Peugeot Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi. Have recently fitted a Racechip GTS ECU add-on to my 2.0 Blue HDi and am happy with the results although I have not had my car assessed on a rolling road yet. Just wondering if anyone else has fitted this same upgrade and how they are getting on with it e.g. any mileage improvement, any rolling road results etc? Thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Still haven't been on a rolling road yet but am happy with how car feels and drives. If I drive with a light foot fuel economy is better and am getting around 50 mpg in town.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Obviously driving sensibly will improve fuel economy. You take 1 car and let 10 people drive it over the same route and you'll get 10 different mpg readings.

Look, my original post was to ask the forum if anyone has remapped their ECU or fitted the add-on device as I have. I am just looking for anyone who has first hand experience.

I am neither a supporter nor opponent of this upgrade. There are obviously pros and cons as have already been mentioned. I chose to try it and so far think my car is better to drive. Do I know for sure that it's better? No. I don't have any recorded stats as yet (rolling road sessions aren't cheap). It just feels better to me.

If someone has personal experiences of a remap or similar to share I am interested to hear from them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
What I don't understand is this:

Factory sets up ECU the way they think is correct. Always, but ALWAYS and for any car make/model these tuners come up and build "better map" that gives "better fuel economy", gives "more HP" and "better overall feeling".

Is it possible that ALL the tech people in ALL of the car manufacturers all over the world aren't capable enough to make their own mapping better, to match that after-market mapping?
And even if they are incapable of doing their job (again, ALL of them), why don't they simply buy 1 remapped chip, read it and use that map in factory to program all ECUs right there in factory, and deliver them to customers mapped with "better throttle response", "lower emissions", "lower fuel usage" and "more HP".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
What I don't understand is this:

Factory sets up ECU the way they think is correct. Always, but ALWAYS and for any car make/model these tuners come up and build "better map" that gives "better fuel economy", gives "more HP" and "better overall feeling".

Is it possible that ALL the tech people in ALL of the car manufacturers all over the world aren't capable enough to make their own mapping better, to match that after-market mapping?
And even if they are incapable of doing their job (again, ALL of them), why don't they simply buy 1 remapped chip, read it and use that map in factory to program all ECUs right there in factory, and deliver them to customers mapped with "better throttle response", "lower emissions", "lower fuel usage" and "more HP".

A manufacturer designs an engine e.g. the 2.0 litre BlueHDi from Peugeot. Now, this engine will be physically capable of being "setup" by Peugeot to cope with a certain maximum performance level before it becomes unstable/unreliable. Let's say for arguments sake this was 250 bhp (I don't know the actual figure obviously).

Peugeot want to play safe so they setup the engine for 180 bhp and use this version in their GT model. They setup the SAME engine for 150 bhp and use this version in their GT Line model. It saves Peugeot development costs to simply remap one engine several times rather than build different engines for the low, mid and high performance variants.

Peugeot work a compromise between performance and reliability so it goes without saying that it is feasible to remap their engine to alter both performance and fuel consumption e.g. you can forego some performance for better fuel economy or forget about fuel economy and go for all out performance.

The ECU from Racechip that I have has 7 different settings from stock (no change) up to a high performance mode (193 bhp). What it also claims to do is increase bhp by up to 43 and torque by (if I remember correctly) 88 nm. This is an over simplification obviously.

The better fuel economy claims come from the driver changing gear quicker and making use of the extra torque. If the engine is more gutsy then you can drive it at lower rpm, change up the gears sooner there by consuming less fuel.

Obviously if I was to simply hammer the engine then fuel economy would suffer.

I am no expert and I'm sure others will have far more technical understanding than myself but that is how I understand the differences a remap can make.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,790 Posts
One of the main reasons a remap can considerably improve a vehicle is because of the limitations placed on the Peugeot tech guys. It's much more difficult for them as their map has to be able to run the car in hot, cold, dusty, wet conditions and in countries with poor fuel quality. So to set a car up for that takes much more skill than a mapper setting a car up for UK conditions where the fuel is good. Not that I'm criticizing these guys, most of them do a superb job, but they have optimal conditions in which to set the car up. Therefore improving power and fuel economy is a fairly easy job for someone who knows what they are doing.

Now, increasing power reduces fuel economy. It has to come from somewhere, but having a better fuel/air mix when you are driving normally, will increase economy. Something the mappers can do by basically telling the car the fuel is better. Drive it like you stole it, mpg worse. Simples.

Having said all this, I've had a few cars on rolling roads, and regardless of the accuracy of the power outputs, some of the torque holes in the map can be horrific!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bluedevil

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
Also worth noting that you need to do brim to brim check on mpg. Some poor remaps adjust injector calibration maps to get more fuel (Often due to missed limiters restricting fuel). This then fools trip computer as it calculates fuel use based on original calibration map so if they add 10% to map trip unreads by that amount

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,377 Posts
I bought a clio DCI recently that had been remapped i was sceptical to say the least im very much in the leave well alone camp.

I have now driven it a few months with a replacement engine as old one was stuffed thats why i got it my findings are that yes it does have a lot more torque and it does indeed pick up quicker etc the engine was a known engine from another car i used regularly with good economy.
The fuel economy is shocking no matter how i drive i can barely manage 50 mpg this car is capable of 65mpg normally so in my view the remap was not worth doing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Also worth noting that you need to do brim to brim check on mpg. Some poor remaps adjust injector calibration maps to get more fuel (Often due to missed limiters restricting fuel). This then fools trip computer as it calculates fuel use based on original calibration map so if they add 10% to map trip unreads by that amount
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

reliable406

online

Senior MemberJoin:***Oct 2012Posts:***11849falkirk

12 minutes ago***· #10

I bought a clio DCI recently that had been remapped i was sceptical to say the least im very much in the leave well alone camp.
I have now driven it a few months with a replacement engine as old one was stuffed thats why i got it my findings are that yes it does have a lot more torque and it does indeed pick up quicker etc the engine was a known engine from another car i used regularly with good economy. The fuel economy is shocking no matter how i drive i can barely manage 50 mpg this car is capable of 65mpg normally so in my view the remap was not worth doing.

Haven't looked closely at the miles travelled on a full tank (just read from the trip computer) but will do now. Only problem I might have is that I do tend to make use of the extra power which I know will affect the economy ?

Thanks for your input though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,491 Posts
My 308 is mapped but a proper remap through the ecu

The car performs better and is quicker round town there’s no way it’s better on fuel but on a run you could argue you might get a bit more with less throttle for hills etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24 Posts
Manufacturer maps aim to deal with a wider range of uncompensated conditions & meet engine longevity expectations - these might all be ignored in a remap. That said the one engine in multiple ratings approach means that lower rated models may be remapped to match higher spec although bolt-on items like turbos may be varied. IME the 2.0 HDi remaps well without major downsides although over the long term you need to accept that using the extra torque reduces life on components.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,564 Posts
Basic laws of physics tell you that you can't get something for nothing. More power out equates to more fuel going in.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,567 Posts
Not always as diesels run lean you can add more boost lowering AFR to increase efficiency and torque at lower rpm. Fuel consumption was slightly lower on my 307 and on my DS as you can use a higher gear at lower rpm due to increased torque

However if you rag it then yes fuel consumption goes down

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top