Got my Jabbasport remap today!

[n0ct0]

Just an update on the remap. Went down to Spitfire Performance in Rotherham, Chris, the guy that runs it, read the ECU and mailed the original map off to Jabbasport. About 30 minutes later the new map had come back and been flashed onto the ECU. Easy.

I will get some figures and a little video footage, but right now I'm too busy grinning! As a real world driving car, the remapped Roomster is excellent. Comfy ride, decent grip and now storming pulling power out of corners.

The extra power arrives in one big lump in the mid range and it seems to be better short shifting than running thorough to the red line. I went down a couple of winding roads that I've been down in previous cars, Mini Cooper, Fiat Panda 100HP, Vectra 3.2GSI and none of them would have been any quicker than the Skoda without driving at silly speeds, if at all. The advantage of the remapped Roomster going from A to B is that you don't need to keep up high corner speeds to maintain a decent average as it pulls so well out of the bends. This is a good thing as you never know if there's a cyclist, tractor, pile of mud, or whatever lurking around the corner.

Motorway cruising and driving in traffic feels just like the regular car until you want to overtake or pull into a gap in another lane, when there's plenty of torque there to easily accelerate without having to change down or plan ahead.

So basically, I'm happy! Fuel has stayed at about 52 mpg, but I've had a heavier foot today. The front tyres will definitely take a beating, but you can't have it all, as will the clutch. I also noticed I've been on the brakes a lot more, though there's been no noticeable fade, so some harder pads could be on the cards.

EDIT: Note that the above is all relative. We are talking about a diesel MPV here, so yes, it's an excellent upgrade, but it's not an M3!

Edited 12 November, 2010 by n0ct0

[Jabbasport]

Great to hear you're pleased with the map i supplied..

Cheers

Kevin

[n0ct0]

Great to hear you're pleased with the map i supplied..

Cheers

Kevin

I am indeed. Thanks again, Kevin!

[Steevie Wonder]

Yet another happy customer!!

[n0ct0]

As an update I've just driven 700+ miles up to Scotland and back and I'm getting and average of just under 54 mpg. It was mainly dual carriageway at legal speeds. Normal A & B roads I've been getting 56-58 mpg.

[n0ct0]

Update on the update. Now everything has settled down, including me, I regularly get 60 mpg in normal single carriageway A & B road driving. Some quick maths based on the above average mileage that the car does gives a saving of over £100 a year at current fuel prices. Of course that's not the only reason to pay £295 for a remap, but it does show that it will eventually pay for itself. And it basically turns a relaxed, easy to drive car into an even more relaxed, easy to drive car.

Edited 12 November, 2010 by n0ct0

[Julian Edgar]

I regularly get 60 mpg in normal single carriageway A

What did you get on the same road before the remap?

Got any before/after acceleration figures?

Edited 12 November, 2010 by Julian Edgar

[Auric Goldfinger]

Some quick maths based on the above average mileage that the car does gives a saving of over £100 a year at current fuel prices.

Is that after you take off the increase in your Insurance Premium?? :yes:

[n0ct0]

Is that after you take off the increase in your Insurance Premium?? :yes:

The insurance was through the RAC and the remap did not affect the premium.

[n0ct0]

What did you get on the same road before the remap?

Got any before/after acceleration figures?

I would say about 56mpg in the same conditions. Overall average on the trip was 52mpg before. We shall see if it's gone up in a couple of weeks.

I was going to get acceleration times with some software on my phone, but the smell of burning clutch put me off! The times I did get were so inconsistent that I gave up. Best 0-60 8.4 (unlikely), worst 11.8. Says more about my driving than the car. But we all know that in the real world in gear acceleration is more meaningful than 0-60.

Edited 13 November, 2010 by n0ct0

[Julian Edgar]

Don't do standing start times. Do rolling times. From an article I wrote on the subject (change to mph equivalents of course as you wish):

The most important real world performance times are those measured ‘in gear’ or ‘rolling’. These can be done in two different ways.

A pure rolling time is one where, for example, you drive along in second gear at 50 km/h. You put your foot flat to the floor and then click the stopwatch start as the speedo needle moves past 60 km/h. You then again click the stopwatch at 90 km/h - and then back-off after that. So you’re measuring how quickly the car will accelerate from 60 to 90 km/h when it has already started accelerating.

The other way of doing this is to drive along at a constant 60 km/h and at the same time as you boot it, press the stopwatch. Again stop the watch at 90 km/h (or whatever speed you nominate). This measurement not only takes into account acceleration, but also response – the time it takes for the car to start to accelerate.

Note that the speed increments described here (60 – 90 km/h) can be used almost anywhere on suitably speed-rated roads – from a freeway ‘on’ ramp to a 100 km/h limited country road. The actual speed range you choose to use, and the gears you do it in, are up to you.

These two ‘rolling’ measurement techniques are exceptionally useful – far more so than the standing start times. In the real world of road driving, I’d trade off a drop in power for better rolling throttle response. Why? Because a faster-responding car will always get the jump on one with (say) 10 per cent more power but a laggier response. (This is yet another thing a dyno does not show!) A responsive car is also much easier to corner.

Back to rolling acceleration times. I did some modification of a diesel Peugeot 405. The car was a pretty slow (but very economical) machine and so I wasn’t expecting to revolutionise performance. But by making changes to fuelling, the intake and exhaust, I dropped the ‘accelerating’ 80-100 km/h time from 10.7 seconds to 5.5 seconds – so after the modifications, the car took about half the time to accelerate between these speeds in 4th gear.

80-110 km/h in 3rd gear improved even more dramatically - falling from 15.1 seconds to 5.9 seconds.

Importantly, the standing start time 0-100 km/h difference (from 15.3 seconds to 13.4 seconds) was much less impressive – but on the road, the car felt transformed. On the dyno, the measured gains were minor...

I am geting my 1.9 tdi Roomster remapped soon. It has a new custom intake (made the car slower - but the pressure drop is reduced, so wait for the remap) and will shortly get a new exhaust. Any measurements you can make would be very welcome as comparisons.

Edited 13 November, 2010 by Julian Edgar