Increasing a cars BHP?

PeteK*

Is it possible to do that re-mapping thing to a BMW 320D?

If so, what will it's BHP be afterwards?

[B]Also, I saw an add on a magazine for a BMW 330d for sale saying it was remapped to 232bhp ... is this possible?[/B]

OKenora

Actually doing the re-map when you have a good file is easy, sorting any problems it highlights may not be as easy though if you got the map from a good supplier they will sort these for you. remember a re-map is designed for a well conditioned engine with no problems. Sometime remapping can highlight a problem on your engine. Doing the remap is 1: plug in the equipment (laptop and interface), click a few menus in the program to backup and save your current map, click a few more menus to apply the new one.

On average a turbo diesel can be expected to add about 20-30% power torque after a re-map, some do more a few do less.

e.g a 150bhp TD car with 225lb/ft torque should make 180bhp and 275lb/ft after re-map, some may do more. Any car with an OBD or EOBD port and an ECU can normally be re-mapped.There are exceptions to this but most can be easily done.

Remember, you need to declare a re-map to your insurance company or your insurance is invalidated.

Also, I saw an add on a magazine for a BMW 330d for sale saying it was remapped to 232bhp ... is this possible?

Why not ? but it depends on the exact model, the current 330d is 232 bhp in standard trim with no re-map at all however if you did re-map it you get about 270bhp and silly torque. Other 330's were lower in power but the 185 bhp one would struggle to make 220 bhp the rest should make the 230bhp mark and more.

p-nut

OKenora wrote:

If you want to do the re-map yourself then the gear you need will cost about £120 (€175) and you will also need a laptop. The re-map file will cost you between £100-120(€145-175) from most sources, though you could be brave and order a CD full of them from e-bay for about £30, but as I said you would have to be really brave. Advantage of having the gear to do it yourself is that you can easily revert back to standard when and if you need to (and you can do your m8's car too for the price of the map only).

Where could i get this software and what would be the best one to go for?

thanks

PeteK*

OKenora wrote:

Why not ? but it depends on the exact model, the current 330d is 232 bhp in standard trim with no re-map at all however if you did re-map it you get about 270bhp and silly torque. Other 330's were lower in power but the 185 bhp one would struggle to make 220 bhp the rest should make the 230bhp mark and more.

This is actually why I asked if it was...

OKenora wrote:

LOL optimistic if thats what you want, downright fantasy i'd call it. A 170bhp n/a BMW can realistically expect about 15bhp max from a re-map though the car will feel like it got a lot more as a good re-map should be smoother than the original and will probably have a widened power band. A 170bhp TD car though is a different story, that can be got easily to 220 bhp or more but it's diesel bhp, which feels different to petrol bhp, it's the huge torque figures, compared to a petrol, that make the diesel feel so quick.

Thanks for answering. =]

Atomic Pineapple

you can try westward engineering in enfield, meant to be very good

http://www.westwardeng.com/specialist-services.htm

p-nut

just out of interest would these be examples of the dodgy ones off ebay you refferred to;

Example 1

Example 2

Example 2 looks a bit more realistic tho

p-nut

Ok ive been searching through fleabay and came across these obd interface things. are they the kits i need along with the software to map my car?

colm_mcm

p-nut wrote:

just out of interest would these be examples of the dodgy ones off ebay you refferred to;

Example 1

Example 2

Example 2 looks a bit more realistic tho

isn't the text in both ads identical?

OKenora

Thats the ones on e-bay, use them for people you don't like or cars that should be off the roads, but not for any car you in any way like would be my opinion.

I'm not saying they are bad, they could be top notch, but there is no way to tell they are bad or good until after the engine or some major component self destructs.

Far safer sticking to tried and trusted files from reputable companies.

Reply to chatmaster: both comments about those BMW's are valid, the 320D is a TURBO car and can realise big gains, in the other thread we were talking about a normally aspirated petrol car, which will not give big gains. The 170 to 220 figure tbh was maybe optimistic and would not be done on a lot of cars with a re-map alone, you would have to address induction and exhaust for most, but 170-210 is very common. Mines originally a 150bhp now sitting about the 200bhp mark, but thats rolling road re-map, stainless wide bore exhaust, de-catted and BMC CDA air filter to get that far.

Henry Ford III

Interesting stuff here.

Having read the lot my view is that extra power & torque does not come magically from the air or a laptop. It has to come from more energy being released from fuel. Now the fuel is the same so therefore it has to mean more fuel.

It can be argued that remapping increases efficiency but I don't buy that. Manufacturers spend millions developing engines and systems to run them. A bloke with a laptop can reprogramme but the component bits are the same. I have no difficulty in accepting power, torque, and power delivery characteristics can be altered and increased/bettered. There is always a price to be paid for such alterations however.

Insurance costs will increase. Any insurer who says a 25+% increase in power after a remap doesn't increase risk/premium is either stupid or lazy. Try telling them you've got a new engine fitted with a 25+% increase in capacity and see what happens then. Always communicate with insurers in writing. They can and will attempt to wriggle out of claims otherwise, particularly in relation to modified cars.

Engines can be modded but what about the rest of the car? Can it cope? The nearer any mechanical component is pushed towards its limits the more the risk of failure becomes. Systems like brakes, transmission, suspension, steering etc. will all be worked harder by more power and torque being used.

Just my 2p worth.

OKenora

It has to come from more energy being released from fuel. Now the fuel is the same so therefore it has to mean more fuel.

Simple example debunking the above, advance your ignition timing (as long as it's not over advanced) usual effect = more power, Air/fuel mix stays identical. Whats the cost, emissions may increase.

Second assumption you make has been pointed out many times, you are presuming the manafacturer wanted the maximum power out of the engine, which is simply not true. They tune them to pass emissions regulations even if that chokes the car. Again a simple example, de-cat the car, should release a few BHP with no change to the fuelling.

It's not all as simple as shove in more air/fuel for more power like it used to be in the days of the carburettor.

I do 100% agree though that anyone considering a re-map would also be clever to consider an uprated clutch and uprated brakes at least. And also agree that your insurance company will charge you more, in my case about £200 a year for the mods on my car, but thats only fair and sensible.

PeteK*

OKenora wrote:

Reply to chatmaster: both comments about those BMW's are valid, the 320D is a TURBO car and can realise big gains, in the other thread we were talking about a normally aspirated petrol car, which will not give big gains. The 170 to 220 figure tbh was maybe optimistic and would not be done on a lot of cars with a re-map alone, you would have to address induction and exhaust for most, but 170-210 is very common. Mines originally a 150bhp now sitting about the 200bhp mark, but thats rolling road re-map, stainless wide bore exhaust, de-catted and BMC CDA air filter to get that far.

Thanks for that info. I phoned a garage and they quoted me with €500 and it would take the car to 175bhp .... not worth it? They said I can do a test drive and all before I decide to buy it. :cool:

Henry Ford III

OKenora wrote:

Simple example debunking the above, advance your ignition timing (as long as it's not over advanced) usual effect = more power, Air/fuel mix stays identical. Whats the cost, emissions may increase.

Second assumption you make has been pointed out many times, you are presuming the manafacturer wanted the maximum power out of the engine, which is simply not true. They tune them to pass emissions regulations even if that chokes the car. Again a simple example, de-cat the car, should release a few BHP with no change to the fuelling.

It's not all as simple as shove in more air/fuel for more power like it used to be in the days of the carburettor.

More good stuff.

Engine set up is a compromise. Power, economy, torque, emissions, and longevity are all considerations. Manufacturers try and get the best all round performance from the components.

Yes engine timing will affect overall perforamnce but I was assuming it had already been optimised in my earlier comments.

You mentioned decatting and increased emmisions. Is it ok to polute for 25% more performance?

I still don't buy any of this remapping nonesense btw. I think it's a con. You have to pay for your fun - and my view is fuel consumption and emissions have to increase as engine performance does. Nothing magical happens.

OKenora

You have to pay for your fun - and my view is fuel consumption and emissions have to increase as engine performance does

Already stated that emissions are going to take a hit with a lot of re-mapping work.

All I can offer is my own personal experiences, I have currently 2 re-mapped cars an Alfa 156 2.4 JTD and a Peugeot 206 2.0 HDi S. The Alfa has a CDA air filter, Stainless de-catted exhaust as well and produces about 30% more power than stock after a rolling road re-map (200bhp). MPG wise it returns an average of 48mpg and on a run can happily do 53-54mpg. Both closely match or exceed the manafacturers figures for the car from new, something which most owners of most cars cannot claim. Emissions wise they are higher but still pass MOT and are within legal limits.

The Pug has been upped from a measly 90bhp to a more fun 125bhp by just a re-map, no rolling road, and has no other engine mods. Peugeot claim 42/68/56 as it's mpg figures, it currently is doing about 45/69/62. The re-map it got was specifically one designed to improve MPG, the added power was a nice side effect of it. I don't know where they got the extra power from or the extra MPG. I do know the car drives more responsively, it actually feels totally different to drive than pre re-map, and does return better MPG. Again emissions are within legal specs and pass MOT easily.

For info, both cars have uprated brakes which is only sensible when you add extra power.

Proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say. I agree it seems "magical" but I am quite sure it is not. Most modern engines run as you say a compromise, the re-map simply removes these compromises. A good re-map can do it with little or no hit on economy.

Final word about emissions, I have seen re-maps done where the car constantly belches clouds of smoke out, thats a bad re-map and I would not condone it and definitely not let it near my own car. A good re-map should do it's best to make the improvements with a minimal hit on the emissions, especially as they now are part of NCT/MOT

OKenora

chatmaster wrote:

Thanks for that info. I phoned a garage and they quoted me with €500 and it would take the car to 175bhp

I would take their offer of a test drive. You should really notice the difference in it. €500 seems to be average but for that you can get one of the bigger and better known re-mapping companies to come and do the job, I would go for them rather than a random garage. Still take the test drive though

I thought you had a 330d not a 320d. What power is your 320d at the moment ? They range from 115 to 175 bhp......To get 170bhp safely out of it you would need to be starting at the 140bhp model. Some less reputable re-mappers are simply throwing a higher rated engines standard map onto the lower powered engines and saying "There ya go, 175 bhp" but it's not that simple (see post above about smoky re-maps). re-mapping like that does more harm than good.

PeteK*

OKenora wrote:

I would take their offer of a test drive. You should really notice the difference in it. €500 seems to be average but for that you can get one of the bigger and better known re-mapping companies to come and do the job, I would go for them rather than a random garage. Still take the test drive though

I thought you had a 330d not a 320d. What power is your 320d at the moment ? They range from 115 to 175 bhp......To get 170bhp safely out of it you would need to be starting at the 140bhp model. Some less reputable re-mappers are simply throwing a higher rated engines standard map onto the lower powered engines and saying "There ya go, 175 bhp" but it's not that simple (see post above about smoky re-maps). re-mapping like that does more harm than good.

No it's a 320D, I just mentioned a 330D I saw in AutoTrader or somewhere. The 320D is at 150BHP right now.
Is there a way to verify that the BHP is what they say?

I'd like to upgrade to a 330D or 5 Series.

OKenora

To verify your results you can get it dyno (rolling road) tested to measure the output, this will always be below what you expect though. If you were going to do a rolling road session then I would say doing one before you re-map then one after and compare the changes would be more useful, but if you are spending that amount then just go get a rolling road re-map which would cost very little extra and is a far better way to do it.

Easier way is to let them re-map the car, take it for a test drive and see if you notice the difference. You most likely will notice quite a difference with a good re-map. Then decide if the changes you felt when driving are worth €500, if not they can remove he re-map and set the car back to standard.

150hp 320d will make about 180-185 bhp safely, but don't let figures fool you. Many companies using the identical re-maps will quote different figures for the output achieved.

Henry Ford III

You write a very reasoned argument in favour of these remaps Okenora. Your personal experiences are impressive.

I cannot get my head a round how a laptop can improve power and torque and therefore overall performance without any kind of downside or penalty.

The best we can do therefore is agree to disagreeI respectfully suggest.

Sandwich

Interesting and well discussed thread, but seems to have mainly focused focused on diesels for examples.

If we accept (and seems cogently argued) that manufacturers ship cars below their max power output due to factors such as: manufacturer did not necessarily achieve the best map, emissions regs, economy balance, different world markets for the same car etc., then why is the remap capability of petrol engines, in general, far lower than diesels?

Most petrol engines seem limited to 5% or at best 10% increase, which I would regard as sensible engineering factors of safety. In fact i would consider a car who can achieve only 5% performance in crease when pushed to its limit as correctly tuned in the first place.

Yet diesels achieving 30% or higher gains with such ease looks suspicious. Surely the manufacturers arent good with petrol engines and less expert at diesels ones?

So why the clear distinction?

Sandwich

Henry Ford III wrote:

You write a very reasoned argument in favour of these remaps Okenora. Your personal experiences are impressive.

I cannot get my head a round how a laptop can improve power and torque and therefore overall performance without any kind of downside or penalty.

The best we can do therefore is agree to disagreeI respectfully suggest.

The down side seems to be decreased engine life, worse emissions(for those with a green conscience), stressed other parts of the drive gear, decreased tolerance for 'hard' driving style, and increased risk of expensive repairs.

If you look at the limited elements of power/torque/economy then the gains do seem genuine.

OKenora

then why is the remap capability of petrol engines, in general, far lower than diesels?

Read the thread, already explained why there is such a difference. And the difference had you read is not petrol/diesel, it's between normally aspirated and turbo engines, just happens that diesel cars are more likely to be turbo than petrols.

Sandwich

OKenora wrote:

Read the thread, already explained why there is such a difference. And the difference had you read is not petrol/diesel, it's between normally aspirated and turbo engines, just happens that diesel cars are more likely to be turbo than petrols.

Ok. Didnt think is was quite so clear cut. Nevertheless - same general question, substituting 'turbo' for diesel, and 'non turbo' for petrol in my post.

NewApproach

What gains could be expected from remapping a Saab 9-3 1.8t petrol engine (2 litre)?

richie_rvf

Some really good answers here;

http://www.autoremap.com/index.php?page=faq

It's generally not worth doing a remap on a N/A petrol car, no significant gains to be had.

Richie.

Sandwich

richie_rvf wrote:

Some really good answers here;

http://www.autoremap.com/index.php?page=faq

It's generally not worth doing a remap on a N/A petrol car, no significant gains to be had.

Richie.

Not exactly impartial tho. Answers with an agenda behind them.;)

OKenora

Not exactly impartial tho. Answers with an agenda behind them.

But having read it the answers are undeniably 100% true and factual. It's a pretty decent sum up of what re-maps are and do.

Sandwich

OKenora wrote:

But having read it the answers are undeniably 100% true and factual. It's a pretty decent sum up of what re-maps are and do.

Yeh, sure.:rolleyes:

OKenora

Well in good old forum fashion, either post something to debunk the claims (which to me, you seem to not have read) or STFU as any idiot can say "yeah sure" but it takes some effort to back it up with either experience from the field or some facts and figures that are relevant.

If you can do neither then go back to safe car land and live the dream of having cars with bigger boots than actual internal capacity, like the tardis does, and where the manafacturer is always right, no matter what and despite much evidence to the contrary (even if the manafacturer admits being wrong, they were still right).

You are entitled to your opinion, but it really has to be backed up with some material facts of substance or otherwise it's simply another worthless opinion.

Maybe you can explain your own personal experience with your cars own re-map, you do have it remapped ? Or maybe you can explain some of your experience in re-mapping cars yourself for racing or possibly just general road usage, have you ever done a re-map or played about with the ECU files ? Or maybe you can relate some of your long years of experience in working with other tuning elements, have you ever tuned cars ?

same general question, substituting 'turbo' for diesel, and 'non turbo' for petrol in my post.

To answer this for the second time...more fuel needs more air, in a normally aspirated car (petrol or diesel) there is no way to add more air in any quantity. You can change the air filter for a freer flowing one but even at that gains are minimal.

In a turbo car (petrol or diesel) you can control the amount of air as it is a forced induction system and you can increase this force (turbo boost) so when you add more fuel you can add more air.

This is why Turbo cars benefit far more highly than non turbo cars. As most turbo cars are diesels the split is usually made on petrol/diesel but thats as you see incorrect.

The reason Diesels make more than petrols is usually because there is more room for adjustment. A standard car is quite significantly de-tuned to allow it to operate in all differing enviroments. It is quite rare for a manafacturer to map a car differently for different markets even though it may from an end users point of view be a better thing to do. As most people who drive cars are totally unaware that such a thing can be done then it makes little difference.

You do correctly point out that there is extra wear on the drivetrain, obviously, but little or less than on a similar car that is being driven hard due to the lesser power. If your driving style does not change between before and after re-map you will notice little change at all bar the car goes a bit faster. Even wear rates are not acellerated as you would expect. Thrashing a car will ruin it regardless of power. Thrash a 50bhp car consistently it will fail, thrash a 220bhp+ car consistently it will still fail. Not matter on the make or model, thrashing the car causes the damage, not the actual power of the car.

Single biggest failure after re-maps is drivetrain. Again it varies from model to model, some cars have gearboxes that are also fitted to cars higher in the range with more torque so these are not a problem. If you have a car which is already near the limits of the gearbox/clutch then you have problems brewing, most reputable re-mappers will be aware of and advise of this or even refuse to do the re-map.

Clutches are another point, but most cars will need a clutch at some stage in their lives, get one done and put in a clutch that will take the power, problem solved and very little if any difference on cost to a standard clutch supplied by your dealer.

Sandwich

OKenora wrote:

Well in good old forum fashion, either post something to debunk the claims (which to me, you seem to not have read) or STFU as any idiot can say "yeah sure" but it takes some effort to back it up with either experience from the field or some facts and figures that are relevant........etc

Fair enough. Up to a point.

But in good old forum fashion the authority and impartiality with which experience or facts and figures are quoted needs a little reading between the lines.

For example, your own posts would gain a little in weight if you stated (honestly!) that you have no vested interest in the BHP boosting business. Or, some of your explanations read a little too closely like some of the ECU mappers websites - suggesting a) you have taken them at face value and are accepting what they say as fact, or b) you are pushing a party line. Which is not to say you are either, Ill never know, but it justs looks suspicious.

Another good old forum tactic is to ignore, or to give a 'politicians answer' to a question (plenty of words but avoiding a true answer). Despite your claim to be answering the question for a 2nd time, why turbo diesels achieve bigger gains than turbo petrols is still not answered : "The reason Diesels make more than petrols is usually because there is more room for adjustment". Classic non answer just restating the question - "F1 cars go faster then tractors because they are quicker."

OKenora

For example, your own posts would gain a little in weight if you stated (honestly!) that you have no vested interest in the BHP boosting business.

I have no connection to or ever had any connection to any company that sells re-maps. My sole interest is as a hobby tuning my own personal cars and in the past tuning cars for racing (non-professionally)

Anything I pass on is gained from my own experience, the fact that it closely correlates with the re-mappers may simply be down to the fact that it's correct.

I am usually cynical about claims but when it comes to re-mapping i have rarely seen a re-mapper that makes huge false claims but some do stretch the truth a bit too far.

As to the ignore bit, I am not an expert on tuning diesels but there is far more to tune on them. Injection timing duration and amount of injections can all be changed. Fuel pressure can be changed, Turbo boost can be changed. As I said there are more bits to change than on petrols where it is basically the air fuel ratio that limits you and your other main variable is the ignition timing.