Hi All

 

Just after some advice - im not interested in speed only fuel economy improvements and seeing what tuning boxes/ chips are ideal that people have tried and tested.

 

I see theres a range ox tuning boxes from 60 pound to 400 plus. Just seeing here what's been tried and tested and look forward to what you think..

 

Ash

 

Kodiaq 150 4x4 SE 2017

 

 

Because manufacturers are so keen to achieve low emissions and good official consumption figures, I suspect that nowadays most cars come already  “tuned” to the economy end of what’s possible; there’ll not be much left to gain with an after-market box.

 

Two of the most effective ways to increase economy would be, of course, to avoid something so large as a Kodiaq, and to avoid 4x4!

Edited 23 May, 20215 yr by DaveMiller

My experience with ECU software flash / tunes (not an inline box but an actual software change) is that the fuel economy for the diesels gets much better but the petrols not so much.  This is possibly related to the reduction of EGR that most tunes perform which in your region might cause you to fail MOTs (we don't have them where I live).

 

I did get my CZPA petrol tuned and the economy did get better but not by as much as a diesel engine tune.  It might be related to the ability to stay in a higher gear for more time but can't really say.  It might also be related to the engine loosening up (I tuned at 15,000km and am now at 21,000).  Sometimes it's hard to pin it down as it varies so much by driving style and environmental factors.

23 hours ago, 123ash said:

Kodiaq 150 4x4 SE 2017

Well, if I wanted "fuel economy" I wouldn't buy a 1.6 ton SUV...

 

I also wouldn't buy a £60 FleaBay resister box.

I've ran plenty of tuning boxes over the years in everything from 1.4 Tdi A2's and a variety of PD 1.9 tdi's in Audis and Skoda's.. I even had one in my 2.0T TSi superb for a bit.. Probably all in well over 100k+ in motors boxed up.. Never had any issues with any of them.  I know in the TDi's they did give a slight improvement in fuel economy but I always ended up using all the extra torque and horsing it on.. If driven right I would say you would get even more economy as they let the car mope about more off boost.. so it's easier driven.. 

 

They are worth a try, some places will offer a 30 money back guarantee.. so worth a shot.. I would stick to larger brands like TDUK or Racechip.  Search ebay as generally any of the 2.0 Tdi 150bhp ones would do.. Audi, seat, VW etc.. 

 

 

I suspect driving style would have more effect on fuel consumption for some people 

 

Lets say you save 2% on a £60 tankful, which is £1.40

If that tankful of fuel gets you 400-450 miles

The box you buy costs £100, so need 70 refuels saving £1.40 to get your money back, and it will take 30,000 miles to cover cost of box

 

In the big picture, noting also have costs for servicing, car tax, insurance, depreciation, new tyres etc over your 30,000 miles is it really worth it.  You will need to get a decent fuel saving to justify doing it (my 2% was an example)

If you really want to save fuel, change to smaller car.

 

 

 

Hi.

If you have any issues with insurance for a tuning box then please feel free to drop me a line.

Regards,

Dan.

On 24/05/2021 at 20:24, KenONeill said:

Well, if I wanted "fuel economy" I wouldn't buy a 1.6 ton SUV...

 

I also wouldn't buy a £60 FleaBay resister box.

 

1.6 ton and the rest!  Mrs Avocet's 150bhp diesel 7 seat 4x4 weighs 1861kg with a full tank of fuel and 75kg in the driving seat!

I work in the car industry.  I know "calibration engineers" (the guys whose job it is to optimise the engine mapping to get the best possible fuel consumption and CO2 figures out of them), who would sell their own mothers for a (genuine) 2% improvement!  When you see the £ millions big manufacturers spend on this, you really have to wonder about some of the claims for these tuning boxes and remaps!  Yes, you can get them a bit better by breaking the law and at the expense of increased emissions, but the gains are really marginal.  When one of these remap or tuning box companies posts up an independent report from an emissions lab, where the car is tested to the same requirements as it had to meet when it was type approved, I'll buy one.

I have had several tuning boxes and remaps on my cars during last decade and no one has improved the fuel economy.

Makes sense - the map I am using on Kodiaq added 52 HP and 100 Nm. How the hell could it be possible with reduced economy?

 

If you read the terms (very tiny letters usually), the tuning software / hardware producers claim the economy is achieved only and only through the faster acceleration (car reaches max speed faster therefore uses less fuel).

 

However there are boxes/remaps that can reduce the fuel economy, but they will cut a fair amount of horses off the engine.

10 hours ago, Avocet said:

 

1.6 ton and the rest!  Mrs Avocet's 150bhp diesel 7 seat 4x4 weighs 1861kg with a full tank of fuel and 75kg in the driving seat!

I sit corrected, and rest my case. With the note that this is one of the better examples, at least as long as Mrs A needs a 7 seat vehicle.

1 minute ago, KenONeill said:

I sit corrected, and rest my case. With the note that this is one of the better examples, at least as long as Mrs A needs a 7 seat vehicle.

 

Yeah, I was staggered at how heavy it is.  And of course, an interesting question about "need"!  Youngest Avocetlet is a keen cyclist and she needs to be able to take him and his bike to cycling each week.  Mrs. A is very small  and can't really put a bike rack on, so it would need to be inside the car.  An Octavia estate would be fine for that.  However, we do live in rural Cumbria and having more driven wheels is a definite plus.  But the REAL reason, is rather sadder.  This replaces an old T30 Nissan X-Trail.  A couple of years ago, she was hit, hard, by a couple of lads in a SEAT Leon.  It was an offset-frontal with a very narrow overlap.  

 

 

Sadly, her left leg never fully recovered and it ended her career.  She's only in her mid 50s.  For that reason, she needed an auto.  Ultimately, there was no way I could persuade her to go for an Octavia!  She's a really nervous driver now and desperately needs the reassurance of having a decent amount of metal around her!  It's not ideal, to be honest, and she's never used the Row 3 seats, but in this part of the world, you don't get much choice in second hand cars and this one came up and ticked the boxes.  It's certainly a nice drive, but you're always conscious of how heavy it is.

On the plus side, her X-Trail was a Euro 4 diesel and averaged about 33 to the gallon, with corresponding CO2 emissions.  Despite its extra weight, the Kodiaq is so far averaging 41 to the gallon (or 44 according to its trip computer!)  and is a Euro 6d.  I have to say, that's pretty darned impressive!

 

12 minutes ago, Avocet said:

41 to the gallon (or 44 according to its trip computer!)

That (as a ratio) is about typical of my experience of VAG trip computers. So they're more useful as tools for monitoring to spot developing problems than for working out running costs.

 

Not telling you what to do, but if you have somewhere to store them, removing the row 3 seats should save about 60kg.

2 hours ago, KenONeill said:

That (as a ratio) is about typical of my experience of VAG trip computers. So they're more useful as tools for monitoring to spot developing problems than for working out running costs.

 

Not telling you what to do, but if you have somewhere to store them, removing the row 3 seats should save about 60kg.

 

Superb 2 had a possibility to tune the onboard computer`s consumption readings with VCDS. I remember I had to add 12% to achieve the correct brim to brim figures. That was before the tuning box. Box messed the readings up, but that`s another story.

Interested to see the comment by Linni regarding the accuracy of the infotainment computed fuel consumption: in my previous car (Golf diesel estate) both the speedo and mpg figures were pretty much accurate, when checked with GPS and brim-to-brim. Indeed, the GPS demonstrated very clearly that the speedo had no leeway, so we had to be extra careful regarding speed limits. So far, checks on the Kodiaq's fuel consumption shows it to be accurate to within 1-2 mpg, probably slightly optimistic. Then again, I have changed wheels/tyres to 17-inch with Cross-Climate plus tyres, so road noise is even lower, ride is improved, and more protection against the horrendous roads in this area which would utterly destroy those 'fashionable' 40- or 45-section tyre/wheel combos in a matter of months. This wheel/tyre change, in theory, should have made the speedo a bit more optimistic, but it didn't seem to turn out that way.

 

The other interesting thing is that when I first looked at these forums, some folk were complaining about initial take-up being sluggish. Not sure if that ever applied to the 2.0 TSi engine, but blimey, I have to be careful - our car is super-lively from a standing start, cf our Golf diesel, so perhaps it was always thus or Skoda listened and tweaked the throttle response. My only complaint is that, when cold and under very light throttle, the initial few 100 m has a slightly 'lumpy' throttle feeling, but that soon goes away.

 

I'm always intrigued by folk who think that some fuel consumption 'magic' can be obtained from 3rd-party tuning boxes. I guess it's possible, if you drive in a certain way which just happens to coincide with the tuning 'sweet spot' but, really, the whole point of these boxes is to increase real or perceived performance (colleague of mine is really into this stuff and has, many times, related stories of his 'tuning adventures'). But, really, if you're interested in fuel economy, the best fuel-saving gadget is the combination of your brain and right foot: drive with anticipation and mechanical sympathy, loads of web sites and YouTube advice on how to do this, all of it pretty much entirely obvious.

 

Note: any Audi or BMW driver found driving 'sensibly' will have their cars impounded by their dealer, for the crime of breaking the terms and conditions of their purchase (!)

11 hours ago, linni said:

the tuning software / hardware producers claim the economy is achieved only and only through the faster acceleration (car reaches max speed faster therefore uses less fuel).

 

That is contrary to the laws of physics which is why it earned a "laugh" vote from Avocet and myself, it is however par for the course in terms of the idiotic claims they make.

2 hours ago, J.R. said:

 

That is contrary to the laws of physics which is why it earned a "laugh" vote from Avocet and myself, it is however par for the course in terms of the idiotic claims they make.

Not sure about that.  Do you not remember the sponsored (was it BP?) competitions where drivers (typically motoring journalists) sought to get greatest mpg over a set, and timed, course?  One of the key winning methods was to accelerate fairly swiftly to allowed max, then coast. Turned out to be more economical (and considerably more inconvenient for everyone around!) than maintaining a light, level throttle.  It offends my sense of how the the physical world works, but that was the claim!

I had that in mind, it was indeed the case but with a specially designed petrol not diesel engine, 3 narrow main bearings, one piston ring, no oil scraper rings, low friction seals etc...................

 

The key thing is that a petrol engine has the best thermal efficiency on a wide open throttle where there are no aspiration losses.

 

These chip tuning companies are remapping diesel engines to produce more boost and consume more fuel to produce more power across an (in my case) extended RPM range, the diesel has no throttle, practically no induction losses,  you cannot make them accelerate without adding more fuel, you cannot make them accelerate faster without adding even more fuel, the tuning companys cannot change Newtons 2nd law.

15 hours ago, J.R. said:

 

That is contrary to the laws of physics which is why it earned a "laugh" vote from Avocet and myself, it is however par for the course in terms of the idiotic claims they make.

 

Don`t shoot the messenger.

On 29/05/2021 at 19:49, DaveMiller said:

Not sure about that.  Do you not remember the sponsored (was it BP?) competitions where drivers (typically motoring journalists) sought to get greatest mpg over a set, and timed, course?  One of the key winning methods was to accelerate fairly swiftly to allowed max, then coast. Turned out to be more economical (and considerably more inconvenient for everyone around!) than maintaining a light, level throttle.  It offends my sense of how the the physical world works, but that was the claim!

Yes. Mobil.

 

Lots of fancy (silly) tricks to eke out another mpg. Utter nonsense in the real world.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobil_Economy_Run

 

 

A vacuum guage wasn't, it gave a very usefull comparative display.

 

I had one because I was young and we all wanted our dashboards stuffed with guages unless we were lucky enough to have a Jaguar or 1600E Tincorner, it was of no real value to me as the roads then were my personal racetrack

 

Then I had to drive back from the Norfolk Broads to Gatwick with a blown head gasket pressurising the water system, I extended the radiator overflow pipe and routed it under the bonnet/wing shut line so I could see the steam coming out, no more steam = refill radiator time

 

I tried to eke out as many miles as I could between enforced stops & the vacuum guage was my ally that day and that day only!