I mean,
- why don't manufacturers get it right anyway.
- anyone tried one - do they do what they promise
- do they wreck your engine
- ruin your warrantee
- leave you uninsured
??
|
Not sure what you mean?
As in chipping or remapping the ECU to get better BHP or power delivery at low revs for example?
or
A software patch added when the car goes in for routine servicing?
|
|
Yes - the former - chipping or remapping the ECU to get better BHP or power delivery at low revs ...
|
>> - why don't manufacturers get it right anyway.
they go for a safe mean, and of course they sometime provide a hotter chip (which costs them peanuts) for extra hundred or thousands of pounds!
>> - anyone tried one - do they do what they promise
Most provide more HP for sure.
>> - do they wreck your engine
Might do, might not - your risk
>> - ruin your warrantee
IF discovered, yes.
>> - leave you uninsured
possibly if you dont declare, Investigators may check for unofficial remaps in the even of a claim
>>
>>
|
>> Investigators may check for unofficial remaps in the even of
>> a claim
I wonder how often they do that. I guess it's more likely for large claims, and/or if there are outward signs of 'tuning'. If you leave your car looking as it left the factory then perhaps it's less likely to be checked?
|
>> >> Investigators may check for unofficial remaps in the even of
>> >> a claim
>>
>> I wonder how often they do that.
Depends on how keen they are not to pay out. NOt sure if police investigators check them in the event of a serious incident, but its an option open to them.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 2 Aug 11 at 13:23
|
>> I wonder how often they do that. I guess it's more likely for large claims,
>> and/or if there are outward signs of 'tuning'. If you leave your car looking as
>> it left the factory then perhaps it's less likely to be checked?
>>
When Mrs ON had a minor bump I saw the insurers checklist that the repairer had to complete, it was comprehensive, including any non standard equipment, and down to the tread depth on each tyre. I would think that for a big claim the fine tooth comb would be rolled out.
|
>> - why don't manufacturers get it right anyway.
They do, they tune the engine to survive abuse.
>> - anyone tried one - do they do what they promise
No, they must work or the providers would go broke.
>> - do they wreck your engine
They can in extreme cases - see Youtube.
>> - ruin your warrantee
They can, some ECU's log changes.
>> - leave you uninsured
see above answer.
|
Chpping may increase BHP, but there is a reason they are tuned like they are in the factory:-
1) To give the engine as much as possible life, so things are not too stressed.
2) To help the car achieve a good emiisions rating for cheap tax
3) To help with the overall drivability.
4) Marketing reasons
5) More BHP may also need better brakes etc, so on cheaper versions they may detune them to avoid the need for better brakes, tyres etc.
|
I had my 2003 Passat PD130 remapped to 150(ish). One of those things I wish had been done years ago; the car was much more pleasant to drive, especially when cold (no more jerky gearchanges) and had seemingly limitless power.
The box plugged into the OBD port and sucked out the car's brain which I emailed off to the tuning company to modify. They sent it back by return email, plugged the box back in and siphoned the brain back into the ECU.
With my insurance company up to a 25% power increase is allowed with no change in premium.
Job done - and the car is now on 140,000 miles on the original clutch.
Last edited by: Alfa Floor on Tue 2 Aug 11 at 13:54
|
>>
>> Job done - and the car is now on 140,000 miles on the original clutch.
>>
That's done well. The clutch is generally the limiting factor on the PD for remapping purposes. The 1.9 will safely go to over 180 bhp on standard internals, but the clutch is only good for about 170-175. Even then, the mapping has to be done carefully to avoid too much of a step in torque delivery.
I had a brief passenger ride in a Fabia vRS PD130 running a Revo 175 bhp map a while ago, and it actually made me laugh out loud under boost. Stupidly quick car. Best bit was, it retained the flexible delivery of the standard engine. There was just a lot more of it, everywhere.
Would love to get my Golf done, but SWMBO would divorce me.
|
I would be wary of being an 'early adopter' of a remap on a new design of engine. However for older engines (Ford Cosworth YB, Subaru Boxer, VAG PD etc etc), which have been around for years, run up millions of remapped miles, and have already been blown up and destroyed in big enough numbers to understand where the limitations are, a moderate remap is perfectly safe.
|
...in big enough numbers to understand where the limitations are, a moderate remap is perfectly safe...
That's my understanding.
I would avoid chips, but no reason not have a remap, provided you can find someone to do it professionally.
I've read a few posts from people who've had remaps, and all seem pleased with the results.
Insurance should be informed, and the result is usually a modest hike of around £30.
I've thought about it for the CC3, which has a tried and tested engine.
But then I think about the DMF, the cost - about £400 - and the difficulty of finding the right person to do it.
|
Anyone remember the old stage 1, 2, 3 camshafts for BL engines?
The stage one seemed to have performance, economy and smoothness benefits. Perhaps someone bothered to do it properly?
|
>> a moderate remap is perfectly safe.
Nicer to drive than a peaky map developed for absolute peak figures on the dyno too. Win win.
|
...Nicer to drive than a peaky map...
Agreed, and may help with towing, too, which might be in the OP's mind.
|
I though that most engines came from the factory tuned to run on bog-standard unleaded/diesel and have to be able to run on the 5% bio-content stuff.
A chip or remap is designed to optimise the engine's characteristics for Super/V-Power/Ultimate fuels, which then means it will only run on the higher priced stuff but will extract the maximum performance from it.
|
...I though that most engines came from the factory tuned to run on bog-standard unleaded/diesel...
The thinking seems to be engines are factory tuned to run without damage on slightly lower quality fuel than our bog-standard.
Owners who have had remaps will know better than me, but I believe a remapped car will run fine on bog-standard fuel.
But it's certainly another reason to go for a mild remap, rather than an extreme one.
|
|
Why bother. Apart from rural parts of Scotland early on a Sunday morning, no matter how quickly your car goes or is made to you'll come up behind something to slow you down before long. Even if you don't there'll be a camera eventually. Might as well kick back, put your favourite radio station on and go with the flow. No fun in it these days.
|
>> Might
>> as well kick back, put your favourite radio station on and go with the flow.
It's a good atitude to have Humph, but people like Skoda and DP don't strike me as the 'kick back' type - more like 'kick down'.
:)
|
I can see some value in extra overtaking urge - could save all that tiresome changing down.
|
>> I can see some value in extra overtaking urge - could save all that tiresome
>> changing down.
>>
tiresome changing down is one of the reasons I don't see the point or 6 or 7 speed manuals... just have a better spread of gears in the box, plus less gears equals a stronger or smaller box.
More gears in a row means thinner gears (weaker) or a longer mainshaft....
|
>> I mean,
>> - why don't manufacturers get it right anyway.
Nothing to do with getting it right, they allow plenty of safety margin
>> - anyone tried one - do they do what they promise
Yes, on two cars
>> - do they wreck your engine
Nope. The first one was on the car from 91k to 174k (when the car was sold), and had the original turbo until 169k, when it was changed as a precaution
>> - ruin your warrantee
Not necessarily if they are manufacturer-approved
>> - leave you uninsured
No, unless you "forget" to tell xour insurance comapny
This is old ground. Done properly by a reputable company they invariably improve the driving experience IMHO.
Do you have a hidden agenda or are you simply asking the question to pass the time? :-)
|
>> Do you have a hidden agenda or are you simply asking the question to pass
>> the time? :-)
Well not so hidden as others have spotted; 1.6D car and towing limits in previous posts. The ECU upgrade aparently makes it like the 2 litre version which would have more grunt for pulling.
See www.rica-uk.com/viewcar.aspx?vehicle=180
They also say that because the power is coming in at lower revs if you continue to drive gently you should also get better mpg.
This particular upgrade isn't exactly going to stress the rest of the car.
|
...Well not so hidden as others have spotted...
It was a rather snotty question from Mike H, in my view.
Fair play to car4play for the temperate response.
Last edited by: Iffy on Wed 3 Aug 11 at 09:53
|
|
Agreed. But we are supposed to be chilled about such things over here - or at least try to be ;-)
|
... But we are supposed to be chilled about such things over here - or at least try to be ;-)...
That's called leading from the front.
If only all of us - including me - would follow that lead more regularly.
|
....and so say all of us:)
Pat
|
Sorry folks, it wasn't intended to be snotty! It was just such a generic question, and the ground that it covered has been discussed here before, I simply wondered why the question was being asked. I accept it was badly phrased, so apologies for that.
If it's of any use, I'll expand on my own reply. To me, the phrase "ECU upgrade" has always meant "ECU remap", so my answer was in that context. The two cars I have owned with remaps have been a Saab 2.0 low-pressure turbo, remapped from 150bhp to 192bhp (can't remember the torque figures). The power/torque increase is achieved mainly by the remap allowing higher boost. This remap was supplied as a standard accessory by Saab, and hence wouldn't have invalidated the warranty, although mine was fitted at c.94,000 miles and the car was still going strong at 174,000 when I sold it. The clutch was replaced at c.99,000 and stayed with the car until it went. The original turbo was replaced at 169,000 simply as a precaution since it was beginning to smoke slightly.
My current car is a Saab Aero estate automatic, gently remapped from 250bhp/350Nm to 265bhp/420Nm (more than most diesels). This was done at c.76,000 and the car has to date covered c.161,000 with no mechanical issues, still on original turbo, and no autobox problems.
In both cases, the economy was unaffected but the extra performance was certainly felt, particularly on the 2.0 as it was such a significant hike.
Hope this background helps, and hopefully it's snot-free ;-)
|
No worries, and it shows it pays to give you the benefit of being snot free. ;-)
I did actually try to search this site for ECU upgrades before posting, but clearly was searching the wrong thing. "Remap" turns up the previous discussions - so apologies for not checking out these first. I was just using the phrase "ECU upgrade" because that is what RICA called it. I accept "Remap" would be more technically correct.
Overal it seems that for our underpowered Volvo 1.6D it would be a great idea, because like Pat in her post it should hopefully make a heavy car with a small engine drive much better.
Reading around it seems that the other solutions that involve adding a second chip are not quite so good because the main ECU can end up fighting with the added chip so to speak. Also some of these other solutions don't seem to balance as many variables in the optimisation mix.
Last edited by: car4play on Wed 3 Aug 11 at 19:01
|
>> I did actually try to search this site for ECU upgrades
Which matches, amongst others:
- posts containing the word 'secure'
- posts containing 'upgrades', but not ECU
No options to search for (for example):
- the word 'ecu' rather than just the sequence of letters in any word
- only posts containing both (the word) 'ecu' and 'upgrades'
And if when you click on a post in the results, find it's not what you want and press the back button, you get a prompt about resending the previous page requiring an additional button press (in Firefox).
Any chance of an upgrade?
Last edited by: Focus on Wed 3 Aug 11 at 19:33
|
>> And if when you click on a post in the results, find it's not what you want and press the back button, you get a prompt about resending the previous page requiring an additional button press (in Firefox).
Right click on the link - open in new window or tab?
or hold down either ctrl (opens in new tab) or shift (opens in new window) and click on the link.
Well that's what I do with IE. Firefox must have something similar I'd have thought.
|
>> Right click on the link - open in new window or tab?
>> or hold down either ctrl (opens in new tab) or shift (opens in new window)
>> and click on the link.
Yes, one of those - but I feel I shouldn't have to. I could overlook that if the other features I mentioned were present :)
|
>> Yes, one of those - but I feel I shouldn't have to.
Far easier though as it means you can open several links at a time without having to keep going back to open another one in the hope of finding the right one.
|
>> Far easier though as it means you can open several links at a time without
>> having to keep going back to open another one in the hope of finding the
>> right one.
Well I prefer the single-threaded approach myself :) Anyway, the main problem as I see it is with the search engine itself rather than the handling of the results - do you know if that's going to be improved in c4p mk2?
|
>> do you know if that's going to be improved in c4p mk2?
You know as much as me about that.
|
>> >> do you know if that's going to be improved in c4p mk2?
>>
>> You know as much as me about that.
Fingers crossed then...
|
>>Any chance of an upgrade?
No need.
type
site:www.car4play.com ecu upgrade -secure
into google. Seaches only the chosen site, and you can exclude results triggered by words containing a search term by putting them in with a minus sign in front.
|
>> >>Any chance of an upgrade?
>>
>> No need.
Useful info, ta. But if one of the aims of this site is to promote its software (is that correct?), it seems odd that its own search engine is significantly outperformed by a relatively simple google search.
C'mon Mr Khoo, show us what you can do :)
|
Important to distinguish between
1) a 10p resistor in a box as sold on ebay for £10. Works by interfering with the airflow sensor and fooling the ECU into overfuelling more or less indiscriminately. Best avoided.
2) Tuning box. Not as good as a remap. Can work well, but because they work by modifying ECU output they can't make anything happen before it otherwise would - specifically the timing of the injection pulses. Therefore a compromise compared to a remap.
3) remap (firmware changes) for the ECU. Gives more options that the tuning box for similar cost - e.g. rail pressure, boost, injection timing, amount of fuel injected.
I would consider the remap for towing if I thought I needed more oomph. Pal with a 330D coupe has a Superchips remap with impressive results. Claims he needs it for effortless overtaking, though I'm not sure why that was a problem anyway with that car.
Other than as a boost for an underpowered towcar I don't think I'd get much value, like Humph - my car goes plenty fast enough to get me into trouble even if I could find a clear road.
|
car4play
Are you saying you bought a Volvo 1.6D and fine it not so good for towing.... is this surprising? Have I missed something?
Looked at say a Volvo S60 as my next car... that comes with the 1.6D as a configuration as does the S80. Too big and heavy for that engine. Towing with it? Not sure.
What Volvo is this is.. Did I miss in the short thread?
:-) I had you down as a bright/intelligent person from conversation. You didn't go on CO2 alone and believe a 1.6D was good for towing?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Fri 5 Aug 11 at 00:33
|
I think it's a V50 from references in other threads.
I'm prepared to be convinced on the S80 1.6D. Seems daft on paper, I know, but I don't tow and for 95% of the use I'd put one to it might be just what I need.
|
I know someone with the 1.6D in a V50 and he's more than happy. Apologies for my tongue in cheek comment above :-)
If it's a V50 and not towing then the 1.6D is probably fine. But depending on what you're towing isn't a V50 a bit small/light?
|
>>But depending on what you're towing isn't a V50 a bit small/light?
You could say that about anything;-)
The towing limit for a V50 DRIVe is 1300Kg, but the kerbweight is only 1400 or so. The towing limit isn't ridiculously high though, and while it won't win any races, if you stay within that it's tenable, even for a difficult trailer like a caravan, if carefully loaded.
I know a chap who tows a 1200Kg Eriba quite happily with 90bhp Roomster. He does know what he's doing which helps.
|
I have to resist the urge to be sarcastic replying here even though it is really tempting... forum rules and all that. ;-)
In short, company cars aren't financially worth it unless you do loads of miles.
Cars under 110gm CO2 are though for tax reasons. I assume you know the rules so I won't elaborate here.
That eliminates most cars, but Volvo managed to get the 1.6DriveE range in at 109gm CO2. It's about the only practical car in that band.
So once you have the car which is ideal in every other way, it is a matter of seeing what else can be done with it for occasional use.
As more cars are now failling within that band I hear there are moves to set the limit on tax allowances to under 100gm CO2? I am sure if we all drove electric cars there would be a tax on those too.
|
>> it is a matter of seeing what else can be done with it for occasional use.
Hire something?
I know a lot of people who got cars that emit less than 115g/km for tax purposes. Come 2012/13 the tax will jump as to get the 10% rate it has to emit 100g/km or less.
I think the BMW 3 series efficient dynamics currently emits 109g/km and would probably make a better towing car? But as a saloon not as practical as a V50.
|
Ever tried hiring a car with a tow bar?
The tax limit is also 110gm not 115. The personal tax isn't so much the issue, but the 100% tax deduction on the original purchase.
The BMW wasn't available at the time - and is a much more expensive car for the same options and as you say is a saloon
Last edited by: car4play on Mon 8 Aug 11 at 12:15
|
There must be good tax breaks for companies for the 120g/km and 160g/km levels too. We get offered a pseudo higher car grade if we take a car emitting less than 160 and a further increase if it's 120 or less. So there has to be something in it for the company too.
I was never going to get a car emitting as low as your V50 because they are either underpowered, are a bit small or I plain don't like them. And therefore the difference in BIK tax levels next year is reduced. An Audi A4 diesel could slip into the 13% rate this year and jump to 17% next year. My 170PS car will be 18% this year and 19% next year.... when I get it that is.
|
It's totally different if it is your own company because then one is interested in the original tax deduction on purchase and the benefit to both company and individual. It is a huge difference. I don't really care about the BIK tax level you mention. That's a bonus if there is one.
.. you really push me to get into some kind of stupid argument with you - but really I will try to resist again...
Company tax deduction on V50 1.6DriveE - 100% of value of say £25K.
Tax deduction on V50 1.6 standard model, or any other variant - 15% of purchase value (i.e. around £3.5K). This gets wiped out by the deduction on personal tax allowance for that car.
i.e. No contest.
|
>> I have to resist the urge to be sarcastic replying here even though it is
>> really tempting... forum rules and all that. ;-)
>>
Why did you feel tempted to use sarcasm ?
>> In short, company cars aren't financially worth it unless you do loads of miles.
Depends on your perspective, I agree that it pays to choose carefully but the maths can be made to 'add up' on a wide range of cars up to and including decently powered Volvos and 6 cylinder BMWs. It also results in what I consider (but do not expect others to necessarily agree with) motoring abominations like PD engined convertibles and 1.6D V70DrivEs.....
In the end it comes down to money, you perception of risk and assuming you can afford it you have many choices to pay for your motoring however you want - either via BIK or otherwise.
>> Cars under 110gm CO2 are though for tax reasons. I assume you know the rules
>> so I won't elaborate here.
Peculiar to business purchases which I would suggest the majority of motorists do not have access to in the course of their everyday lives.
>> That eliminates most cars, but Volvo managed to get the 1.6DriveE range in at 109gm
>> CO2. It's about the only practical car in that band.
Managed below 109gm - but at what price ?
>> So once you have the car which is ideal in every other way, it is
>> a matter of seeing what else can be done with it for occasional use.
Don't tow, by your own admission in its standard form your car isn't ideal for it
>> As more cars are now failling within that band I hear there are moves to
>> set the limit on tax allowances to under 100gm CO2? I am sure if we
>> all drove electric cars there would be a tax on those too.
>>
I suspect this impacts very few people, road tax (for motorists unable to benefit from an accounting balance sheet related tax-shield) is dwarfed by depreciation costs when running a newish car.
|
I also disagree about it being worthless to have a company car unless you do high mileage. I don't have particularly high mileage - far from it in recent years. But if I wanted to have the same car I am getting as my next company car then it would cost me more than going down the company car route. I would pay less tax without the car and would get a generous allowance (taxed though). But the following for a brand new car would be expensive:
- Financing a £29000 car
- Depreciation on a £29000 car
- Annual insurance - guess at at least £1200pa but probably more
- Servicing
- Tyres (£150-200 per tyre)
- Road fund licence
And then the company car is less hassle all round. I did get a quote on a personal lease deal on a lower spec model of the same car (probably £25k). Deposit of about £2000 needed and then over £550pm for three years. After which I'd either hand it back or pay the balloon payment.
|
I think we are talking cross-purposes here. What I am referring to is if you are the owner of a company rather than just an employee. There are many people in this situatlon though so it is relevant to them.
If as an employee your company offers you a car, then it is nearly quits as to whether it is financially worth it for you. You give good reasons as to why it is worthwhile in your case.
However, if it is your own business, then it is a completely different ball game. One then has to balance taking money from your own business in salary (having paid NI contributions for employer and employee, and personal tax on that money + ongoing service costs with VAT) or whether to get the company to buy it for you. In this case the company car capital allowances become significant because 100% of the value can be written off in the first year.
See www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1086394511&type=RESOURCES
The 100% allowance on low-CO2 vehicles is a big deal when you do the sums. The 20% band isn't worth it and the 10% above that definitely isn't.
The point is that up to the Volvo 1.6DriveE, in that band you only had Priuses, Smart cars and the like. So it was really quite something that Volvo got a reasonably practical large car into that band. One has to keep it in proportion to what else one could have had that is financially worthwhile. One then has to live with the other limitations. Towing would never be its strong point. But for a light 800Kg caravan on occasional use it won't be too bad, and a lot better than a high reving auto petrol...
The ECU upgrade makes it like a 2. litre which is clearly better matched for towing.
I don't buy into the whole green agenda on these things, but am purely looking at what can be reasonably and legitimately obtained for the money. In all other aspects it is a fantastic car - and in any decision one has to take the good with the bad.
|
Have you noticed that more capable Volvo engines have decent CO2 ratings now ? A V70 D5 with a more suitable (for towing) 215PS has a CO2 output of 134g now - perhaps there's less need to have a 1.6D these days, there's also a D3 with a reasonable 163PS in the range too, although it actually has higher CO2 emissions than the D5 and so is a band higher for BIK.
I've never been a caravanner and possibly never will be, I did (and will in the future) tow a camping / bike / boat trailer though. In my childhood I remember being stuck behind slow moving caravans towed by underpowered cars, I suspect the 'bad image' of caravanners as motorists has something to do with this ?
Last edited by: idle_chatterer on Sun 7 Aug 11 at 02:50
|
Are ECU upgrades a bad idea? - VxFan