re mapping, was it worth it and why?

[timofleeds]

Interested in any experience of anyone who has a Fiat 2.3 multijet x2/50

re-mapped. so I can make a decision to have it done. looking for good or bad experiences.

 

Thanks Tim

[Guest Peter James]

I have no experience of the Fiat 2.3, but you may be interested to know that the 2.2 on the Peugeot Citroen is either 100bhp or remapped by the manufacturers to 120bhp. This extra 20bhp comes at a cost of about 10% reduction in fuel consumption (figures taken from Citroen handbook) and apparently necessitates the fitting of a Dual Mass Flyweel to dampen the extra vibration. So even if the remapper is as good as the vehicle manufacturer???? the extra power will still come at a cost.

[Clive]

Been there done that with a Land Rover Discovery a little while back.

I was lucky, the engine never went BANG

But

I needed also to have :-

Military clutch as the brand new standard clutch would slip at max torque

New pipework for the turbo system as the increased boost would blow off standard hoses.

Stiffer anti-roll bars so it went round corners.

Full synthetic oil in the motor to handle the harder duties.

Different brake linings to make the bugger stop!

A de-tune before each MOT to stop it smoking.

Worry about its ultimate reliability.

 

But it went like a train!

Do I want this with our motorhome? Well, one well publicised perveyor of tuning systems offered to do it for free. I had a thunk and after that said "No Thanks"

 

Am I chicken, old or just more relaxed?

 

C.

 

 

 

 

[flicka]

I agree wth Clive's conclusion.

 

No pain no gain,

so therefore also no gain without pain. (somewhere)

AND if re-mapping is done during the warranty period, it gives the dealer & manufacturer a get-out irrespective of what the problems occur (not necessarily engine related).

[RogP]

I had a Merc ML270 CDi a couple of years ago and fitted a tuning box to it. Cost me about £400 but to be honest I couldn't tell the difference other than slightly lower fuel consumption (dropped from 24mpg to 22mpg) . So I took it off.

 

Mind you that car was already a fairly powerful car anyway and didn't really need any improvements.

 

I've got the 2.3lt , 130BHP Fiat and to be honest I dont see the need for it to be tinkered with (regardless of perceived benefits) it does what i need it to do with fair amount a ease.

 

What do you want to achieve but remapping?

[colinfrier]

I have a Burstner Solano 3.5 tonne (or more sometimes) when i ordered it in June 2007 there was a 9 month wait for same vehicle in 3 lt so reluctantly I went for the 2.3 and have found even with my flying brick it does everything I want and more(going forwards) so I see no need to tinker with things "if it aint broke don't fix it"

[Brambles]

I do not think I would go remapping the x250 if there is any risk it increases the peak torque during the power stroke of the engine.

 

The 6 speed gearboxes are protected from overtorque by the nature the clutch is designed to slip with peak torque. If using the extra power you risk burning the clutch burning out, which is a problem on some x250's anyway with seemingly premature clutch failure.

[timofleeds]

Hi thanks for the replies, I would like to remap for better long hill climbing on motorways when fully laden as i find the current setup causes the revs to die away quite quickly and I may get better fuel usage when travelling normally.

 

Regards Tim

[Brian Kirby]

What van do you have Tim?  That may help to explain.  I would have thought you should get 30ish MPG with a 2.3 X2/50, and would be hard pressed to improve significantly on that.  It would also be interesting to know how many miles the van has run, since it may still be a bit tight.  If it has a largish Luton, then the problem will be that you are trying to shove a barn door through the air, so if you hit a headwind as well as a hill, it will quickly run out of puff, especially if you are trying to run it much above 60MPH.  So too with weight.  If it is running at much more than 3.5 tonnes it will lack sufficient power on hills, but in this case, whereas re-mapping it will increase the power it will do so at the expense of economy, and since you will be working the engine beyond it design parameters for long periods, it will get hotter.  That may cause serious problems in hot weather, especially if you are crossing serious mountains, with oil being overworked and possible engine damage as a consequence.

Commercials are built to be caned, and are given reserves to cope.  Motorhomes are invariably near the weight limits the engines, especially the smaller ones, are designed to propel.  They also have larger frontal areas than the parent van, so have higher air resistances.  To that extent, smaller engines in motorhomes are permanently being caned.  Remapping the engine to release its latent capabilities, especially with a newish, tightish, engine is asking, IMO, for trouble.

Have you taken the van to a dealership to see if all is as it should be?  The general impression of these engines is that they have bags of power, so if yours doesn't, I would suspect one of three things.  1 Your expectations of it are rather too high.  2 It is a bulky, heavy, van with too small an engine.  3 That the engine is tight and new, and is not yet giving its full performance, or has a fault that is limiting its performance.

[AliB]

Tim,

 

I have a 2.3l 6 speed which easily pulls the 4000Kg bit on the back. If cruising in 6th gear the revs do die slightly on a motorway hill. Changing down to 5th or 4th gives you loads of power. If the vehicle is new then Brian is correct that these engines do take a while to loosen up. I find it all too easy to allow the speed to gradually creep up on motorways, a constant effort is needed to keep the beast to sensible speeds.

I have no experience of re-mapping but it should not be necessary. Follow Brian's advice.

[RogP]

I've got the 2.3lt on the 4000kg Heavy chasis , its a 2007 MY with 10000 on the clock. It also is 3m high with a fairly large luton so very much the barn door Brian aludes too :-(

 

I cant say I've been too concearned with its performance even on hills , yes it does loose some speed but with some thought when approaching a hill and gear changes at the right times you can maintain good progress.

 

My concearn is mpg , I'm getting a bout 22-23 at present , but then I've never been able to get anywhere close to what some proclaim or the makers claim either (on any vehicle I've owned) , must have lead lined boots on when I drive!!!

 

 

[AndyStothert]

Whilst delving into the various engine and gearbox combinations offered by Peugeot (during the early days of the judder saga) I spoke to one of the design engineers at Peugeot HQ and he told me that the 2.2 120 litre engine has slightly different pistons and cylinder head from the 100 version.

Up until then I too thought that it was just case of remapping, but no, Peugeot insist there are mechnical component differences to get those extra 20 (or 30) bhp and the extra torque.

They were offering remapping as a cure for the gearing problem but ven Peugeot didn't really believe it would be any use, as more torque lower in the rev range brought increased fuel consumption.

Is there any such thing as a free lunch?

[lennyhb]

We always run right on 3500kg limit never had a problem on long motorway hills may have to occasionally change down to 5th.

Have found on mountain hairpins if you let the revs go to low & you loose turbo boost the engine almost dies & calls for a bit of swift peddle dabbing & cog shifting but that's another story.

 

 

[timofleeds]

Hi thanks for all the replies, I have a 2.3l 6 speed, it does have a large luton and I have about 3600kg of weight, plated to 3850kg. I dont want to go tearing about but thought the extra torque and power would make the actual driving easier. If it does not work out I think it is possible to put the van back to the original settings.

 

Many thanks

 

Tim

[timofleeds]

Sorry forgot to say my van is 2007 and has done 15000 miles, the onboard computer shows around 23mpg.

 

Tim