Who uses ‘V-Power Diesel’....

[Gazwould]

The reason your mpg is unchanged is because the area of the map used for typical road-load and torque demand (acceleration) operation is unchanged. Plus at normal road load, cars need remarkably little power to drive along, eg at a steady 60mph, a typical car only needs about 15-20hp (12-15kW).

Remapping to use more aggressive settings for areas of the operating envelope where higher load and torque demand are called for increases emissions. This results in much higher emissions during this style of operation. Effectively this is what some of the OEMs may have done under the dieselgate scandal, which has subsequently been highlighted by using a more strenuous drive cycle.

If you think your remapped cars are not making more emissions, think again.

FWIW remapping should be illegal in my opinion, though of course I recognise that it currently isn’t.

Your car, your choice, other people’s lungs.

For the most part I'm requesting an upchange because the engine can pootle along happily at silly low rpm with light throttle due to the increased torque .

The early upchange request can happen 1100 - 1400 rpm .

I can't see this as increasing but decreasing emissions by changing to a higher gear well before the box .

580 Nm and 60+ mpg is a nice combination to have.

 

[GeeJayW]

For the most part I'm requesting an upchange because the engine can pootle along happily at silly low rpm with light throttle due to the increased torque .

The early upchange request can happen 1100 - 1400 rpm .

I can't see this as increasing but decreasing emissions by changing to a higher gear well before the box .

580 Nm and 60+ mpg is a nice combination to have.

Depends perhaps on the bsfc characteristics of the engine as to whether or not there are efficiency gains? But yes, typically using a higher gear (less revs) give lower fuel use at a given road speed/load. There may I guess also be some consideration for NVH or tip-in responsiveness/driveability when it comes to choosing gear selection point?

 

[Gazwould]

I'm sure the twin Lanchester balancer shafts help with this .

 

[Bellow]

This is a tricky one, because if we say that a car cannot be changed from how it was when it was emissions-tested by the manufacturer (and which can also affect various taxes rates), then this creates an issue if fitting wider tyres, or a roof box, or when towing etc.

Not really as the tyres, roof box, towing (and driving style can be included also) only increase CO2 emissions where modifications such a re-maps and emission kit deletions increase NOx. NOx emissions are more serious than cheating a few quid out of the VED - and given the effects on health and the costs to remedy.....

My understanding is that at current modifications (including remap) are not illegal if the car still meets the basic MOT emissions test requirements, and regardless of how much it varies from the manufacturer's original emissions testing (and on which some tax rates are based) after the modifications.

Re-maps aren't illegal true, but the follow on modifications to avoid the ramifications or 'enhance' the re-maps that involve removing or by-passing emissions equipment are and it's a combination of inept and/or corrupt MOT testers that make it possible.

Legally speaking, the vehicle is supposed to operate at throughout its life the emissions rating allocated to it during its homologation and therefor the figure the VED is calculated from. This is taken on trust until or unless the engine is no longer visually similar to the engine it was homologated with. For example, a smart fortwo fitted with a bike engine (quite common) should have to be submitted for SVA (single vehicle approval) and it be re-classed as 'emissions unknown' which puts it into an altogether different VED band. Obviously engine transplants are at the extreme end of a sliding scale with unmodified at the other. In between the two there is a huge grey area that is largely overlooked. I'm pretty sure an MOT tester can refuse to test a vehicle they believe to be operating (substantially) outwith the original CO2 classification and if they did, SVA and re-classification is required.

 

[Bellow]

For the most part I'm requesting an upchange because the engine can pootle along happily at silly low rpm with light throttle due to the increased torque .

The early upchange request can happen 1100 - 1400 rpm .

I can't see this as increasing but decreasing emissions by changing to a higher gear well before the box .

580 Nm and 60+ mpg is a nice combination to have.

Does not compute.
If the required torque is 'light' than no re-map required for an early up-shift. If there's only sufficient torque when the ECU has been re-mapped than that points to increased NOx. Which is increased emissions. And is precisely the emission that is driving cars out of city centres.

 

[TeddyRuxpin]

Every time I see a pre-DPF car (or worse - a car that I know should have had a DPF fitted and has been removed by some inconsiderate bellend who wants his c220 to go a 0.2 seconds faster to 60) I always remark ‘those should be banned’ to my girlfriend as I turn on the air recirculation in reaction to it kicking out its unburnt diesel fuel in front of me.

It’s a fun game we play!

 

[markjay]

Every time I see a pre-DPF car (or worse - a car that I know should have had a DPF fitted and has been removed by some inconsiderate bellend who wants his c220 to go a 0.2 seconds faster to 60) I always remark ‘those should be banned’ to my girlfriend as I turn on the air recirculation in reaction to it kicking out its unburnt diesel fuel in front of me.

It’s a fun game we play!

I would hazard a guess that the majority of DPF removals (or gutting) are the result of the combination of an old Diesel car run on a tight budget and a hefty potential bill for faulty DPF replacement.

 

[Trickythemerc]

I filled up with V-Power diesel this week for a run from Manchester to Dumbarton and back. I managed 49.7 MPG and average speed 52 MPH

 

[DSM10000]

I filled up with V-Power diesel this week for a run from Manchester to Dumbarton and back. I managed 49.7 MPG and average speed 52 MPH

Unless you repeat the exact journey(which is impossible in terms of traffic, weather etc) with "ordinary" diesel you cannot say that those figures are due to the fuel though.

 

[W1ghty]

Every time I see a pre-DPF car (or worse - a car that I know should have had a DPF fitted and has been removed by some inconsiderate bellend who wants his c220 to go a 0.2 seconds faster to 60) I always remark ‘those should be banned’ to my girlfriend as I turn on the air recirculation in reaction to it kicking out its unburnt diesel fuel in front of me.

It’s a fun game we play!

Don’t say that buddy , I’ve got a very good condition pre dpf car with only 112k on the clock . If I had the money I would order a new car but i don’t so I’ll keep the old girl going . She’s running very well on supermarket fuel and some added cetane

 

[suty455]

The reason your mpg is unchanged is because the area of the map used for typical road-load and torque demand (acceleration) operation is unchanged. Plus at normal road load, cars need remarkably little power to drive along, eg at a steady 60mph, a typical car only needs about 15-20hp (12-15kW).

Remapping to use more aggressive settings for areas of the operating envelope where higher load and torque demand are called for increases emissions. This results in much higher emissions during this style of operation. Effectively this is what some of the OEMs may have done under the dieselgate scandal, which has subsequently been highlighted by using a more strenuous drive cycle.

If you think your remapped cars are not making more emissions, think again.

FWIW remapping should be illegal in my opinion, though of course I recognise that it currently isn’t.

Your car, your choice, other people’s lungs.

Ok so to some extent I can agree with you, if you take a basic map and stick it on all cars with the intention of just upping power all it tends to do is squirt in more fuel to make those gains, however the point your missing out is if the map is bespoke to the vehicle it can be far more efficient than the factory setup which in itself is just a average best of setup to cover many climes and fuel standards that the car may be sold in.
The other point your missing out is my car makes more power and more torque but uses no more fuel than standard if driven sensibly, its more optimised than a standard one size fits all map, bit like a made to measure suit, sure an off the peg will fit, but a made to measure fits much better.
My E350 uses no more fuel than standard in fact I would say it uses slightly less because it doesnt need to do regens anymore.
Shell still great

 

[Gazwould]

But your missing out on lovely bore wash .

 

[markjay]

EDIT

 

[GeeJayW]

Ok so to some extent I can agree with you, if you take a basic map and stick it on all cars with the intention of just upping power all it tends to do is squirt in more fuel to make those gains, however the point your missing out is if the map is bespoke to the vehicle it can be far more efficient than the factory setup which in itself is just a average best of setup to cover many climes and fuel standards that the car may be sold in.
The other point your missing out is my car makes more power and more torque but uses no more fuel than standard if driven sensibly, its more optimised than a standard one size fits all map, bit like a made to measure suit, sure an off the peg will fit, but a made to measure fits much better.
My E350 uses no more fuel than standard in fact I would say it uses slightly less because it doesnt need to do regens anymore.
Shell still great

I don’t really care whether you agree with me or not. I understand what remapping is and what it can and cannot achieve.

Q. Do you carry out the remapping yourself?

 

[markjay]

The bottom line is that (currently) remapping isn't illegal and isn't an MOT failure (unless it increases the emissions tested at MOT time above the legal limit).

DPF removal, however, is both illegal and an MOT fail (if detected).

Now, you could argue that removing the DPF is actually better for the environment, that's your prerogative, but until you manage to convince the Department for Transport and Parliament to this effect, the situation remains as per above.

 

[suty455]

I don’t really care whether you agree with me or not. I understand what remapping is and what it can and cannot achieve.

Q. Do you carry out the remapping yourself?

No it was done on a rolling road by somebody who knows what they are doing and has been doing it for many years, I guess we agree to disagree I know from the figures and exhaust data the car runs better and more efficiently than it did, the Cat and the DPF (these have both) were 50% blocked which was doing the EGT and therefore the Turbo no favours at all am happy with it.

 

[suty455]

The bottom line is that (currently) remapping isn't illegal and isn't an MOT failure (unless it increases the emissions tested at MOT time above the legal limit).

DPF removal, however, is both illegal and an MOT fail (if detected).

Now, you could argue that removing the DPF is actually better for the environment, that's your prerogative, but until you manage to convince the Department of Transport and Parliament to this effect, the situation remains as per above.

As above

 

[GeeJayW]

No it was done on a rolling road by somebody who knows what they are doing and has been doing it for many years, I guess we agree to disagree I know from the figures and exhaust data the car runs better and more efficiently than it did, the Cat and the DPF (these have both) were 50% blocked which was doing the EGT and therefore the Turbo no favours at all am happy with it.

Ah ok, got it…

 

[geoffus]

My E350 uses no more fuel than standard in fact I would say it uses slightly less because it doesnt need to do regens anymore.

How do you know that ? I can’t tell when mine does a regen.

 

[GeeJayW]

How do you know that ? I can’t tell when mine does a regen.

Because it no longer has a DPF perhaps?