take the perfomance beyond the car's capabilities (brakes etc).

Apparently, it does more than simply raise the boost pressure. Various ecu setting parameters are reset, such as timing (beyond this it gets too technical for me!).

Regarding insurance, £20 a year more, not bad really. I'm told I'll see a little improved mpg because I shoudln't have to use as much throttle to get the same performance as before, thus not using as much diesel -- we'll see...

 

[BTB 500]

Sounds good then!

 

[horsesuitedfool]

Indeed, that E320 will go like a scalded cat if you remap it and have amazing punch in mid range....

 

[gazzz]

I'm fascinated by this whole remap/chipping thing.

Whilst I can believe that it is possible to improve power or economy I just don't understand how you can do both, without any negative consequences, for a car that's had many tens or hundreds of millions of £s spent in engine development. Why wouldn't the manufacturers map the ECU for high power and economy if it was that straightforward?

The only arguments I've seen to explain this apparent conundrum is that the manufacturers set the car up for the worst possible environmental factors e.g. only low quality fuel available, hostile environments etc but come on, surely that's not true is it?

This is a genuine question and my technical knowledge isn't that good so if anyone can give a credible answer to why manufacturers would release a car that can be significantly improved in both economy and power just by changing some software parameters, I'd be really interested to hear it.

 

[skymastor]

I'm fascinated by this whole remap/chipping thing.

Whilst I can believe that it is possible to improve power or economy I just don't understand how you can do both, without any negative consequences, for a car that's had many tens or hundreds of millions of £s spent in engine development. Why wouldn't the manufacturers map the ECU for high power and economy if it was that straightforward?

The only arguments I've seen to explain this apparent conundrum is that the manufacturers set the car up for the worst possible environmental factors e.g. only low quality fuel available, hostile environments etc but come on, surely that's not true is it?

This is a genuine question and my technical knowledge isn't that good so if anyone can give a credible answer to why manufacturers would release a car that can be significantly improved in both economy and power just by changing some software parameters, I'd be really interested to hear it.

Ditto.... Well put... I have been thinking the exact same!

Looking forward to responses on this....

 

[flango]

Indeed, that E320 will go like a scalded cat if you remap it and have amazing punch in mid range....

You can safely take that car to 277 bhp with a neck snapping 680 Nm of torque

 

[Charles Morgan]

You can safely take that car to 277 bhp with a neck snapping 680 Nm of torque

Blimey! You could tow the QM2 with that!

 

[wemorgan]

I'm fascinated by this whole remap/chipping thing.

Whilst I can believe that it is possible to improve power or economy I just don't understand how you can do both, without any negative consequences, for a car that's had many tens or hundreds of millions of £s spent in engine development. Why wouldn't the manufacturers map the ECU for high power and economy if it was that straightforward?

My understanding of the power-economy balance is that with increased torque you can change gear up sooner, thereby reducing rpm and increasing fuel economy. Whether this in turn reduces engine life I can't say, but sounds likely to me.

 

[PXW]

I'm fascinated by this whole remap/chipping thing.

Whilst I can believe that it is possible to improve power or economy I just don't understand how you can do both, without any negative consequences, for a car that's had many tens or hundreds of millions of £s spent in engine development. Why wouldn't the manufacturers map the ECU for high power and economy if it was that straightforward?

The only arguments I've seen to explain this apparent conundrum is that the manufacturers set the car up for the worst possible environmental factors e.g. only low quality fuel available, hostile environments etc but come on, surely that's not true is it?

This is a genuine question and my technical knowledge isn't that good so if anyone can give a credible answer to why manufacturers would release a car that can be significantly improved in both economy and power just by changing some software parameters, I'd be really interested to hear it.

I always thought it had to do with the somewhat artificial test conditions for official economy/CO2 emissions - effectively manufacturers have to tune the car to be optimised at specific points in the range, which means that the OEM settings are not necessarily optimal for everyday driving.

But I could be completely wrong on that, in which case I'm sure someone will correct me shortly

 

[martin_a]

Ditto.... Well put... I have been thinking the exact same!

Looking forward to responses on this....

Right... I'll give it a go. It is important to note that chipping and mapping are two different things. A good map is the best because it is custom to the car, a chip... meh.

Previous motor to the MB was an 03 Subaru Impreza WRX which I had mapped to 275bhp. This involved taking the middle cat off (3 on the car originally) and changeing the back box and intercooler hoses plus a session with a real mapper, a laptop and some 'det cans' (headphones to listen to the engine in layman's terms.

275bhp is an awful lot for a 2.0 engine but the car was just rolling onto 100k and still pulled like a train.

The fuel economy was the same, if not marginally improved and despite the loss of a cat still passed the MOT and met the emissions regulations.

So how can it be done...?

Well, thank to the EU who tell manafacturers "you must have xyz catalysers on a car" and other such rules rather than letting engine experts reach targets through their own genius many engines are heavily restricted by the manufacturers.

Fuel in the system actually protects the Cat, most cars overfuel by quite a lot to make sure the Cat is protected, otherwise it crumbles into the exhaust. If you remove it (or one of three as I did) the mapper can look at the engine performance and see what the ecu is seeing and telling the car to do. While driving along they can order the ecu to lean out the fuel which makes the car go better and improves the fuel economy.

If i'd taken all 3 cats out my mapper would have been able to lean the fuel right out and take the car to 290bhp with no additional fuel use!!!!!

This is why mapping is better than chipping. Engines are built to a tolerance, the manufacturer sets the levels which will give the best trade between performance and reliability but as with any manufactured product, each one if different. A mapper looks at what your engine is doing and customises the ecu for that engine, releasing power in the process.

A chip on the otherhand or a generic map simply uploaded to the car is another 'one size fits all solution' and doesn't actually take account of how an individual vehicle is able to perform which is why they are cheaper but more dangerous.

Does all that make sense? I've just typed all that without planning it out...

m.

 

[martin_a]

Additional - Reliability issues are not always engine based. Any engine thrashed all the time will go pop, mapped or not. Usually the issue with a mapped car with more power/torque is the transmission, most of which can't cope with the additional power they are trying to put to the wheels. Gearbox servicing, uprated clutch or a 'box from a more powerful model with uprated parts is often a good call for big power cars.

m.

 

[skymastor]

Right... I'll give it a go. It is important to note that chipping and mapping are two different things. A good map is the best because it is custom to the car, a chip... meh.

Previous motor to the MB was an 03 Subaru Impreza WRX which I had mapped to 275bhp. This involved taking the middle cat off (3 on the car originally) and changeing the back box and intercooler hoses plus a session with a real mapper, a laptop and some 'det cans' (headphones to listen to the engine in layman's terms.

275bhp is an awful lot for a 2.0 engine but the car was just rolling onto 100k and still pulled like a train.

The fuel economy was the same, if not marginally improved and despite the loss of a cat still passed the MOT and met the emissions regulations.

So how can it be done...?

Well, thank to the EU who tell manafacturers "you must have xyz catalysers on a car" and other such rules rather than letting engine experts reach targets through their own genius many engines are heavily restricted by the manufacturers.

Fuel in the system actually protects the Cat, most cars overfuel by quite a lot to make sure the Cat is protected, otherwise it crumbles into the exhaust. If you remove it (or one of three as I did) the mapper can look at the engine performance and see what the ecu is seeing and telling the car to do. While driving along they can order the ecu to lean out the fuel which makes the car go better and improves the fuel economy.

If i'd taken all 3 cats out my mapper would have been able to lean the fuel right out and take the car to 290bhp with no additional fuel use!!!!!

This is why mapping is better than chipping. Engines are built to a tolerance, the manufacturer sets the levels which will give the best trade between performance and reliability but as with any manufactured product, each one if different. A mapper looks at what your engine is doing and customises the ecu for that engine, releasing power in the process.

A chip on the otherhand or a generic map simply uploaded to the car is another 'one size fits all solution' and doesn't actually take account of how an individual vehicle is able to perform which is why they are cheaper but more dangerous.

Does all that make sense? I've just typed all that without planning it out...

m.

Mate, perfect sense! You have enlightened me into this subject and by-eck, it is even more interesting to me now!!

In my STAR system I can adjust the fuel mixture and such, but I don't know if this would correspond to re-mapping, which I'm sure it doesn't?

I would be very interested to know anyone who has re-mapped a MB using STAR or any other software?

Thanks Martin...

 

[horsesuitedfool]

Additionally - You will find that whereas prior to remap the car would have downshifted when you accelerated in certain conditions it will now not need to as it has increased torque, this also saves fuel usage.

 

[martin_a]

In my STAR system I can adjust the fuel mixture and such, but I don't know if this would correspond to re-mapping, which I'm sure it doesn't?

Depends on the ECU really. Not all can take mapping on the fly like this (although a lot of modern cars can) because you need special software to do it (just like plugging in a diagnostic tool to interogate a problem).

In ye olden days it would simply be tuning - some people better at it than others etc and you don't want a car running too rich (or too lean). If the car is clever enough (and I have to admit I'm new to MB but is suspect anything from 2000 onwards would be as that seems to be the benchmark area) then you should be able to map it with the right software.

With mine the mapper sat in the passenger seat with headphones listening to the pistons for det, and logging air intake, fuelling, emissions etc at all revs until he produced the most even power curve and the one which gave the best response for my engine.

With the Subaru I was able to have a switchable boost too so 225bhp to 275bhp at the touch of a button. Useful in those cars because at motorway speed they are producing full boost so being able to drop the pressure by 0.5bar on a run made me feel better (never noticed a difference on the fuel gauge though!).

m.

 

[bpsorrel]

Took the Hirsched Saab out for a blast this afternoon, and yes, the auto box doesn't down shift as often to accelerate and the take off is much more immediate. When really pushing, when 2000 rpm is hit it bolts forward like a guided missile! And, according to the computer, at no detrement to mpg (unless the computer is being tricked somehow..)

I've got 14 days to decide whether to keep the remap or not - and the big thought is whether the gains (very real I might add) are actually worth what it cost....