|
There are many reasons why-but mainly to do with insurance and tax classes throughout the world.The calibration must also be able to start easily both when hot and in extreme cold,it must meet emission,smoke,performance and economy targets,be reliable,drive,not just at high speed but at all speeds.In other words a compromize.Do not just think that as members of the EU,for example,it's a level playing field.Most EU countries have their own internal regulations(our C & U for example) and their own way of applying them.Even in the EU regulations,there are clauses telling the inspector to check that the calibration will start and drive,both hot and cold.There are already a number of cars on the market with different levels of performance available using what you would call a "chip".Ford also offer basically a temporary "chip" in some of their calibrations where the fuelling is increased for short periods to improve acceleration.In the UK,you can do almost anything to your car once you have purchased it but in many EU countries,all changes(and I mean all) MUST be reported to the relevant authority and entered in the vehicle's documentation.
Edited by jc2 on 16/04/2009 at 09:18
|
|
Don't forget to tell your insurers. Your cover will be invalid if you don't.
|
|
|
|
Chipping increases bhp - do this in a factory and there will be a subsequent knock on effect of a requirement to change lots of other components - clutch, gearbox, suspension, wheels, tyres etc.
Car makers need to make cars with as many shared components as possible, so engines are tuned to enable this in a cost effective way.
VAG produce a 2.0TDi 140 PD and a 2.0TDi 170 PD engine. The 140 can be chipped to get about 170, but the factory built 170 is a lot more than just an ECU reprogramme.
|
but the factory built 170 is a lot more than just an ECU reprogramme.
That's what the manufacturers would like everyone to believe. Sadly this is rarely the case, with identical engines carrying a different price depending how deep your pockets are.
May not be so with the VAG engines, but most of them are at it these days. My old V70 2.4 was a prime example. Physically identical hardware apart from a slightly different drive ratio separated the 140 and 170 bhp versions. Naturally Volvo charged more for the 170 bhp version that wasn't hamstrung by software...
|
|
|
I'm still unconvinced. I completely understand that manufacturers have to make cars suitable for all markets, fuel standards, driving conditions etc, but they often do market specific trim levels, so it's even simpler to offer market specific fuel maps. It's just software (or rather firmware), after all. Production lines are easily sophisticated enough to install specifically programmed ECUs to cars destined for specific markets. It could even be done post assembly with a flash upgrade, as most of the aftermarket remaps are installed.
If a manufacturer could sell a 140 bhp diesel (for arguments sake) as a 170 bhp version, or even a 200 bhp version with a simple firmware update, it would be a no brainer from a business point of view as they can charge £2-3k more for a product with no increase in material cost whatsoever. There are only two reasons I can think why this doesn't happen at the factory. One is emissions related, and the other is reliability related.
Take the BMW 530d manual. This can be remapped to deliver 560NM of torque, up from 500NM as standard. The same in fact as BMWs own twin turbo 535d, which is auto only because BMW say their manual transmission can't handle 560 NM of torque reliably. Do the tuners know something the manufacturer doesn't, or are BMW being ultra conservative? Would you put your money on it?
I've thought long and hard about getting our Golf done, but as it's me who has to pick up the bill when the extra torque causes a driveshaft, clutch or gearbox to fail sooner than it would otherwise, I'm going to leave it well alone. Yes there are stories of uber mileage examples still running well, but I can name quite a few lifelong 20-a-day smokers who lived well into their 80's with largely good health. It doesn't make it the norm.
Cheers
DP
|
|
I am led to believe that they cripple the engines for marketing reasons. If an engine production's life-span is to last 7 years, they need to develop an engine which will still be sufficient in 7 years time. So they release it at 150BHP, and after a couple of years when it is down the pack compared to rivals, they bump it up to 165, and then a few years after that bump it up to 178. They will do this as competitors gain an advantage. It is the same with computers but with a shorter life-span. They will spend a lot of effort making the car just a bit better than rivals in all driving conditions, and not giving anything away too early.
Edited by Hamsafar on 16/04/2009 at 11:09
|
|
My friend's Alfa 156 was "chipped" - apparently he just imported firmware from Italy because they sold the same car with uprated engine out there. No change to clutch/gearbox/brakes etc, apparently they were the same for all models regardless of engine power output.
|
|
|
|
Snipquote - still not got the hang of only quoting part of the person's post you're replying to I see!
VAG produce a 2.0TDi 140 PD and a 2.0TDi 170 PD engine. The 140 can be chipped to get about 170 but the factory built 170 is a lot more than just an ECU reprogramme.
Prove it with facts please. Often wondered. Not having a go, but facts please.
VBR..........MD
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 21/04/2009 at 01:34
|
|
I know that early mk5 astra 1.9 cdti's were mechanicaly identical throughout the whole car as either 120 or 150 bhp, canyou guess which cost more ? :)
|
|
|
I once read that if you re-chip a car, you MUST service it a the correct intervals religously due to the engine manufacture's tolerances being reduced to get the most out of it.
I'm lead to believe that it's best to chip a car on a dynometer rolling road so it's being chipped to the optimum perofrmance & not chipped to smoke passers by to death with black fumes as caused by overfuelling.
|
To my mind, it's one thing to restore a lower powered derivative of an engine that's been electronically castrated back to an output provided by the manufacturer on anther model with full warranty support (above mentioned Astra 120 to 150 for example, Golf 105 to 130 etc), but quite another to turn up the wick on the higher output model and take it into outputs that the manufacturers themselves don't offer.
Clearly all these modern diesels are restricted by electronics, or the remaps wouldn't be so effective, but I still can't help but wonder why. If it's done for marketing or product positioning purposes, then fair enough, but if it's through component strength or longevity concerns, that's another matter altogether.
As this information isn't released by manufacturers, there has to be an element of crossing fingers and hoping, even with the most professional of tuners.
Edited by DP on 21/04/2009 at 00:51
|
It is best to get it done on a rolling road. I wouldn't go near a black box plug-in chip. These simply increase torque and power indiscrimately across the rev range and can cause broken driveshafts and excessive smoke.
Paramount performance in Slough come highly recommended by friends of mine. The engine is remapped properly.
Also, it's worth noting that improvements in fuel consumption come only with considerate driving. If you make use of the extra power you will use extra fuel. You don't get power for nothing.
|
i was looking into buying an Audi Allroad a few years back, and thought that the 2.5tdi was a little lacking. The dealer said, when i asked about chipping, that they often sent cars down the road for a remap.
Anyway, didn't change the car but got a 184bhp 530d chipped by the "standard" 20%. Now done about 35k miles with it and 100k in total and things seem to be OK still. Got rid of the nasty flat spot that I used to have in 1st and 2nd gear and generally a much nicer drive.
|
|
|
|
Snipquote - still not got the hang of only quoting part of the person's post you're replying to I see!
You're wrong DD. I usually do. No need for your tone now was there?
MD
|
No need for your tone now was there?
After editing several posts yesterday, yours unfortuantely was the straw that broke the camels back. I apolgise for the sarcastic comment in my edit, in hindsight I should have put a smiley instead of an exclamation mark.
|
I apolgise for the sarcastic comment in my edit in hindsight I should have put a smiley instead of an exclamation mark.
Can't be a great job. Thankless task at times I guess. Accepted and handshake.
VBR..........MD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
