Result from Reidy Remaps!

[talkingcars]

but if it put more of a smile................

[Phate]

But it can put a BIGGER smile on your face

[DeMoNPauL]

Originally Posted by stamford

So where has all of this come from then? A few weeks back it wasn't an issue and now some people have had success he gets questioned? Sounds like sour grapes to me. In order to question anything you will need hard facts to prove it beyond all reasonable doubt. Just because other 'experts' may not have succeeded does not mean they are correct in their assumptions or know their stuff.

Wasnt it only a matter of time?

If you look back in time there was many ZS 180 owners claiming 200 bhp with very little mods etc ie Back box.Decat and Induction.

Janspeed in Co-Hoots with MG Sport & Racing delved into this with the ZR 160 and the ZS180 and never got over a 20bhp increase with either car.

Originally Posted by stamford

In order to know something you must first understand it and therefore under the cause and effect.

I am sure the said companies know what they are talking about.

MG S&R built some amazing cars and i am sure they knew there stuff.

[Dave ZS-X]

Spose if the customers happy thats all that matters but you cant possibly think a multi million pound massively successfull company like superchips who's whole business has been engine re mapping for donkeys years couldnt find top end bhp , yet a small independant garage could.
I had my car worked on by superchips as did Ed and they have access to everything to change any parameter they please yet top end gains were nill to negligible.I remember Ed going to superchips hq at buckingham, and spending a small fortune on live mapping after he had a cat back exhaust fitted and after it all it gained just 1 bhp top end.
If you want some serious bang for your buck slap a small shot of nos on your car, even a small 25 shot will out perform 10 re maps.

Dave

[SticklesMickles]

Personally i have been looking into these "cheap" remap options a little, here are my thoughts


1. cheap off the shelf remap/chip jobs are always crap, slightly uprated generic maps might gain a little, but should be avoided.

2. a proper remap needs to be setup to each engine, to do this you need to be monitoring fuel and det.

3. i have seen a few posts from people saying that the remaps they do, don't touch the ignition advance, WHY????? this is mental, this is FREE POWER being left on the table.

4. the superchips name, i will never trust, after hearing about the superchips "chip package" that was available to early impreza owners, which amounted to a FCD (fuel cut defender) and a bleed valve ??? WTF?

Personally i suspect they (these "mappers" are not touching the ignition advance because they are scared/not knowledgeable enough to prevent the blowing up of an engine, due to crap det/knock control, preferring to leave the stock ignition map in place and try and optimise the fueling instead to give a small gain.

I mapped my last car myself using an Apexi PFC ECU, and did a jolly good job, so i understand how and why remaps can have benefits, adding ignition advance, and using a higher ron fuel can give you free power and torque.

When somebody pays for a remap on these cars and then can still use 95 ron fuel, that to me is just a big fat waste of time.

When i did my first Subaru Map i took things very conservative, basically setup the fuel map first, making sure it was hitting the right AFR`s across the rev range, after this i started adding ignition advance, in small amounts, constantly tweaking and logging to make sure it was safe, until i managed to get approx 9-10 degrees more advance while on boost, granted this is not the same type of engine and turbos give better gains, but it netted me around 30bhp and around 45lbft LOL this is comparing my rolling road runs from before adding the timing on my "fueling correct base map" to my "fueling correct ignition added" final map, it helps that my mate owns his own rolling road

This was mapped right to the extreme of 99ron fuel, i could not use 95 ron anymore, and could only use 97 ron on light throttle, i was actually considering adding some meths to the fuel to allow a few more degrees advance but stopped the project as it was getting toooooooo insane to drive on the roads IMO


Now regards to the ZS180 and adding more advance, i suspect it can take a bit, after all its specced to make its max power on 95 ron, it may be that the silly design of the VIS system is preventing the engine from making more top end power, if people only seam to be getting mid range gains, then this could be why, to be honest, midrange gains will give better street performance anyway.

Somebody should make/design a simple replacement inlet manifold with no hocus pocus valves in it, and try mapping the car properly for it, i suspect you would get more top end gains.

Has anybody took a 180, fitted the exhaust/filters and then had it mapped for a proper higher ron fuel?

[p_b82]

When i first went to see Matt the rollers down in yeovil were actually run by the main company performance3000, and my car on completely standard parts was about 6% up on torque and bhp... not really possible even for a 'good day'

However since Matt has taken over the remapping side and is the sole user of the rollers they do seem to be a lot mre accurate, backed up from a couple of different sources now..

For example a friend of mine has an old sirrocco which he has fitted a 20v corrado engine into, when we were there just a few weeks ago, Matt did a re-calibration for the file he had saved for the actual car.

I personally do not believe that Matt is the type to BS people with figures, and while i dont know whether he is touching the advance on the 180's, he sure as hell has been with the diesels.

the only problem we have had is that running upgraded (hybrid) turbo running over 22PSI with mild injectors fitted would cause head to lift... He has since worked out how to tweak things better and has taken the advance out again as he did not need it.

There a few diesel drivers who have had to get Matt's remaps turned down because they were too good and induced clutch slip!

Just cos a guy is an independant, does not mean that he does not know his stuff...

[afcbadam]

facts from 180 owners:-

1, i used him and im happy
2, mick has used him and hes happy
3, a few others have used him and they are all happy.

all of the cars in question have seen bhp increases all across the rev range and its definatally noticable on the road, my car is a lot better reving, its more happy to rev and this shows in the extra pull i have in the car.

so why is this in question???

So now you get the people saying he's fiddling graphs???? if your one of them then let me tell you something.... your a tosser.

it really pisses me off to see people's hard work slagged off. Matt has spent thousands and thousands of pounds on the latest equipment and technology and getting a reputation for him self, only for people to put that down on a forum.... that has many happy users of him

sorry to the guys that this doesnt apply to. rant over

[stamford]

In my original thread I discussed what went on and why. I could have gained more if I had chosen a higher grade of fuel, like V-Power or BP Ultimate but personally chose the lower 95RON purely on cost. Considering I do around 350 miles a week commuting, the extra cost would have been unjustifiable if using 97/98RON. Yes it would be nice to have the extra horses but I am not that desperate for them.

Matt has spent alot of time and effort on his remaps and has many satisified customers, especially on the K-series and diesel engines. However as mentioned before he did very little on KV6 as no-one was willing to offer one to try, not surprising as most KV6 owners are indeed sceptical about chipping and remapping. I can also be included here I might add! I do believe after a days running on the dyno and studying the standard map that Matt has interrogated that he knows where to tweak them and where to leave them alone.

I can only take my hat off to the man for attempting to take this on and really understand the KV6 and work with it until such time gains were made. Okay the gains that were seen were not as we both had hoped but at least there were improvements from the original figures and that was the point of the exercise.

Sometimes you can be working too closely on something and fail to spot the obvious or be blinkered by opinion or by not thinking outside of the box. With Matt he applied his knowledge and with a fresh attitude looked at the whole application from a different perspective.

I know opinions will vary as that is the nature of the business, we all have choices and will always be sceptical about claims. As a personal choice I am more than happy with the results and that is not just reading a piece of paper or reading a screen. I have been involved with motorsport for many years and never take much notice of what figures are produced and only measure the improvements, if any, when on the road as that is where the differences are measured. I have used many rolling roads down the years and yes they do vary as there is very little done to police the calibration. The only way to gauge improvements is to use the same set up everytime and use this for comparative results. I did this many times when trying to solve the fueling issues on my old Audi GT supersaloon, took several weeks and runs to iron this out and during this time logged the readings.

I think I have gone on long enough. Obviously the jury is still out and will be for sometime. I'm more than happy so will leave it there.

[SticklesMickles]

Its easy enough for anybody to "fudge" a rolling road result if they know what they are doing, hell, even pumping up the tyres for a second run will give different results!

People should never get hung up on figures to an extent, the main use for a rolling road IMO is to judge your mods, travelling from different rolling roads and getting different figures means nothing, its better to pick one, and use that one over and over again, to see if your mods are having an effect.

The Subaru and Evo lads are generally numpties in this respect, preferring to go to "Place X" because they will get a better result over "Place Y" a completely ridicules practise, me personally, i would prefer to go to the one that's known for offering lower figures, as the chances are, you are probably getting real results and not fudged results where the rolling road operator held the handbrake on a little bit, or never fully backed off the throttle for the coast down to affect the calculations

Nothing wrong with remapping a car IMO, but a simple "fuel map optimisation" is never going to give what i would consider "good" results, unless the map currently in the car is not giving good AFR`s for the current mods/engine spec

Diesel remapping/tuning is a slighty different kettle of fish i had an old vectra derv that used to run 1.35bar boost, that was pretty nippy, although i was using about 1 head gasket per year LOL and killed a head, plus a turbo

[SticklesMickles]

Originally Posted by stamford

In my original thread I discussed what went on and why. I could have gained more if I had chosen a higher grade of fuel, like V-Power or BP Ultimate but personally chose the lower 95RON purely on cost. Considering I do around 350 miles a week commuting, the extra cost would have been unjustifiable if using 97/98RON. .

Have you thought about the possible increased MPG benefits, having a more efficient engine running a higher ron fuel ?

if you can increase the ignition advance safely at say 3krpm, without adding in extra fuel to help cool the cylinders, then you will gain power/torque and MPG.

its a win win situation.