Remapping improve MPG???
07 March 2010, 11:09 PM
#361
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (100)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 13,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It just amazes me that nothing you ever read ever changes your opinion or point of view, strongly held opinions/ideas or just pig headed?
08 March 2010, 12:00 AM
#362
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't YOU change your mind despite reading my logic and truths? You are guilty of exactly the same thing you accuse me of!
And I know you love me
08 March 2010, 08:51 AM
#363
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (100)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 13,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I think that you really need to be seeking help...
No they are just memorable due to the same repeated rubbish rehashed to a new subject. 
Like a boil on my never regions.
Does the character above look familiar to anyone?
Like a boil on my never regions.
Does the character above look familiar to anyone?
09 March 2010, 01:38 PM
#365
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, maybe - but I don't think so.
If a re-map was the Holy Grail some think it is, then Subaru would have embraced it.
I know they allow Prodrive to re-map for a warranted ECU change ... but, I suspect that they are restrained increases in BHP - coupled with other changes. I cannot find any claims from Subaru, or Prodrive, that after their changes the mpg improves? ... and that's what the OP was asking.
Of course, Subaru back up their re-maps with a comprehensive warranty - which shows confidence in their work.
If a re-map was the Holy Grail some think it is, then Subaru would have embraced it.
I know they allow Prodrive to re-map for a warranted ECU change ... but, I suspect that they are restrained increases in BHP - coupled with other changes. I cannot find any claims from Subaru, or Prodrive, that after their changes the mpg improves? ... and that's what the OP was asking.
Of course, Subaru back up their re-maps with a comprehensive warranty - which shows confidence in their work.
09 March 2010, 05:03 PM
#366
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Essex
Posts: 2,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had ppp fitted to my 2003 sti after one year of ownership, the mpg on a steady cruise increased slightly. Most owners would not see this change as most get it fitted when they buy the car.
I've now had the car for 7 years and it's been faultless, no engine issues at all. I Didn't really need the extended warranty but the ppp gave me the option.
dipster
I've now had the car for 7 years and it's been faultless, no engine issues at all. I Didn't really need the extended warranty but the ppp gave me the option.
dipster
09 March 2010, 06:45 PM
#367
Has anyone here besides SSU really ever claimed that with the right map a car could achieve 550hp and 30mpg? I seriously doubt it.
For what it's worth though, there's ample evidence from other 'unmodified' cars that tuning primarily for performance can have clear benefits for fuel economy too. If you campare a 2010 MY Porsche 911 Turbo S with a Vauxhall Astra 1.6 sxi, for example, the Porsche produces 500hp and still gets over 24mpg (on paper, at least), against the Astra's 105bhp and 43.5mpg. So that's nearly five times the power for the Porsche, at the cost of less than 50% the fuel consumption, which puts it way out in front in my book, in the efficiency stakes.
And 60k out of ONE set of pads? That can't be for real.
For what it's worth though, there's ample evidence from other 'unmodified' cars that tuning primarily for performance can have clear benefits for fuel economy too. If you campare a 2010 MY Porsche 911 Turbo S with a Vauxhall Astra 1.6 sxi, for example, the Porsche produces 500hp and still gets over 24mpg (on paper, at least), against the Astra's 105bhp and 43.5mpg. So that's nearly five times the power for the Porsche, at the cost of less than 50% the fuel consumption, which puts it way out in front in my book, in the efficiency stakes.
And 60k out of ONE set of pads? That can't be for real.
09 March 2010, 07:44 PM
#368
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You see the reason I doubt what's being said? Because, quite clearly, that's utter bollox! As you have intimated.
For what it's worth though, there's ample evidence from other 'unmodified' cars that tuning primarily for performance can have clear benefits for fuel economy too. If you campare a 2010 MY Porsche 911 Turbo S with a Vauxhall Astra 1.6 sxi, for example, the Porsche produces 500hp and still gets over 24mpg (on paper, at least), against the Astra's 105bhp and 43.5mpg. So that's nearly five times the power for the Porsche, at the cost of less than 50% the fuel consumption, which puts it way out in front in my book, in the efficiency stakes.
Well, it's absolutely true .... the rears lasted to about 85,000 miles as remember.
I don't drive on the brakes, I use the engine ... proper driving skills employed in my vehicles
09 March 2010, 08:47 PM
#369
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 2,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you should know, "gas for go, brakes for slow". Simple really. Engine braking ain't to be used over the brakes. Ya boring, wind up merchant! Why don't you go out and buy a Honda or Toyota? Why buy a Subaru and drive boring? Lol. Oh, I forgot, bit hypocritical of me there being as I spend nearly all my time on Notts ring road with Specs cameras. Haha
09 March 2010, 09:15 PM
#370
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 2,239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A remapped car will surely be more efficient, so on normal driving it will give more mpg. All my remapped cars did. If you want more mpg, you wouldn't be using WOT much. If you use WOT, the "un re-mapped" car will do more mpg (assuming the WOT was for the same time). So surely it boils down to the proportion of time the car is driven "normally" to thrashed as to whether a remapped car gives more mpg overall than a std mapped car.
This may have been mentioned before but I got bored after page 7.
This may have been mentioned before but I got bored after page 7.
09 March 2010, 09:45 PM
#371
when my car had the ppp, circa 260bhp I would get 300 miles to a tank on a long cruise. Now at 340 bhp and a less restrictive system I still get 300 miles to a tank on a long cruise. More if I really want to push it to make the fuel light come on etc. So if a car is running 550bhp, driven off boost on a long cruise surely it would be possible to achieve a similar mpg figure
Last edited by IainMilford; 09 March 2010 at 09:59 PM.
09 March 2010, 09:46 PM
#372
Read the thread, it is mentioned a few times ..... someone who posted is putting out 550 BHP and also turning in 30 mpg.
You see the reason I doubt what's being said? Because, quite clearly, that's utter bollox! As you have intimated.
You see the reason I doubt what's being said? Because, quite clearly, that's utter bollox! As you have intimated.
Well, it's absolutely true .... the rears lasted to about 85,000 miles as remember.
09 March 2010, 09:48 PM
#373
As you should know, "gas for go, brakes for slow". Simple really. Engine braking ain't to be used over the brakes. Ya boring, wind up merchant! Why don't you go out and buy a Honda or Toyota? Why buy a Subaru and drive boring? Lol. Oh, I forgot, bit hypocritical of me there being as I spend nearly all my time on Notts ring road with Specs cameras. Haha
10 March 2010, 10:06 AM
#375
Former Sponsor
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Wellingborough, Northamptonshire
Posts: 2,859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30mpg and 550hp is attainable, but it's a push for sure. Of course if you use the power then kiss good bye to the good economy.
The latest hatch gets about 33mpg when driver in econmy mode (I- mode on SI drive?) even with around 390hp (new turbo, shortblock, exhaust etc before anyone asks). But the hatch has a few things that make a big difference.
The latest hatch gets about 33mpg when driver in econmy mode (I- mode on SI drive?) even with around 390hp (new turbo, shortblock, exhaust etc before anyone asks). But the hatch has a few things that make a big difference.
10 March 2010, 09:51 PM
#380
Right, finally found the post(s), and it's actually 300 miles to a tank, which is some way short of 30mpg. I make it a lot closer to 25mpg in fact, assuming a standard 60L tank, and keeping at least half a gallon spare between refills. Do I think that's credible? 100%, all the way down the line.
I regularly get 300 to a tank if I can resist the temptations and am listening to suitably calming music.
Put on Kings of Leon and ecomony goes through the floor.
10 March 2010, 10:17 PM
#381
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try 550 bhp and almost 30 mpg here.
Very happy for you to sit beside me for 300 odd miles on a tank full of fuel pete to verify this as it seems that the only way you will believe anything is to see it. You still dont get it or you are just being a pillock for the amassed audience to uphold your excellent reputation.
As previously stated I am happy to give you a free try before you try but that seems that it wouldn't help your cause of being provocatuer here.
Read what has been stated here by the various other people and with your engineering mind do some research into afr and power to understand more. The answer is out there.
I misunderstood you then .... I thought you said 550 BHP and 30 mpg!
Last edited by SunnySideUp; 10 March 2010 at 10:19 PM.
10 March 2010, 10:20 PM
#382
key word ... 'Almost'. Have you honestly trawled back through all of your drivel on here to find that ?
You really need to get out more.
My offer still stands - I will have earplugs in so I cant hear your whining - my car will do 300 miles on a tank. Be proof right in front of your eyes then.
You really need to get out more.
My offer still stands - I will have earplugs in so I cant hear your whining - my car will do 300 miles on a tank. Be proof right in front of your eyes then.
10 March 2010, 10:28 PM
#383
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't take long, looked for your orange ID and BINGO .... 550 BHP and 30 mpg ..... backfired rather didn't it? 
OK, 'almost' 30 mpg and 550 BHP ..... what is it then? 29? 29.9? 29.5? ..... or is it actually 9?
11 March 2010, 07:47 PM
#386
Scooby Regular
I see, so now the story has changed .. has it?
Where did the big claim of 550 BHP and 'almost' 30 mpg go?
Your figures above give 22 mpg ---- that's almost 30 .. is it?
Given your claims and maths I suspect that the 550 BHP is actually more like 295!!
Where did the big claim of 550 BHP and 'almost' 30 mpg go?
Your figures above give 22 mpg ---- that's almost 30 .. is it?
Given your claims and maths I suspect that the 550 BHP is actually more like 295!!
11 March 2010, 08:22 PM
#390
Scooby Regular
No, you said that you have 550 BHP and get 30 mpg ..... which, of course, is the stuff of fairy tales.
Either your 550 BHP is correct and you are returning nearer 9 mpg ....... or you are getting 'almost' 30 mpg and actually have 200 and a little bit BHP ........
Which is it?
Either your 550 BHP is correct and you are returning nearer 9 mpg ....... or you are getting 'almost' 30 mpg and actually have 200 and a little bit BHP ........
Which is it?