15% More fuel efficient?

[dudgers]

Just seen this on my local Facebook for sales page.Does it look correct?

[VRS_Dan]

I think from memory, remaps do make the car more efficient but im not sure about 15%.

[CWARD]

Theory is more power the less you have to press the throttle to have the same speed as before and that's where you get the fuel saving. Problem is you just want to press the peddle more once you have the remap.

[Anddenton]

I'd question 35% more power too, that would make a derv VRS 230 bhp? Surely a remap on its own can't achieve that?

[langers2k]

It's the normal magic phase when it comes to anything like this, 'up to'

[Karlosfandango1973]

having a stage 1 done on mine at the weekend, He thinks its will go from 105 to 140 bhp 

[sniper29a]

old wives stories tell about 0.5l/100 km lower fuel consumption...IF you can drive like before ;-)

I don't know anyone who gets remap and drives as family lost on shopping trip ;-)

 

I went from 6.5 to 7.1l/100km but I gained a rocket ship :-D

[sniper29a]

Mike you have hills in UK - I din't notice during my life there ;-) Just joking, I'm used to mountains around 4000m :-D

[brad1.8T]

My 1.8tsi remap claimed +XX%.  They were taking that % increase on the factory claimed 118kw.  They conveniently ignored the fact that most 1.8tsi record around 125kw ex-factory - so immediately the car has gained about 6% without even getting a remap.

 

The extra power was never a big deal for me - I just love the extra torque while I'm driving around like a family lost on a shopping trip. 

[phil5556]

My 170PD is better if I drive it carefully, maybe 3 or 4mpg better on a run.

On my commute to work I can get 50 miles less per tank if I don't drive carefully. But I get to work quicker

[pipemajor]

having a stage 1 done on mine at the weekend, He thinks its will go from 105 to 140 bhp 

Let us know how it goes. I have the same car and would be interested in the results

[Karlosfandango1973]

Some folks need to realise that not everyone remaps to drive like Ayton Senna. It's not big and it's not clever to boast of driving in that manner on any public road.

 

My remap was done purely because my local area is very hilly, and the fully weighted 1.9 diesel needed a lot of gear changing on some of these hills. The remap has given more torque and makes the car far easier to drive -- I am not a fast driver, and was not really interested in the extra power or overall performance, and the car does not get driven any differently speed wise than before. Yes it probably is a "rocket ship" compared to what it was, but that doesn't interest me. What I have gained is a car that is far happier on hills, and safer for overtaking when needed, nothing else -- and my fuel economy is significantly better because of that. All my fuel consumption is logged on a spreadsheet, and the instant change in the fuel figures from before and after the remap is there to see.  FACT.

 

Mike

Agreed Mike, I solely want mine done with regards to having some more low down torque so it pulls better when needed, I am mostly found in the left hand lane on a Duel carriage!

[Stuart-h]

Ive got a quantum remap thing on my work car. Ive noticed the difference!
Ive noticied the difference between the work car and my other one! Both are octivias with 2 liter diesel bkd engines.
 

[88rsr]

I don't think everyone who offers re-maps knows the best way to extract more from the car, a lot probably just whack up the boost on turbo vehicles which obviously does work to an extent but it then just throws in more fuel to compensate. I'd probably say as a rule that any place that can't re-map a N/A engine might not actually know what they are doing (may not be the case of course), but they probably use generic maps and don't write their own which is the part that can take up hours if factoring in modifications. 

 

The map done on my car actually only shows a boost increase of 1psi over standard but makes ~35bhp and a fair chunk of torque more than the factory figures, driven sensibly it can still show mid 60s on the trip computer (whether it actually is that or not is questionable with trip computers, I do use fuelly and measure tank to tank but 90 of my driving is the lovely streets of Sheffield in traffic) but over 600 miles from a tank is easily achievable though if doing long runs.

 

A lot of places will offer "eco" maps which are aimed more at economy but still end up with a power increase anyway just not as much as a "power" aimed map.

 

As mentioned anyway the magic words are "up to" but the figures are to grab your attention, and there probably are a lot of cars that do achieve those maximum percentage figures as they are heavily de-tuned from the manufacturer to meet the emissions criteria.

[sniper29a]

ENERGY (FUEL) = POWER = HEAT

 

MORE POWER = QUICKER ACCELERATION = THEORETICALLY LOWER FUEL CONSUMPTION IN LONG RUNS (UNLESS YOU DRIVE IN MOUNTAIN, WHERE YOU NEED 60-80% ENGINE LOAD ALL THE TIME)

 

ECO = NO FUEL = HIGHER REVS = HIGH LOAD = MORE FUEL CONSUMPTION. It reminds me my replacement Vauxhall Astra 1.1 ECO...9l/100km, down-shifting gears all the time :-D

It is very easy. From energy point of view it is simply impossible to have more power and lower consumption.

 

If you drive your carefully, then you don't need remap.

 

It is same as EGR/emission myth - there are some scientists who believe burnt fuel can burn again and it can lower fuel consumption and CO emissions :-D People still using wood and coal for heating know best :-D

[sniper29a]

With the greatest of respect to everyone,  it isn't really feasible to try to compare even identical cars.  It is purely down to how it is driven by the individual driver.  Newly remapped,  it may seem disappointing on fuel as you WILL use that right foot more as the extra power is there,  available and crying out to be used.  Drive it hard,  or harder,  and it will use more.  Fact. But the economy benefit does show when you get over the new toy syndrome and drive it sensibly.  

 

If I have my foot down more,  there is a really marked difference in the mpg return compared with driving gently.  It's on the long,  steady,  reasonably speed runs where the economy simply goes through the roof,  far better than pre-map 

 

Mike 

They just switched off EGR and engine finally combust effectively ;-) That is whole trick of "remap". You can do it yourself with VCDS and EGR Duty Cycle modification. EGR maps goes up to 60% of pedal I believe. Above that, it is just pure fuel.

 

ENERGY (FUEL) = POWER. You can't have power with lower fuel consumption ;-)

[thomasbham]

They just switched off EGR and engine finally combust effectively ;-) That is whole trick of "remap". You can do it yourself with VCDS and EGR Duty Cycle modification. EGR maps goes up to 60% of pedal I believe. Above that, it is just pure fuel.

ENERGY (FUEL) = POWER. You can't have power with lower fuel consumption ;-)

That is interesting. How to do it? Do you know?

[RainbowFire]

Yes it probably is a "rocket ship" compared to what it was....

 

Being honest though Mike, unmapped it probably felt like a rocket ship compared to your work vehicles ;)

[MickeyB]

In some cases, it is possible to have more power, and better consumption, but the starting tune of the pre-tuned engine would need to be less than ideal.

I can speak from experience with the Chevrolet LS1 engine, which was the OEM engine in various models of our (Australian) Holden Commodore: I went to a club dyno day a few years back, and absolutely stock, OEM engines in exactly the same model/spec of car were so inconsistently tuned, we saw differences of up to 40kw (up to around 30%) at the wheels between identical cars built within weeks of each other. In many cases, a flash retune gained both power and better fuel economy, purely due to the inconsistencies from the factory.

Pretty sure most euro cars exhibit much greater consistency than these figures though...

I'll be able to report on the 147TFSI with a Bluefin stage 2 tune in the near future, as my work run (200km/day) represents most t of my mileage, and is 99% straight line highway driving in 6th gear using cruise control. If a tune can make a positive difference to fuel consumption, it should show up. The only way I can think of where this would be the case would be if the old tune were excessively rich, and the new tune significantly leaner. Even so, how much of a difference can a mild lean-out make to fuel consumption? I'd be very surprised if it were measureable/significant, but we'll see...

No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy

[Karlosfandango1973]

Let us know how it goes. I have the same car and would be interested in the results

 

Well I have had the remap, Ive not had time to gather much fuel data on my normal work commute as yet but will update as soon as I have a fair pattern. As for power is has definitely made the car less lazy on lower revs, as for the higher revs it is noticeably more responsive and quicker. As the guy who did it said you can never make up for CC so it wont pull as hard in all gears as my old 2L PD Octy, but it certainly is quicker for sure.