Steve,

I have been running one the DTUK boxes on my car for 6 weeks now with Zero problems... The difference against standard is impressive, and you have the option of course of tweaking the box to your own taste, I have experimented with the different settings regularly over the time I have had this fitted, probably once week I would say. And with no issues... Given that re-maps aren't readily available this is an excellent option.

Did you test fuel economy on the maps ? I am in 4+1 and can't see much of an improvement compared to standard.

Edited 31 January, 201412 yr by snowfree52

Did you test fuel economy on the maps ? I am in 4+1 and can't see much of an improvement compared to standard.

 

Do you mean you can't see much of an improvement on fuel efficiency or performance?...

 

Fuel efficiency doesn't really bother me so I haven't bothered checking to be honest...

 

If you haven't seen an improvement on performance then something is wrong, because even on lowest setting that the box is delivered with, the difference is instantly noticeable...

Improvement in fuel economy I meant.

 

performance I've seen it.

 

I posted a video couple of pages ago : 

 

Stop bragging about plus 3 lol mine won't take it..

I can't wait to see what you think of the pedal box

+2 within yours may well produce equal or greater power than +3 within another car. All components have certain tolerances and who is to say that your stock boost is not higher than someone else's?

Sorry........ 5.8 to 62mph, sub 15 seconds to a 100 and you wanna ask ask where the fuel economy is........

 

Are you here all week & do you do requests ?  Sounds like a bit of a comedian to me

 

Regards

T

I don't see your point...

 

I've remapped almost all my cars (petrol and diesel) and this is the first time I don't see a better fuel economy. 

 

Tell us what you know ... something useful 

I think his point is that generally more power equals less mpg, otherwise we would all drive 5.6l V10's running 700bhp. Some cars provide false economy reading after adding a tuning box because additional fuel is used whilst circumnavigating the ECU. The ECU/on-board computer  reports mpg based upon what fuel it thinks has been used compared to distance traveled, but the reality is that more fuel has usually been used resulting in lower mpg. The only way to know for sure is to measure using the brim to brim method. Whilst can can certainly increase power and mpg by small amounts by leaning the fuel/air mixtures it is unlikely you can gain >10% power without suffering reduced mpg or increased risk of failure due to too little fuel causing knock. 

Edited 31 January, 201412 yr by Orville

+2 within yours may well produce equal or greater power than +3 within another car. All components have certain tolerances and who is to say that your stock boost is not higher than someone else's?

 

 

Im well aware of the varying tolerance between cars, I'm sure I've already said the very same thing to Steve somewhere in this thread

I think his point is that generally more power equals less mpg, otherwise we would all drive 5.6l V10's running 700bhp. Some cars provide false economy reading after adding a tuning box because additional fuel is used whilst circumnavigating the ECU. The ECU/on-board computer  reports mpg based upon what fuel it thinks has been used compared to distance traveled, but the reality is that more fuel has usually been used resulting in lower mpg. The only way to know for sure is to measure using the brim to brim method. Whilst can can certainly increase power and mpg by small amounts by leaning the fuel/air mixtures it is unlikely you can gain >10% power without suffering reduced mpg or increased risk of failure due to too little fuel causing knock. 

 

 

Id disagree, i have 2 customers that run identical Hyundai Santa Fe's (2.2 197ps). They're 2 brothers and 1 lives in Kent, and the other just outside of Newcastle. about a year ago we sold a kit to the brother from Kent that was already achieving 48mpg (calculated), after installing the kit his calculated mpg was, and is 64mpg!!!! Did i believe him? Erm no i didn't.. 6 months later his brother who lives in newcastle popped in and yet again we added the same kit to his identical motor. 3 months later this same guy popped back in with a load of bits of paper that he has used to manually calculate his fuel figures, and yet again he was achieving 62.8mpg.

 

So you may ask, did i believe him then? Yes i did, and i do but this is the first time i have mentioned this publicly as i have a feeling that 99% of people reading this would call me a liar..

I was talking about true fuel economy, not talking about the car computer. I measure all my fill-ups.

 

And yes I've seen fuel economy improve after remap. For example my last golf averaged 38 mpg before the remap and 47 after the remap, It was the 140 TDI 4motion

 

It seems logical : at the same speed and same push of the throttle, the car is developing more torque, that means it's easier for it to go forward. You can be more gentle with the throttle to go at the same speed.

Of course, if you floor it all the time, you will use more fuel than before the remap 

Whilst I don't doubt your Golf findngs for one second I would question the mileage of the Golf prior to its remap and at end of it time with you when it was achieving 47mpg, diesels just like women are better loose.

I also don't disagree with you that "You can be more gentle with the throttle to go at the same speed." I only question whether you actually do, my tuning boxed Skoda Mk2 TDI PD 140, was better on fuel when my wife & kids where in the car but, that didn't equate to an improvement in Avg. fuel economy, gotta say it did add my enjoyment of the car though.

In short I just feel "you can't have your cake and eat it" whatever marie antoinette said.

Regards

T

easy : did the remap in July

 

+2 within yours may well produce equal or greater power than +3 within another car. All components have certain tolerances and who is to say that your stock boost is not higher than someone else's?

 

I can only go by my own feelings and experience on my own car and 4+3 'feels' To have the strongest result. As mentioned previously I have tried all map options more than once to ensure it wasn't a case of me just thinking the 4+3 was the best due to it being the highest setting...

 

I actually thought that 4+2 would be the best as it seemed to be the common choice, but after running it for a while it definitely was not as preferable to me as 4+3, and obviously cars and there components have there different tolerances as Andrews car refuses to run the 4+3 map... 

 

The only way to prove which car was obtaining the best result from which map would be a direct back to back comparison on the same dyno...

 

Or perhaps we could call on Ron Dennis for help 

Edited 31 January, 201412 yr by SteveWCombivRS

diesels just like women are better loose

 

On the contrary, I prefer my women on the tighter side..........worm in a bucket syndrome is not so good

 

Now back to the thread

Oh, and no car can defy the laws of Physics - If you want to go faster, you need more bang, which requires more fuel. So if you want to engage in more 'spirited' driving, you are going to sacrifice fuel. 

"Oh, and no car can defy the laws of Physics..."

 

Obviously I am not including - chitty chitty bang bang, the Bat mobile, Herbie or Marty McFly's DeLorean before anybody gets that one in...

Power from a petrol engine comes from mixing fuel with air and igniting it. More air is required for larger explosions and by upping boost pressure this is easily achieved. However too much air and not enough fuel causes the engine to run lean and this is one of the biggest causes of early engine failures. To prolong engine life most manufactures run their engines (especially turbo petrols) slightly rich. Running rich wastes some fuel and actually increases emissions but it is far preferably than running lean, especially with the positive and variable air pressure provided by turbos.

Remaps certainly CAN provide better fuel economy when done properly but this is mostly achieved by running less rich, a process which will invariably eat into some of the safety margin. I would have been worried if any of my remapped cars gave greatly improved economy, but happy enough if things stayed the same or there was a slight improvement. The secret is to obtain a balance between more air and the right amount of fuel. There is only so much air and fuel which can fit into the combustion chamber. Too much fuel and too little air is better than the other way around, even if mpg is slightly hit.

I would not be comfortable with +20% power and +10% economy. If it was that easy every manufacturer would do it.

My remapped UK Imoreza Turbo was programmed to run leaner. It produced ~30bhp more than stock (230 to 260ish) and provided better economy albeit very slightly. The UK cars ran very rich out of the box so there was room to lean out the mixture. My Jap Import Impreza gained a similar power when mapped (276 to 305bhp), but the car was programmed to run richer because it ran too lean otherwise (det was detected during dyno tuning so fuel map was increased). After the remap mpg suffered noticeably, but it survived many track days and I knew it was safe. Moral is, different rules for different cars and better safe than sorry.

I personally would be very happy to run one on Andrew's DTUK boxes and will probably buy one at some stage. I do however get slightly worried when people report great power gains and increased economy. It is possible, but how much margin will be left? I comment on petrol cars only, diesel is another science.

Well I'm off to the dyno again tomorrow with 2 MK7 Golfs

1.6 105ps and a 2.0 150PS

I'll post results up tomorrow in a seperate thread

Can't wait to hear the news on the 150. I'm still hoping to be getting a Seat Leon ST FR DSG (150) soon.

Jesus, that's a mouthful!!

Tapatalked from my G PAD 8.3

Andrew, sorry to ask this question, but are you trying to convince us that the guy who installed your box is achieving 64 miles per gallon (I am not good with gallons, so I will assume that my conversion is correct and that we are speaking about 4,4 liters per 100 km) with a two ton SUV that has aerodynamics of a shoe box?

 

Sorry but that is just insane and impossible to achieve! The only way he can consume those figures of fuel is to go downhill all the time, or run motor on idle while somebody else is towing you. Even sprintmonitor, which usually shows a little bit less that a normal ''not paying attention to the consumption all the time'' driver achieves gives figures that are exactly double then the ones you are claiming.   

So you may ask, did I believe him then? Yes I did, and I do but this is the first time I have mentioned this publicly as I have a feeling that 99% of people reading this would call me a liar..

 

Andrew, sorry to ask this question, but are you trying to convince us that the guy who installed your box is achieving 64 miles per gallon (I am not good with gallons, so I will assume that my conversion is correct and that we are speaking about 4,4 liters per 100 km) with a two ton SUV that has aerodynamics of a shoe box?

 

Hopefully we don't get another 98 people stating the same point but I'll stick with what Andrew has been told to be the lone 1% if necessary!

 

I do appreciate that to most people it could be construed as a marketing ploy but hasn't this been talked over and over in the past 12 pages?

Andrew, sorry to ask this question, but are you trying to convince us that the guy who installed your box is achieving 64 miles per gallon (I am not good with gallons, so I will assume that my conversion is correct and that we are speaking about 4,4 liters per 100 km) with a two ton SUV that has aerodynamics of a shoe box?

Sorry but that is just insane and impossible to achieve! The only way he can consume those figures of fuel is to go downhill all the time, or run motor on idle while somebody else is towing you. Even sprintmonitor, which usually shows a little bit less that a normal ''not paying attention to the consumption all the time'' driver achieves gives figures that are exactly double then the ones you are claiming.

As I said I didn't believe the customer myself and your reply is why I've never mentioned it earlier or anywhere else, but when you have a customer in front of you that has taken the time to write all of his mileage and trips to the fuel station down, then who am I to argue?

Can't wait to hear the news on the 150. I'm still hoping to be getting a Seat Leon ST FR DSG (150) soon. Jesus, that's a mouthful!! Tapatalked from my G PAD 8.3

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/303556-2014-20-tdi-150ps-dyno-results/

http://www.briskoda.net/forums/topic/303556-2014-20-tdi-150ps-dyno-results/

 

Tread Carefully.... You know what's waiting...

Tread Carefully.... You know what's waiting...

It's the same as this one Steve, I honestly don't know why I bother with this place tbh, but then that would be allowing the minority spoiling it for the majority