Turbo diesel remap

[Billggski]

Anybody had it done? Manufacturers set up the ecu's for emissions nowadays, a remap can tune a turbo diesel for more torque. I had my jaguar diesel done with spectacular results, but was wondering if anyone has tried a 2.3 Fiat yet?

[DuxDeluxe]

There is one camp dead against it and another in favour. Many people have remapped their engines (or rather, had them remapped) with very pleasing results. Others have had clutch issues. I suggest that you do some searches on here and other forums and draw a conclusion. By my reckoning the majority is in favour. Hope that helps

[Tracker]

I fitted one of these to a 2.3 Fiat Autotrail Cheyenne and I did get a couple of mpg more as well as more power and torque than without but the wretched thing never did run right even before I fitted it so the mpg was never sparkling.

 

Much better results when I fitted to a 2.2 Peugeot Autosleeper with 2 - 3 mpg more and noticeably better torque from lower revs on settings 1 and 2, and on it's full power and torque setting the van is a bit of a flyer - but as you would expect uses more fuel!

 

Both vehicles well out of warranty but as it is easily and quickly removeable that may be less of an issue unless you don't get the chance to remove it if you break down, and do tell your insurance company - mine did not charge any extra.

 

http://www.energy-tuning.com/ttpg1.htm

 

[bolero boy]

Was looking at a Pilote the other day and mentioned to the dealer that I would probably go for a 150hp upgrade at around £1000. He said not to bother as 'most of his customers' went for a chipping service by a local company' to give the same results but for about 30% less cost.

I would have thought that the Fiat warranty would be immediately invalid?

Anyone else heard of this approach?

I would go for the factory upgrade with variable vane turbo technology.

[hallii]

It's all been said before but here goes.

 

If there was a way to make their products better in any way than their competitors then I think the manufacturer would have done it.

 

But what is "better", loads of power and torque but a reduced engine life? Or a careful balance of reliability and engine life and suitable power output?

 

Ask any seller of tuning software if they will GUARANTEE that the engine. gearbox and clutch will not suffer as a result of chipping. Of course they will not.

 

If you avoid using all that new power in order to spare the mechanicals then it may be that chipping wouldn't make a lot of difference, then why bother in the first case?

 

I am anti, you might have guessed!

 

H

[RogerC]

hallii - 2013-08-15 9:28 AMIt's all been said before but here goes.If there was a way to make their products better in any way than their competitors then I think the manufacturer would have done it.But what is "better", loads of power and torque but a reduced engine life? Or a careful balance of reliability and engine life and suitable power output?Ask any seller of tuning software if they will GUARANTEE that the engine. gearbox and clutch will not suffer as a result of chipping. Of course they will not.If you avoid using all that new power in order to spare the mechanicals then it may be that chipping wouldn't make a lot of difference, then why bother in the first case?I am anti, you might have guessed!H

 

I have always understood the 'factory' map was a compromise to ensure compliance with emission regulations and that remapping (which can in some cases be extreme) simply remaps with performance/mpg improvements as the main consideration.

 

In the motorcycle world people fit 'power commanders' (PC) (remap ECU units) and have the original ECU remapped all the time with no ill effects.  I have two bikes that have been 'fettled'...one remap and one with a PC and neither have suffered any ill effects.

 

[camocam1]

have found that my fiat 2.3jdt works perfectly well on the majority of outings BUT there is that few times when you could do with some more power in 5th gear.

I have spoken to a company about remapping (not chipped) and told them I only want the extra power in 3rd - 5th gears heavy to 5th gear. They have said that would be a purpose done remap which can be done rather than the standard remap which increases power through all gears which is why I believe that clutches get burned out "too much power in 1st & 2nd"

Price was £250 BUT I have not done it yet as still not sure its worth the cash

 

[Tracker]

The arguments for and against will no doubt rumble on but personally I have found the improvement in low speed torque and smoothness make the van even more pleasurable to drive and the fuel savings will cover the total cost of both the unit and it's re calibrating for a different engine in somewhat less than two years.

 

There is also the top end power increase for those who want to go fast but I don't see that as important to me as I don't race the thing or cruise the Autobahn at 90 mph - well not often anyway - but it will do it if you ask it to although I shudder to think at what fuel cost!

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

This earlier forum thread would be worth wading through

 

http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Remapping-a-3-ltr-Fiat-Ducato-Based-Motorhome/30711/#M359649

 

While there's a tendency to concentrate on the potentially damaging effect of aftermarket re-mapping on mechanical components, the effect on emissions is usually overlooked.

 

The Ducato Euro V 2.3 litre 150 motor has a variable-geometry turbocharger, whereas the 130 version does not. Variable-geometry turbochargers are more complex and, if the internal mechanism that controls vane-movement 'cokes up', the effect can range from a smallish bill (for using cleaning chemicals) to a colossal bill for major engine repairs. Complexity often comes with a price.

 

It may be necessary to have a variable-geometry turbocharger on the 150 motor to provide the extra power and to meet Euro V emissions standards, while the 130 motor may be capable of being Euro V compliant with a 'fixed vane' turbocharger.

 

Remapping a 130 motor to produce a 150's power/torque outputs should be perfectly practicable, but it's quite likely that the remapped motor will no longer be Euro V compliant. The vehicle with the remapped motor will probably sail through the UK's MOT test, but motor manufacturers nowadays need to build powerplants that meet internationally-agreed stringent emissions standards, not just that can pass the UK's archaic vehicle testing procedures.

[euroserv]

I have always felt quite positive about remapping. It is quite obvious that many car and commercial manufacturers use differing power outputs as a tool to get people to part with more money while the technical differences are quite small.

 

Carrying on where Derek left off though; I can see a problem.

 

For the most part we only really see 120hp 2.3 and 160hp 3.0 vehicles in our workshop but occasionally we have a 130hp Motorhome in for service. I have never really taken any notice of any differences between the engines because they are ostensibly very similar to the 120's but last week I had cause to do some research and was surprised to find that the 130hp version has a considerably larger and more complex EGR system. It is also water cooled, whereas the 120hp is not.

 

Could it be that the designers decided that the extra power was more than the standard EGR could cope with and that the extra heat generated would be a problem? Probably.

Does this therefore suggest that a remap up to 150hp from 120hp is not such a clever idea? More than likely.

 

I don't know what the potential outcome would be in terms of damage but I know one thing for certain... Engine repairs are expensive. Remember that.

 

Buy the more powerful engine in the first place. It may cost more but the value of the vehicle down the line will be greater and you won't worry any potential buyer with regard to modifications that you have carried out.

 

Just my opinion, of course.

 

Nick