Well you know what there is a fine line between love and ? Well it's the latter...

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?

 

Let's turn that on its head, shall we?

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

 

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?

 

I think you have misunderstood much of what has been posted Pete.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

Hmmmm, I think you miss the point somewhat ..... the Astra will not drop below about 30 mpg. The 911 will drop to single figures!! ... if both are used WOT

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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. The Porsche has an engine capacity at least 50% larger than any scoob (3.8L), and weighs anywhere from 200kg to 400kg more, which would easily account for the 1 or 2 mpg difference in what it achieves at steady cruise. It's downright astonishing in fact that anyone could disbelieve the claimed figures aren't feasible.


Rears don't exactly count now, do they, seeing as on virtually all front-engined cars cars they'll need changing about 3 times less often than fronts.

 

Indeed, perhaps Pete would like to come and give me a driving lesson in making my brakes last 60k and getting amazing mpg in a box standard car whilst at the same time whipping my rear end and leaving me for dust.

 

thats SSU for you, hence why this thread is still going on 13 pages later.

Damn I realised I have just subscribed to it again .........

 

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.

 

I'm with SSU on this one

 

****

How did you get back on ?

 

The user amnesty. Should't he be banned for having two user names?

 

Dawn of a new age..or is it old age?

 

Yep - I didnt say 30mpg - well spotted

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.

 

Post 283 - page 10

I misunderstood you then .... I thought you said 550 BHP and 30 mpg!

 

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.

 

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?

 

Are the earplugs for you not to hear the big ends banging after running so lean?

 

Pete - I would have thought you got taught maths when you were at school.

300 miles
60 litres

Do the maths - i am too bored to do it for you.

 

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!!

 

WOW pslewis! Where ya been hiding ya **** link loving m*f*!!! LOL

 

Just popped out for a year or two ... saw this thread and SSU's fantastic sensible contributions and thought I'd help the old duffer out

 

Did I say that I ran it to the point it was out of fuel ?

 

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?