Chipping a normal motor will make no difference...

[G100extreme 0]

Did you have a "before" printout, so you can compare before and after...?

 

The main reason remaps run smoother is because the ignition is usually retarded a bit and the mixture is richened up a tad. You'll find there wont be any power difference, but the excess fuel hanging around will mean there'll be no possible 'lean out' problems, making it feel like the engine responds faster when not being loaded up. It gives the impression there is more power...

 

In hot weather you may even notice a loss in power. COld starting maybe easier in really cold conditions.

 

What you need is one of those portable mixture analysers rigged up to your O2 (lambda) sensor, to measure the mix as it comes out of the engine.

 

I guess most after market chips (haven't tested them) allow for more breathing mods, and richen up the mix to compensate. Saying that though, the difference is only really noticable at WOT, as the ECU will try and keep the mix just right at medium throttles using the feedback signal you get from the O2 sensor. The easiest way to avoid chipping the car and using the original engine designers map (where they spent over a billion doing it) is to fool the computer into thinking that the mixture is too lean, by placing a little black box between the O2 sensor output and the input to the ECU. You can get a normal, economy and power switch type that does more or less the same thing that re chipping achieves. It simply leans out, connects through or richens up the mix.

 

-f

 

So here's a question - I have the AMD remap and a K&N panel filter (95 VR6). AMD printout showed 213bhp - (hmm) !! Seemed smoother after this, but I did not have a hugely noticeable difference in performance. The filter - (which was done later) did though with much better throttle response.

 

So - if I now add a larger throttle body - will the benefits of the remap have a bigger effect???

[exturbo2003 0]

okay so your saying that technically it makes no more power but are you talking top power or through the rev range. if they are just dumping in extra fuel as you suggest then it will delay the flame burn and will therfore make it torquer which in turn will make the car quicker through the gears and on the road, tho BHP max maybe the same.

i personally dont think that £300 + for a na chip is value but £100 is. also if the engine is smoothed out then its life span should increase making it profatable over time

[beavis 0]

I guess most after market chips (haven't tested them) allow for more breathing mods, and richen up the mix to compensate. Saying that though, the difference is only really noticable at WOT, as the ECU will try and keep the mix just right at medium throttles using the feedback signal you get from the O2 sensor. The easiest way to avoid chipping the car and using the original engine designers map (where they spent over a billion doing it) is to fool the computer into thinking that the mixture is too lean, by placing a little black box between the O2 sensor output and the input to the ECU. You can get a normal, economy and power switch type that does more or less the same thing that re chipping achieves. It simply leans out, connects through or richens up the mix.

 

Right .. merry xmas everyone.. I'm pissed...

 

Even in my pissed incoherent state i'd have to disagree with a few points. The orignal design engine map has had vast amounts of funds ploughed into them admitedly, but the objectives of the manufaturer original map have many factors which are not related to performance. Drive by noise levels and emmisions being two major role players.

Sure the o2 sensor keeps mixture in order at part throttle, but the o2 correction can also be altered in a map if a map is created correctly. A original manufaturers map may have a part throttle correction on the o2 which keeps things way on the lean side for a few hundred rpm to ensure that a vechicle meets particular emmison restrictions for its market. Ignition timing is altered on some cars to lessern torque at lower RPM's to eliviate stress on running gear such as gerboxs and subsequent warrenty claims for premeture failures.

Why do you crudly want to interupt senders signals? Most systems ignore o2 sensor on WOT so no gains will be seen by altering the input signal. If you did richern up the mixture this way you would just exagerate the trends of the original map, effectivly plot a mixture line slightly richer but following the same trends so you would not iron out any discrepencies in the map, just change the base line. You could have a integigent box that altered input vs rpm I suppose, but to go to that extreme you may as well just do it properly in the map.

Chips are never going to give you the claimed 10bhp+ figure that are claimed, quite aware of that, but you can gain power/torque by ironing out original design factors in the map that are written in for emisions. A 2bhp/5ft/lb torque increase at 3000 rpm will noticibly make the car more perkey and drivable. Which is really the the goal you are looking to achive.

Basically ignoring all technical shite.. if a engine has been mapped by a car manufaturer for out and out performance and that only then I guess there is no point in chipping a car as no or tiny gains will be made as some one else done the homework, but in this policy/regulation/Legislation riddled socoity we live in this prety picture is never the case, hence 9 times outta ten gains can be made from chipping a stock motor. Not pulling power from thin air, but carfully ironing out altered map code that was intentionally written in to achive alterior objectives.

Anyhow.. merry fooking xmas ya all.. i'm off to bed as the bottle of JD has just run out and my ECU needs a break as it's processors are getting fryed.

[exturbo2003 0]

I guess most after market chips (haven't tested them) allow for more breathing mods, and richen up the mix to compensate. Saying that though, the difference is only really noticable at WOT, as the ECU will try and keep the mix just right at medium throttles using the feedback signal you get from the O2 sensor. The easiest way to avoid chipping the car and using the original engine designers map (where they spent over a billion doing it) is to fool the computer into thinking that the mixture is too lean, by placing a little black box between the O2 sensor output and the input to the ECU. You can get a normal, economy and power switch type that does more or less the same thing that re chipping achieves. It simply leans out, connects through or richens up the mix.

 

Right .. merry xmas everyone.. I'm pissed...

 

Even in my pissed incoherent state i'd have to disagree with a few points. The orignal design engine map has had vast amounts of funds ploughed into them admitedly, but the objectives of the manufaturer original map have many factors which are not related to performance. Drive by noise levels and emmisions being two major role players.

Sure the o2 sensor keeps mixture in order at part throttle, but the o2 correction can also be altered in a map if a map is created correctly. A original manufaturers map may have a part throttle correction on the o2 which keeps things way on the lean side for a few hundred rpm to ensure that a vechicle meets particular emmison restrictions for its market. Ignition timing is altered on some cars to lessern torque at lower RPM's to eliviate stress on running gear such as gerboxs and subsequent warrenty claims for premeture failures.

Why do you crudly want to interupt senders signals? Most systems ignore o2 sensor on WOT so no gains will be seen by altering the input signal. If you did richern up the mixture this way you would just exagerate the trends of the original map, effectivly plot a mixture line slightly richer but following the same trends so you would not iron out any discrepencies in the map, just change the base line. You could have a integigent box that altered input vs rpm I suppose, but to go to that extreme you may as well just do it properly in the map.

Chips are never going to give you the claimed 10bhp+ figure that are claimed, quite aware of that, but you can gain power/torque by ironing out original design factors in the map that are written in for emisions. A 2bhp/5ft/lb torque increase at 3000 rpm will noticibly make the car more perkey and drivable. Which is really the the goal you are looking to achive.

Basically ignoring all technical shite.. if a engine has been mapped by a car manufaturer for out and out performance and that only then I guess there is no point in chipping a car as no or tiny gains will be made as some one else done the homework, but in this policy/regulation/Legislation riddled socoity we live in this prety picture is never the case, hence 9 times outta ten gains can be made from chipping a stock motor. Not pulling power from thin air, but carfully ironing out altered map code that was intentionally written in to achive alterior objectives.

Anyhow.. merry fooking xmas ya all.. i'm off to bed as the bottle of JD has just run out and my ECU needs a break as it's processors are getting fryed.

 

as i said but put in a professional and educated way. cheers steve that should keep him quiet for a while :?

[G100extreme 0]

Right .. merry xmas everyone.. I'm pissed...

 

Even in my pissed incoherent state i'd have to disagree with a few points. The orignal design engine map has had vast amounts of funds ploughed into them admitedly, but the objectives of the manufaturer original map have many factors which are not related to performance. Drive by noise levels and emmisions being two major role players.

+

snip

+

Basically ignoring all technical shite.. if a engine has been mapped by a car manufaturer for out and out performance and that only then I guess there is no point in chipping a car as no or tiny gains will be made as some one else done the homework, but in this policy/regulation/Legislation riddled socoity we live in this prety picture is never the case, hence 9 times outta ten gains can be made from chipping a stock motor. Not pulling power from thin air, but carfully ironing out altered map code that was intentionally written in to achive alterior objectives.

Anyhow.. merry fooking xmas ya all.. i'm off to bed as the bottle of JD has just run out and my ECU needs a break as it's processors are getting fryed.

 

Whilst sipping on an iced glass of Bailey's... Merry Xmas to y'all.

 

I have got to agree... It is true. Manufacturers do spend a fortune on getting the map just right for ALL power profiles. Putting in a box between a sensor and the ECU does basically change the position on the map.

 

Think about the poor old engine designer for a sec. If you designed an engine, you would want it to run as well as you could possibly get. Just like when we modify our Corrados, we want the very best we can get out of the car.

 

This means for economy, emissions, smoothness, and power.

 

Marketing department want to be able to brag about the maximum power, whilst being really economical and clean, for the greenies out there. Lots of people make 2L 4 cylinder engines, so the power per litre is a good measuring stick to use. The average nowadays is about 67hp/L. That is the absolute maximum that the power plant can generate at WOT, given the cam profile is setup for low revs and regular driving.

 

Each engine is designed to produce as much power as it is possibly is able to generate. If I didn't map an engine out to produce the maximum it could produce, I wouldn't be doing my job right... Do you see what I mean- It makes sense for a manufacturer to tune an engine to produce the highest possible power per litre.

 

As to control emissions- use a big low restriction cat.

Noise- a low restriction silencer, with resonance box and tuned pipes.

Economy- select cam, compression ratio, combustion cylinder shape, timing profile, EGR, running temperature, mixture profile etc for every possible circumstance, at every RPM.

 

Most ECUs now have over 1Mbyte/word worth of 16 or 32 bit memory locations (all filled) to cover every possible permutation of engine running condition. Think about it. Well over a million possible lookups for any sensor reading. Its mind blowing really. In that way engine manufacturers can guarantee max power for their engine.

 

People keep going on about that mass produced engines are not really that precise, and by remapping an engine you get more power. Put it this way, the journals on your crank were mass produced to an accuracy of around 0.02mm. :shock: That is accurate- a hair is about ten times bigger. The particles of carbon and metal suspended in oil are the smallest part of your engine, which is why that oil needs to be kept clean. A car engine is a very precise machine. It never used to be though... which is why blueprinting used to be so popular.

 

Production engineers take great pride in being able to mass produce a precision machine. They keep bragging about it, even to the extent VW TV ads are featuring men in white coats showing their obsession with how precise their little design works :) Isn't it just great! (ok so they usually wear blue coats...)

 

-f

[beavis 0]

Marketing department want to be able to brag about the maximum power,

-f

 

You do get a few conflicts of interests though in big companies. Marketing departments get the finel say in some matters above the old engine engineers.

I spoke to a chap at Wolfsburg's a couple of years back who was telling me about the Polo G40 when I quizzed him. Out of the box they are 113BHP/111ft/lbs, decent figures for a 1.3.. but the potential for the stock engine is a lot more. The inlet from the airbox to the supercharger has a huge restriction ring formed in the plastic to restrict flow, as has the throttle butterfly plates etc.. Why? To restrict the engine's power output to that of the big brother 8v GTi golf at the time, and to keep the performance figures on paper less that the even bigger brother car the 16v Golf. The G40 had a 2k less price tag the the 16v, marketing did not

want a car with a lesser price tag to out perform more expensive models and to keep the car in a sensible insurance group. Remove the restricters out of the system and a 113BHP car jumps stright up to 127-130bhp.

You don't have to touch the ECU as some nice techie has already written in the ignition and fueling points into the map for you for the circumstance. As you say, they wanted to get the most outta of the engine as they could, just a bit of red tape got in the way.

I used to live next to a chap who worked on the team who developed the maps for the 80's legend the old Cossie. A interesting chareter, in his late 50's and a wealth of information. Again, a simular sort of conflict in that camp, the orginal design spec was for a sub 200bhp motor etc, etc. The maps were written to cap the power of the production car even though maps that safely extracted a lot more power out of the engine had been developed, insurence and marketing policiys had the last say on that aswell. Intresting that his son owned one of his ex company cars from that era, a 240 odd bhp stock motor with one of the OE maps.

There again your companies policies may be different or politics change with time so you can just brew up maps to extract 100% potential.

All these 155mph restricted motors? Seems that engineers have there hands tied in a bit of poltics on these little stumbling points :wink:

[eatthis 0]

put it this way golf r32s use EXACTLY the same engine as an audi s3 afaik but the audi makes somethin like 20 bhp more go figure

i assume its in the mapping

 

i also heard that amd move the temp gauge closer to the engins to get 10 bhp improvement but it dont mean its true lol lets just say im goin stealth and nowhere else

[Mike Edwards 0]

[Mike Edwards 0]

Interestingly, it runs a good deal cooler than it used to when motorway cruising.

 

Haven't managed to do any fuel consumption comparisons though.

 

It does feel this much different though.

[eatthis 0]

hm b4 and after plots look remarkably similer

[dr_mat 0]

hm b4 and after plots look remarkably similer

 

Heh, know where you're comin from.. ;)

[Mike Edwards 0]

Your jealousy is sooo transparent.... :roll: :D

[eatthis 0]

hehe

[kongo127 0]

Lots of joke here... :drinking:

Kind of funny! :)

Keep going! :D

[G100extreme 0]

 

That graph doesn't make sense... :? At low RPMs, the two lines should almost meet if it is a real plot. Think about it... The only thing that should change is at the top end, with the curve being steeper between 2 and 4000 RPMs.

 

uh! hang on a minute- what else has been done to this beast? The graph looks about right for a compressor forced induction engine, where the pulley was changed... or perhaps the exhaust tubes or cam dwell...?

 

Let us into the secret.

 

-frank

[Kevin Bacon 5]

It's standard AFAIK cause I liberated his car of it's AMD mapped ECU and throttle body :D

 

We have a member on here with a standard VR that produces 217bhp....and that's been pretty consistent over quite a few runs and different Rolling roads.

 

You can't guarantee mass produced engines will all behave in exactly the same way. Only companies like AMG can offer such assurance. The engine used in the SLR, E55 and SL55 is hand built and invidually tested. If they don't make the claimed power - minimum - they don't get put into a car, simple as that.

 

So it's not unreasonable to have a notion that there are a few standard engines out there giving more power than they should - for reasons unknown. I know VW bodged quite a few VR engines..... heads not clamped down tightly enough, conrods fitted back to front, poor cylinder boring etc etc....

[dr_mat 0]

That graph doesn't make sense... :? At low RPMs, the two lines should almost meet if it is a real plot. Think about it... The only thing that should change is at the top end, with the curve being steeper between 2 and 4000 RPMs.

...

Let us into the secret.

 

-frank

 

It's pretty widely suspected that the secret is "tweakage" by the rolling road operator in order to impress the people who just forked out 400 notes for a rechip... It's that controversial "rolling resistance" calculation - they add 15 to this figure, and the whole chart moves up by 15bhp. Bingo, happy customer with impressive plot to show the missus when she finds the credit card slips.. ;)

 

My own (Schrick-equipped) VR6 was chipped at stealth to help control the pinking problems in the Schrick zone, and it made no difference to the power graphs. Of course, they should exactly overlay at very low revs (or very closely).

 

And yes, there is natural variance in different engines too, but with the same engine on the same RR it should produce roughly the same figures time and time again unless you've made MAJOR changes to the air flow characteristics, or something is broken or fixed!

[Mike Edwards 0]

Here's what the ecu, throttlebody and shrick was doing...

[Mike Edwards 0]

Oh - and Kev?

 

While the throttlebody and ecu were the ones matched to the Shrick (torque curve as above), they weren't the only non-standard items that I've got.... :D

[Kevin Bacon 5]

LOL! I suspected as much! But your old items are doing a grand job on my engine. Finally I have a VR that can pull the skin off a rice pudding :D

[eatthis 0]

iv got a golf vr6 highline (obd2) iv got a polished obd1 schrick starin at me and the tb piece for obd2 on order i cant wait to fit it i have a straight through zorst with a decatt and induction kit and it made 198 bhp and 187 lb ft at stealth recently cant wait to see what the schrick and remap will do to it

[Mike Edwards 0]

Also - the before (March 2004) and after (June 2004) at the wheel figure shows an increase of a little over 8bhp even though the temperature was more than 10 degrees centigrade warmer and the car was a further 3 months on from its last survice...

 

Like I say - it felt like it had that much more torque.

 

BTW: On the comment about Marketing messing with performance? The new Mini One seems to be showing a ludicrous increase in power with a rechip pretty much independent of supplier. It's a normally aspirated FI engine.

[Joe M 0]

It's a normally aspirated FI engine.

 

:?

[dr_mat 0]

It's a normally aspirated FI engine.

 

Do wot john? ;)

[eatthis 0]

fi always give big bangs per buck u just increase the boost the biggest limitation to na engines is airflow period u can increase the amount of fuel all u like but if theres no more air coming in ur wastin ur time ps at the wheel is the figure that really counts corrected crank bhp is never going to be 100% accurate + its open to abuse