Chipping a FIAT

[starvin marvin]

I'm currently searching for a replacement m/home. My first choice isn't Fiat but as most of them are, then if its got to be a Fiat it should be the 2.8JTD.

 

This is were the difficulty starts, quite a few m/h's appear to be on the 2.3JTD. I'm told that by "chipping" (cost £300) a 2.3 the bhp will be increased to close to a 2.8.

 

First question, is this right?

 

Second ques, what if any are the pro's and con's of doing this?

 

My basis principle is to go for the biggest engine available.

 

 

 

[carioca]

hi starvin i thought i read somewhere recently that vanakken chipping doesent work on 2.3 jtd. works fine on 2.0 & 2.8 but not 2.3 dont know why perhaps somebody else will enlighten us both. :-S

[Mike Chapman]

Hello Carioca and Starvin,

 

It was me that posted about Van Aaken Smartbox not working on some 2.3 JTD Ducatos especially the 2006 model. The information came from Van Aaken. They do not recommend the Smartbox for the 2.3JTD.

 

This referred to Motorhomes where the vehicle wiring/electrics had been modified. My understanding is that it has something to do with the Error Codes of the ECU and Fiat not supplying information about the ECU programming. Van Aaken indicated that this was mainly with Motorhomes and it was not economic for them to put in a great deal of effort to modify the Smartbox for a relatively small number of sales especially with the new model Ducato now available. This apparently does not affect the 2.0 and 2.8 JTD on which I understand the Van Aaken Smartbox works exceptionally well.

 

Not sure about other tuning systems like Superchips, Tunit etc., probably best to check with the manufacturers.

 

Another option is to consult TB Turbos about uprating the intercooler etc.

 

Regards,

 

Mike.

[terry1956]

Hi there, don,t know anything about the chip for the fiat, but I did chip my 2.4 transit, to be honest I did not notice any change at all. At the begaining yes I had the idea that something was better, but jumping into a non chipped transit same age etc, I could not tell them apart, its all in the mind.

go for the larger engine,

terry

[Dave Newell]

As you are still at the looking stage I'd suggest you confine your view to 'vans with the 2.8JTD motor only. The 2.3 is ok in a smaller motorhome but if its more than 20" or two berth then go for the bigger engine, definitely!

 

D

[Brian Kirby]

We hired a 2.3JTD before we bought ours, but then bought the 2.8JTD "power" (146HP) version of the same van.

I can honestly say that the difference was not that noticeable, and that the 2.3 is a smoother, quieter, and surprisingly flexible engine.  It is a tough little truck engine, and not a "detuned" car engine.

I agree with Dave, but would add the if you stick to 3,400/3,500Kg max weight, and stay away from luton bodied vans, you will probably find the 2.3 quite adequate in most road conditions, and actually inadequate in very few.

Hope this helps.

[messerschmitt owner]

can you not remap the ecu rather than chip it! My experience of remapped vehicles is that there is a huge difference in power output. I've not done it to my 416 Merc but if it is anything like my smart roadster (82bhp originally - now approaching 120bhp) it'll be fab at almost 200bhp! My smart fortwo cdi was remapped from 40 to 62bhp (with a dyno chart to prove it) and it transformed it on the motorway.

 

In theory you shorten the engine life - certainly in a vehicle where you use the power output - but on a motorhome - it can only be good to have more torque and more bhp - both of which help by using less power to do the same speed (therefore reducing fuel consumption).

 

However, some of the boys above are right - just buy the bigger engine to start off with if you want more go!

 

Campbell

[Brian Kirby]

messerschmitt owner - 2007-03-06 4:54 PM can you not remap the ecu rather than chip it! My experience of remapped vehicles is that there is a huge difference in power output. I've not done it to my 416 Merc but if it is anything like my smart roadster (82bhp originally - now approaching 120bhp) it'll be fab at almost 200bhp! My smart fortwo cdi was remapped from 40 to 62bhp (with a dyno chart to prove it) and it transformed it on the motorway. In theory you shorten the engine life - certainly in a vehicle where you use the power output - but on a motorhome - it can only be good to have more torque and more bhp - both of which help by using less power to do the same speed (therefore reducing fuel consumption). However, some of the boys above are right - just buy the bigger engine to start off with if you want more go! Campbell

Any of the above procedures are liable to invalidate the warranty, and both can reportedly be read back from the ECU, even if a chip module has been removed for servicing.  It is unlikely to be checked during regular servicing, but more likely to be if you are making a warranty claim for failure of any of the power train, possibly any of the running gear.

In normal use, it is a bit difficult to see the advantage of either procedure.  The saving in fuel costs resulting from improved economy, will have to be set against the cost of the chip/remap.  Most motorhomes only do around 6,000 miles per year, so not that much scope for payback after the warranty period has expired.  How long will you keep it?

It is mainly the improved torque that will bring the improved fuel consumption, using the imcreased bhp will spend it again!  May be a typo, but you won't use less power for the same speed, overall power output will be constant for the same speed.  You will, however, use the power a bit differently, in that the engine will produce probably a bit less bhp, but a bit more torque, for the same revs, on a bit less fuel.  If it produces more power, speed will increase, and if less power decrease, for the same driving conditions.

The other main advantage is in hill climbing, where you won't need to change down, but may use just as much fuel as if you had, and accelleration, which is basically the same thing.  However, unless you intend throwing your van around a lot, which will just rattle the contents around, as a low profile 2.3 is good for over 80mph on almost any reasonably graded road, it is debatable what advantage would really follow.

Somehow, 3.5 tonnes of motorhome hammering up an Alpine pass just doesn't handle like a mini!  You have to slow far more for the bends, and pulling away after each one on full throttle just consumes needless fuel, and gets tyres scrabbling, for little actual gain in overall speed.  You also tend to get the brakes all hot and bothered.

I'd say don't worry too much about the 2.3.  Try one out and see how it drives first.  If the van you like can't be had on a 2.8, go for the 2.3 and then, only if you find it really doesn't do what you want it to, get it chipped.

[Mr. Grumpy]

We have a 04 Ducato 2.3jtd on a 3500k van (low profile) and find it adequate. I thought about chipping but really the only time I think that it would make a real difference would be on long mountain passes. We generally travel at about 60mph and return 32mpg. If you really want to go ahead look at Turbo Technics, from memory I think they charge about £400

[terry1956]

One can remap the ecu of most cars etc these days. They up the fuel flow, in a normal engine with ecu, the fuel cuts out for split seconds during tic over to safe fuel, the result is that when one moves off there maybe a delay due to lack of fuel in the system, the 1st stage mapping of the ecu cuts this bit out of the brain, so gives faster pickups, This works out the same as the inline fuel thing one sees for sale on e-bay and the like.

I had an old 300 tdi landrover and like most land rover owners was always trying this and that to get more power, and the mags are full of items on getting more power, larger intercooler, turning up the fuel flow, and in TD5,s chipping, nowever no matter what the ads said, with all the work done the results at the rear wheels was not so great, from 111 bhp to 120 bhp in my case. a lot of money for not alot extra power.

nowever as can be seen my looking at citroen cars, we have a C5 1400 diesel, goes like a bomb and as 110 bhp, returns 57 mpg, the intercooler is the size of a motorhome hob, and it as a larger turbo. I am sure that if citroen could get the same power from just a chip they would of done so.

terry

[Dave Newell]

Chip remapping, replacing the original chip or adding an extra "box" are all about the same thing, giving the ECU a different set of operating parameters. They are just different methods of reaching the same end. They all do quite a bit more than just increasing the fuelling level. The injection timing, duration and quantity can all be varied, the turbo boost pressure can be altered. This can all add up to a useful increase in torque at low revs and power at higher revs.

 

An old saying in the motor industry is TTW or torque turns wheels. The increased torque will enable quicker acceleration and earlier gearchanges, the increased power will enable the vehicle to maintain speed on hills better than previously.

 

D.

[Mel E]

A couple (or so) of comments:

 

1. A box of the type described (various companies supply them typically at about the £400 mark) fits between the ECU and the fuel system. It normally adds about 20% to the horse power at the wheels - which is not that relevant with a diesel - and about 20% to the torque - much more relevant to reducing the frequency of gear changes.

 

2. If you are really concerned about the warranty, all of these boxes can be unplugged before you take the vehicle in for servicing. However, I have never heard of any garage reporting anyone to the manufacturer or of anyone having warranty issues.

 

3. Contrary to popular belief (and I admit I believed it at one time), it is not possible for the ECU monitoring equipment in a garage to tell that one of these systems has been fitted in the past.

 

4. It is generally cheaper (and less warranty-intrusive) than re-mapping the ECU (which is obvious to the garage's monitoring equipment).

 

5. But it does count as a material change to the vehicle so you must get consent from your insrance company.

 

6. As an example, the Renault Master range now comes with 3 different engines - all the same! The only difference is in the ECU (and what they therefore charge you for the extra output)!

 

7. I have had a previous motorhome 'dealt with' and the difference was quite amazing. No more continuous gear changing. And no difference in mpg. So more performance for the same money - but a tad more fumes.

 

Mel E

====

[messerschmitt owner]

The only way Smart can tell that my car has been remapped is if someone drives it in a kind of way they shouldn't be! Official - they cannot detect a remapped ecu using winstar diagnostics! They may reflash it accidentally to standard but cannot detect electronically with the equipment in the garage.

 

Both my motorhome and smart are out of warranty! Frankly, with 156bhp on tap and a max speed of 95mph - and so much torque I don't know what to do with it, my 416cdi pulls like a train and I don't need to change gear - but fuel economy at slower speeds will be improved as it takes less effort to get there.

 

My Smart has not had its fuel consumption affected by a remap = but it has made the car a totally different vehicle to drive and was the single best £99 I ever spent on my car! A remap for my 416cdi is about £250 - which would be a bargain if I drove more than 6000 miles per annum.

 

If your vehicle is out of warranty, like both mine are, then it is a fabulous addition and the single cheapest modification that results in the single biggest improvement to the vehicle.

 

What you must remember is that all original maps on vehicles are a comrprimise to satisfy government regulations, poor fuel, all types of weathers and can be easily improved on with a remap.

 

A remap on my car is about speed and is only one modification of many I have done to improve the speed of it: sports air filter, sports exhaust, bigger turbo intake pipe, bigger intercooler pipe, induction modifications, remap, etc - all of which have reduced 0-60 from 11s to 8.1s, and greatly improved the 30-50 and 50-70 times (which are infinitely more important in real life overtaking situations). A remapped van will accelerate faster too and at those speeds will be a much safer vehicle. I also had much of this stuff done while the smart was in warranty (oops, it still is for two weeks) and they have never refused to do warranty work - including reattaching the sports exhaust to the manifold after the studs fell out! They have never detected the remap, they've never queried all the new silicone piping under the boot lid.

 

A well chosen map will drastically improve the performance and driving enjoyment (just like it did on my smart fortwo diesel).

 

Coming out of Gloucester, heading for Oxford, we've a huge hill that my Merc can get up in third gear doing about 45mph - with a remap it would be going up in fourth in the 50s! That has to be safer!

[Dave Newell]

I still say go for the bigger engine to start with.

 

D.

[carioca]

hi i have a 2.3 jtd overcab coachbuilt it is any amount powerfull enough it eats hills & only the longest & steepest require down shifting. the only reason i would consider a remapping or whatever would be to improve fuel consumption mine is a monster on fuel, but i keep reading conflicting views as to wether or not fuel consumption would be better or not :-( :-S

[terry1956]

Hi a chip cannot change the turbo setting, this is not an elec item, the only way to change the turbo setting is to reset the blow off valve.

terry

[Dave Newell]

terry1956 - 2007-03-07 12:07 PM

 

Hi a chip cannot change the turbo setting, this is not an elec item, the only way to change the turbo setting is to reset the blow off valve.

terry

 

Not entirely true Terry. The boost pressure can be effectively managed electronically by reducing the fuelling when the chosen pressure is approached.

 

Back in the early days of turbocharged petrol cars a cheap and easy (if somewhat unreliable) method of improving maximum performance was to fit an adjustable bleed valve to the pipe from the inlet manifold to the wastegate actuator. These days most of it is done electronically by controlling the fuelling very accurately. Some of the modern common rail injection systems can actually deliver up to five separate injections of fuel per firing stroke per cylinder, that's getting pretty busy.

D.

[Brian Kirby]

So to answer Tony's question: yes, the "chipping" will work in boosting available power.  However, it will only bring economy if the additional power isn't used too often. 

He will have to notify his insurers of the change. 

He may/may not affect the warranty and here, despite Mel's view to the contrary, I am sure I have read of this happening and no, I can't remember where!  The issue only arose, so far as I can remember, because someone had a fairly radical engine failure while using one of these external chip sets, but (I think) removed it before the vehicle was taken in for warranty work.  What I read was that there are levels of interrogation to which the ECU can be subjected, some of which are not generally used or needed.  When the full "drill down" was used, the recorded engine operating parameters were outside the standard range, and were not achievable using the standard chip/map.  The warranty claim was therefore refused and a substantial bill resulted.  Could just be a manufacturer's scare story, of course, but if the re-chip/remap is completely harmless, why should they bother?

It is unclear whether Tony wanted a "fast" motorhome, or whether he merely wanted one with sufficient power for normal, day to day, motorhoming use.  The actual power difference between the Fiat 2.3JTD and the 2.8JTD is not really that great, peak power and torque for each arising at different revs, and the on road driving experience is surprisingly similar.  Therefore, unless Tony wants the power for its own sake, I still think he will find the output from the 2.3 in standard form generally adequate for a motorhome.

[terry1956]

Hi see your point, re newer turbos, but it just goes to show how outdated landrover defenders are, which was the last car I played with, before that it was saab 900 turbo,s no elec,s just turning up the blowoff valve. O the days when playing with cars and engines was a joy. nowdays I play with old classic bikes and make live steam engine, I know sad G--

terry

[lizken]

We have a 2004 Boxer 1.9HDI which has been chipped from original 90bhp to 120bhp.

This was done to achieve more torque, foir better hill climbing, not for extra speed.

The hill climbing has improved greatly, and the need for lower gears greatly reduced. In fact it is possible to travel long distances in 5th gear. which no changing down at all. This was not previously possible, and makes for much easier driving.

Overall fuel consumption has improved by 2mpg, as we rarely exceed 60mph, and generally cruise at 55mph.

Cost £375 in 2004, which was much cheaper than the larger 2.2 engine, although this option was not available on the van we bought.

Definitely worthwhile

[Supertractorman]

After reading this thread with interest, has anyone blown an engine or suffered damage which could be related to chipping or some form of engine power boosting ?. If Yes has the problem occurred during Warranty and was a claim rejected ?.

 

David

[Brian Kirby]

Not as a direct reply, David, but....mechanical failures of engines are thankfully rare, but they do happen.  If such a failure did happen to a chipped engine while it was under warranty, there is no certainty that the manufacturer would reject the claim, but it would at least introduce the possibility they might.  Newly made components sometimes contain flaws, tempering procedures fail, bolts shear.  Unusual, but not impossible.

If I had an engine that was sill under warranty, I think I'd prefer to keep it bog standard until the warranty was out and, if a diesel, it had covered at least 20,000 miles.  After that mileage they begin to loosen up, and adding power shouldn't cause any problems with heat rejection.

Conveniently, with 3 year warrantys fairly common, and average annual motorhome mileages being around 6,000, there is a neat symmetry about 20,000 and end of warranty!

However, Dave Newell knows far more about engines that I do, so I'll be interested in what he thinks if he picks up on this.

[Dave Newell]

I'm here. I don't really have a lot to add to Brian's comments as they're just about spot on with my own thoughts. I've not heard of anyone blowing an engine up while it was fitted with a remapped chip but then I read MMM not Max Power. I doubt if a supplementary box such as the Van Aaken one can be recorded in the original ECU but I wouldn't say its impossible.

 

I still say the best course will be to go for the bigger engine if you feel you need the performance, like the yanks say, "there ain't no substitute for cubes" (that's cubic inches in yank speak).

 

Personally I would be quite happy with the 2.0 litre JTD/HDI but then I currently drive a 17 year old small coachbuilt with a 2 litre petrol lump that gives a whopping 85 BHP! When I'm behind the wheel of our motorhome I'm on holiday and don't feel the need to rush around. I cruise at 58-60MPH and am happy with the 23MPG returned.

 

But now of course we have the new genereation of engines of which the 2.3 JTD gives slightly more power than the old 2.8JTD so all the above could be purely academic!

 

D.

[Supertractorman]

Brian & Dave,

 

I totally agree with your comments and would not consider doing anything to an engine still under warranty. My memories of the Leyland 400 engine in trucks when they added a turbo and called it a 410 then every night needed a head gasket still brings unpleasant memories. It just intrigued me if any members on the forum had suffered failures as a result of an upgrade.

 

David

[lizken]

Dave,

 

I would not have chipped my HDI, was ot not for the fact that living in the Lake District, 5th gear was virtually a luxury which was never used.

As I said wqe cruise at 55-60mphon the motorways, sodo not need extra speed, but the torque improvement is amazing.

 

Ken