Its that time of year to renew my insurance on the vRS, I am also considering remapping at the same time to coincide with the change of policy.

1. If the car is insured as remapped but it actually isn't (i.e. its booked in for next week) would it actually be covered? I suppose technically its not, but its over insured. :confused:

2. You have to quote percentage increases for the remap, the groups I've found are upto 11%, 11 - 25% and 26% >. Now do I 'have' to tell the truth, most maps are apparently kicking out 180bhp so thats grater than 26%, however, this group is significantly more expensive than the 11 - 25% group. I suppose I could always get a rolling road printout as evidence thats its bhp is 'below' the quoted figures. Equally worst case scenario, if the car was written off, other than being able to tell its remapped you wouldn't be able to find out the actual power increase.

I know what the right answer is, just wondering if anyone has had the same thought and which was they went.

Thanks.

I'm in a similar situation to you in that my car is insured as a chipped/remapped car but it's currently standard. My take is that I'm paying extra for this perk so if the car was to be stolen/written off I would expect them to replace the remap/tuning box

As for the figures - presumably you'll be noting down the company who did the remap on the policy docs so that if the worst happens and you need it reinstated they'll pay out. It's not really difficult for them to then find out from the tuner what their products put out. However, I do agree that there's little way of them finding out unless there's a paper/forum trail

Chris

Hmmm......

As for the power % question that's a tricky one. I'm not condoning this by any means but if your car ends up on its roof the chances of the insurer rolling roading the car to determine power increase are going to be slim.

All they can tell using the diag equipment is that the map has been fiddled with due to the version codes etc. Doubt they could see any more than that BUT all they have to do is ask whoever mapped it what the expected power output is and they'll know straight off. Also, they'll have a good insight what the expected gains are from mapping a PD130 anyway so if they see it's been mapped then they'll just jump to the 170bhp conclusion.

In terms of being insured for mods you don't have, I'd say ask the insurers themselves. I doubt it'd be an issue - the reason you have to declare mods is for increased insurer risk and possible increase in car value. Having the mods insured in rediness is surely a good thing to do as you're technically 'overinsured'.

HHmmm, the old bhp debate and what gets measured by whom and where.

As a former Scooby driver, I used to suffer from the jeers of Evo drivers about their 300+ bhp engines vs my 210 - 280 bhp boxer lumps, until I realised that Mitsubishi measured bhp at the flywheel and Subaru measured bhp at the roadwheels (rolling road job). At the end of the day there was feck all difference (apart from the Evo FQ 340's which kept blowing up)

A "130 bhp" vRS measured on a rolling road will probably show a number greater than 130 bhp and the next time you measure it, the number will be different! Things like ambient temperature, cooling efficiency, the angle of the sun over the horizon in Kurdistan, the colour of your shirt, all seem to play a part in this blackest of the black arts. So here's my suggestion:

1. Establish the bhp of the engine "as is" on paper

2. Stick in panel filter, turbo, new IC or other performance thingies

3. Remap the engine, get new numbers on paper

4. Express the difference between bhp at 3 and bhp at 2 as a percentage of bhp at 2, which will be lower than expressing it as a percentage of the mythical "130".

This is totally honest and truthful, but may save you some money and not endanger your cover.

If the insurers require an actual number from the re-mapper i.e. "936.54 bhp" then you're fecked and I've just bored the a**e off you.

Oohhh. Some good replies there guys I was half expecting to be told to tell the truth, which I suppose I have been But its definitely made me have a rethink.

Mac: the insurance company only wants a percentage increase. I would presume that this is measured from what the manufacturers claim it should be putting out, as opposed to what it is as standard. I fully agree with you about rolling road being a bit whimsical, but not sure how my shirt colour would make a difference

Once again thanks!

As a former Scooby driver, I used to suffer from the jeers of Evo drivers about their 300+ bhp engines vs my 210 - 280 bhp boxer lumps, until I realised that Mitsubishi measured bhp at the flywheel and Subaru measured bhp at the roadwheels (rolling road job).

Do you have a link to where this info comes from? I'd be surprised if any manufacturer quoted wheel horse power as the results would vary wildly. More likely they are tested on a bench dyno where all things like transmission losses, tyres, tyre pressures, oil temperature, humidity, air temperature can be accounted for.

It would also explain why a stock Impreza only makes about 170bhp at the wheels

Chris

was about to question this myself,chris's type uk(ntshluke) only made 170ish on awesomes rolling road:confused:

RR at the wheels with 4 wheel drive? There's be huge drivetrain losses I'd have thought with 2 diffs, a prop and rear halfshaft.

don't quote me on this but i think the flywheel figure on a type uk is 230ish so that would equate to 60ish transmission losses

Hmmm...high-ish losses then. What are the expected losses on FWD? Can't remember off the top of my head.

i lost 12bhp on awesomes rollers,155 at the fly down to 143 at the wheels so under 10%for mine

Ouch.....so the moral of the story is children, you want to keep as much power going through to the wheels as possible, buy a lovely understeery FWD car.

as standard the scoobs understeer too:eek:

RR at the wheels with 4 wheel drive? There's be huge drivetrain losses I'd have thought with 2 diffs, a prop and rear halfshaft.

Up to 80bhp losses aren't uncommon. The thing to remember though is that the Scooby is not really about big speed (where the losses really become apparent) but more about off the line sprints and the "twisties". Presumably RWD cars will see bigger transmission losses than FWD cars on rolling roads too?

Chris

Deleted - Misread what I was quoting. Doh!