14N-FR

iTrader: (3)

SunnySideUp

EH?? No need to insult my intellect

There was a warranty to begin with, Subaru gave a 3 year one with your car - it was extendable to 5 years and beyond - so, your £12,000 - 3 1/2 year old car could have had a Subaru Warranty ...... I expected the ECU change to have some warranty - considering if it went wrong you would be left with a destroyed engine (it's not like a wheel trim upgrade, is it?).

£4,000 - to me - for some mods. is exhorbitant .....

However, I must admit that £16,000 for 410 BHP does appear a bargain ... not for me, but I'm sure its a good price to pay if that is what you want.

ZEN Performance

Pete,

Without having to go through your many posts I thought I would just let you ponder the following.

The 99/00 UK Impreza had 2 revisions to the original ECU code.
The 01/02 UK WRX had 2 revisions
The 01/02 UK STI had 1 revision
The 02/05 UK WRX had 4 revisions
The 02/05 UK STI had 4 Revisions
The 06/07 UK WRX had one revision
The 06/07 UK STI had one revision
The 08/09 UK STI had 2 revisions.

Clearly Subaru don't get perfect right first time.

The hatch ecu update is considered a service update, however if you take your standard car to subaru with suspected ringland failure and you don't have the update, they are unlikely to even question the warranty repair.

I would agree that the being more carful about avoiding the limiter would certainly help, it's just a shame that Subaru had a perfect strategy for stopping over zealous mid-life crisis boy racers from killing the engine on the limiter, only to ditch it for the hatch and quickly reinstate it. I guess that issuing a recall that says "our engine [etc] is ****" is probably even worse for PR than having a few (okay a lot) of warranty repairs. I know roughly how many repairs they have done since I've seen the shortlblocks that have come out of the cars on each occasion, one car that did escape was one that I remapped very early on it's life.

At the end of the day the man that does the Subaru map is just a man, subject to the same errors as the rest of us. By and large the factory maps are pretty good for factory cars. But don't forget that some of the mapping strategy is market driven, for instance you don't want to make the UK cars too quick out of the factory, as the dealer network can't then make more money from an upgrade package. You don't want the WRX being nearly as quick as the heavier more expensive STI, so the power levels are shifted accordingly.

I wonder what your take is on the fact that the JDM map is far less fuel efficient than the UK map, but makes more power? Why would they not bother with the all the fuel saving strategies on on the JDM car, even though they could. Or maybe they, like you think you can't have more a little power and better economy?

You don't think cars can vary? Why do you think they have learning strategies? Unfortunately they don't always cover it, it's not unusual to see about an 8% variation between otherwise identical spec STI PPP cars, even though they use the "same" components. I don't know where all the variations can creep in, as you can (for instance) take the MAF sensor from a car than runs rich, put it in a car that runs a little leaner, and it still runs a little leaner, but I guess many a mickle makes a muckle!

I keep all my maps, I have on occasion updated someones map FOC when a paticular function or strategy has become enabled in my mapping software. But by and large when I map a car I always update the ECU to the latest relavent code version anyway, or integrate improvements before Subaru seem to get round to it.

SunnySideUp

Very fair of you to mention that it appeared after my quote

From what you say then, a Custom Map to that car with thsoe mods. at that point in time means, obviously, that changing anything will render the map useless, because it is custom to that car - in that set-up.

Say you change the injectors? The Map is no good - as it was Customised to a car which no longer is.

As the car ages and gets more miles under its belt - the Map is obviously no good, again, as it was Customised to a car which no longer is.

If you change the fuel from that which was in the tank when it was so tightly mapped to that car - you would need another re-map!

Holy cr4p ... that could get very expensive!! Imagine changing your air filter for £5 and needing a new map at £650 because it was mapped with a partially blocked filter?

What happens if the fuel you were using when it was mapped is no longer available? ****!! That's another re-map at £650 ...... it's a bottomless pit.

That's why I thought the mapper would have given free upgrades if needed - I mean, it ain't cheap is it? At least Subaru will give FREE upgrades whenever required, which is nice of them

scooby L

That's taking things to slight extremes Pete

You have to remember, we're (well I've) not changed the very very good OEM ECU... so it's no different to changing a performance panel air filter on a standard car (which is perfectly safe BTW)

Cannon Fodder

iTrader: (100)

I just thought that I would point out to 'Peter Perfect' that even he makes spelling mistakes, as he has great delight in pointing them out in other members posts.



Now who does that remind you of?

I really cannot think who but perhaps you might know SSU?

scooby546

iTrader: (1)

Ok I can't resist replying, the thread is too good!

I changed the fuel pump on mine (1997 STI) for peace of mind; made sense given the cost. When I did the replacement, I noticed that the original pump was a centrifugal design. The flow rate for this type of pump reduces as pressure increases, while the replacement one (standard Walbro 255lph) is an internal gear pump, which is capable of sustaining higher flow rates at the same pressures. That fact alone is probably why the upgrade is recommended by many on here, given the requirement for more stable flow rates at this higher rpm end.

My tuppence worth...

SunnySideUp

Firstly, you have responded with an excellent post - I thank you for that, I will take the points as presented:-

I have a MY00 - I assume I have had my revisions? Certainly on my first Service I left the dealership with a car which went better than it did before - I put it down to a reset!

Of course, the Maps need revising, I can understand that ..... in the very same way that a custom map would need changing - difference is that Subaru update FOC (I know you say that you do occassionally and you are to be congratulated on that)

But, in just the same way Subaru need to revise a map, a mapper would have to/should revisit his custom maps to revise too!? This doesn't seem to happen? A recall should be issued by the mappers if something in the base map changes!

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here? I have read it a few times .... are you saying that a standard car without the update will not have its warranty upheld? If so, then I suspect that Subaru would lose a Court case - they should make all efforts to access the car (whether that be via letter or whatever). Owners should be told that an update is needed, or how can they make a decision on it? Owners are allowed to have services carried out where they like these days.

I simply cannot imagine redlining an engine, any engine!! I am an Engineer - I guess I have some Mechanical sympathy for my vehicles?

I can honestly say that my car has never seen 6,000 RPM - except for accidental revving! That's probably why it has gone on so long without issue?

Or maybe it's because I haven't messed about with it - thus giving it TVR reliability!!??

Good point, well made.

But I doubt very much that Subaru have ONE man working on the mapping - they will have a despartment dedicated to it .... it's all they do, maps are checked with each other, maps are tested as far as possible.

I have a lot of faith in the Subaru mappers .... as mentioned earlier, they are so confident in their product that they will fix it for years and years if it goes wrong!

The JDM map is far less fuel efficient?

If you say so ... but that's why it delivers more power, isn't it? More fuel = more power (what I have been saying all along through this thread).

So, I agree with you.

As you know, it is not just the MAF which dictates fueling .... you would have to change over all the sensors (and the learned map) to get it to fuel in the same way.

That's just normal and doesn't prove that cars differ to such an extent that the variable map cannot cope with the tiny variations seen these days.

Excellent service

You integrate improvements before Subaru do? That's impressive ... to do that you must have identified a requirement before Subaru have, and worked a solution out too, then implemented it while Subaru are still getting out of bed ... what can I say? Top notch!

What happens when you identify a problem and get the solution wrong? I'm not sure what your warranties are ... I assume pretty good? What happens if you think there is a problem, but isn't ... and you have corrected for something which isn't there?

Of course, if Subaru get it wrong they are liable (for many, many, years into the future) and I guess that's why they take longer to issue changes - they need to ensure it isn't going to be disastrous?

SunnySideUp

I agree about the OEM ECU not being affected by a change of Filter or Fuel or some such thing, because it (apparently) has so much leaway built in that it can cope with pretty much anything.

What is being claimed here is that the OEM ECU Map is so wide in tolerance that benefits can be gained (huge benefits are being claimed) - how do they say they do this? By taking the OEM Map and removing the wide tolerances ... making it absolutely specific to that car, no other car, just that one.

Now, this customised map clearly means that any slight deviation (unlike the generic map) will have an affect on the map and will result in bad running ... therefore something like a panel filter change would need a new re-map!! If it doesn't then what we have is another generic map - selling itself as a custom map!

Mark'sWRX

Pete: You keep saying that everyone's arguments are flawed. Well, I hope you don't live in a glass house.

I can't be bothered to point all your errors out as you will never admit that you are wrong.

If you change your air filter in a remapped car, it will not cost you £650 for another map. Most mappers will make slight adjustments for little or no cost.

If the mapping requirements change over the life of your car, have you taken yours in to a main dealer for a free update recently?

If you are obsessed with having a warranty on a car over 3 years old (like lunar tick's), you can buy them. The rest of us have faith in the people we deal with, which have proved warranted in my (and his) case.

I could go on, but I doubt it will make any impression on you.

SunnySideUp

Interesting information there and I can see how one may be better than another.

My concern is not one of whether one is better than another - rather one of 'the upgrade is a waste of money'.

Clearly, if your original pump does all that is required then changing it is pointless? Fact is that most fuel pumped by the standard pump is returned to the tank!

I can state, quite confidently, that an upgraded pump just has more fuel pumped back into the tank! ie. pointless!

Unless, of course, you are a serious racer/rally driver - when a non-standard pump would be required ...... as most of the time you are on WOT.

But, just for a few mods and road use, the standard pump is more than man enough!

ZEN Performance

Pete,

I suggest you have a good read of some source material regarding fuel efficiency and power. Once you get your head round the fact that the air is the major component of the combined fuel, I am sure it will become clear.

As for OEM tolerances, there are exceptions to every rule. Not every stock car has gains waiting to be unlocked, the PPP newage WRX is pretty good, and the only worthwhile improvement revolves around freeing up the exhaust a little more like prodrive did with the STI PPP.

Things like panel filter changes are well "absorbed" by the stock ECU since it uses a MAF based system to measure the incoming air. However an inductuion kit can change the way the MAF behaves and that can cause problems, and is a constant source of worry for us mappers, it's not unknown for people to fit them, have the car run lean and destroy itself before being mapped properly!

Cannon Fodder

iTrader: (100)

You are really slipping up SSU - that is two spelling mistakes today, perhaps you should try reading your own posts before sending them.

Well it is nice to see that you can finally agree with another members post.

ZEN Performance

You are by and large correct on these points, and what you've elluded to about the upgraded pump causing poorer running can be true. Some ecus will make the car run very high injector duty cycles after a series of bolt on mods, say a free flowing exhaust (however that's acheived) and some tubular headers, an an FMIC. Then the factory map can end up being leaned out from it's conservatively rich settings (in the areas of the map the manufacurer hoped we would never reach!) but the poor old fuel pump can struggle. Some puts in a pump that can maintain the correct pressure at the high flow rates, and you're suddenly running too much fuel and power suffers as a result.

scooby546

iTrader: (1)

I dare say that is correct; and if I wasn't at the time thinking about more serious modifications then I may well have left it alone, but given the cost of the replacement, and the fact that I was considering some fairly intrusive changes which would have required a remap (and a new ECU in my case), it made sense to me so I did it

SunnySideUp

I don't 'keep saying' at all ... I say something is flawed, when it is.

Most occassions I am debating what is being said ... I am quite comforable in my glass house, thanks all the same

You are not doing what you claimed I was doing above, are you?


That's good to know ... worries me that you say 'most' though!! - so, some don't!?

Subaru updates free ... I would have assumed that mappers would too?

The main claim for a re-map is that the standard map is so generic, so wide, so loose, so general, that huge benefits can be gained by customising the map to that specific car at that specific time.

Can you not see that as a car ages it's mapping requirements need changing? Not for a standard map, as has been stated this can cope with pretty much all small changes through the life of the car ... but a custom map is so tight, so dedicated, so original, that any small change affects it (therefore it would need changing). If it doesn't need changing throughout the cars life, then it is too generic to be called custom!


If that's what you are happy with, then fine .... my question is, "Why would there be no warranty if there is confidence in the map"?

As customers, surely we should be damanding that the claims are backed up with a warranty?

If I took a brand new Impreza from the production line and gave it to a mapper to re-map and release all that extra power - plus, giving me a better mpg - I would expect a warranty from that mapper ..... at least as equal to the Subaru warranty.

It is claimed that the re-map is better than the standard map .... so, in that case, I cannot see why a 3 year warranty wouldn't be offered? Why? Are they really not as confident in their maps as they say they are? This aspect, beyond all others, would worry me.

Cannon Fodder

iTrader: (100)

Blinking flip this is becoming a habit now SSU, is something rattling you?

Cannon Fodder

iTrader: (100)

I and most others did not have a remap (I would guess 99.99% are done after modifications to the turbo, injectors, induction system, fuel system etc) in order to gain more MPG but as a result of the skills of the mapper this is a welcome byproduct.

The remaps that I have had give more mid range power/torque meaning that you do not have to thrash the engine to get the best performance from it.

Bob Rawle has remapped both my Imprezas (a UK Hawkeye whilst under warranty and a JDM STi S202) and the performance gains are astounding to say the least.

Having re-read most of your posts on this subject I can fully understand your position SSU in wanting to ensure that a warranty is given by the mapper but it is the choice of the individual as to whether they remap or not.

I have no doubt that if I did encounter a problem that Bob Rawle or any other renowned mapper would obviously endeavour to sort the problem out if it was down to a 'faulty' map, it is not written or implied by the mapper but they didn't get their good reputations by poor customer service either.

If you are happy with your standard map and it suits your needs then fine you obviously have no need to consider a remap, but when vehicles are modified then they will need a remap and I for one would rather take my car to Bob for a custom written, thoroughly scrutinised, tested on the road/rolling road whilst I am driving.

After all we are all well aware of what a Subaru generic map did for the Hatchbacks.

My next modifications if you are interested are a VF48 turbo, Fuelab FPR, RCM induction kit, a set of Harvey's headers and up-pipe, plus of course a remap to hopefully yield in the region of 385-390bhp.

SunnySideUp

That's interesting as I was considering a WRX-S to replacing my old classic. I know this isn't a WRX with PPP .... but, has 'some' Prodrive bits on it - including another exhaust.

Does this mean it's a cracking car that is as near to the ideal map as is possible?

ZEN Performance

Pete,

I'm referring to a 2003-05 WRX with PPP on a 2.0. The 2.5 WRX cars are definitely "crippled" from the factory, I guess to prevent abuse drivers damaging the gearbox. The boost is very low, and spoolup is artificially slowed to make the 2.5 similar to the 2.0 (can you beleive it!?) And the 2.5 cars even come with big injectors from the factory, so brave souls that want to put a mild turbo upgrade and an exhaust on can be looking at 330hp relatively easily (applies on hawkeye models).

Once again the JDM wrx gets more tech and poke, with a twinscrol turbo that offers 300hp potential out the box (albeit on a 2.0 platform).

So anyway, have you're found out about combustion, BSFC, AFR and all that stuff yet?

dynamix

iTrader: (3)

Blimey, go out for a day and lots happen

lots of good points.

SunnySideUp

Yup ....

"The Air fuel ratio is the most common reference term used for mixtures in internal combustion engines.

It is the ratio between the mass of air and the mass of fuel in the fuel-air mix at any given moment.

For pure octane the stoichiometric mixture is approximately 14.7:1 or λ of 1.00 exactly.

In naturally aspirated engines powered by octane, maximum power is frequently reached at AFRs ranging from 12.5 - 13.3:1 or λ of 0.850 - 0.901"

"There is a direct relationship between lambda and AFR. To calculate AFR from a given lambda, multiply the measured lambda by the stoichiometric AFR for that fuel. Alternatively, to recover lambda from an AFR, divide AFR by the stoichiometric AFR for that fuel.

Because the composition of common fuels varies seasonally, and because many modern vehicles can handle different fuels, when tuning, it makes more sense to talk about lambda values rather than AFR"

All adds up to the fact that you should leave your car as Subaru intended it

scooby L

Trying to get the thread back on topic

Does anyone else remember that experiment on the TV (was it TG or 5th gear...not sure) but they took a Prius (I think) and an M3.

The prius quotes some silly 70mpg and the M3 30 odd

Both cars had to drive round the track, the only 2 rules were the Prius had to go round as fast as it could, and the M3 had to stay up with it.

The end result was the M3 returned more mpg than the Prius.

So, by the same rule, if you have your car mapped to produce more torque/power, and drive it at the same speed, in theory it's working less hard for the same speed request and as a result will return better mpg... If however you require to overtake or take it to a track day for example, you'll be able to use the extra horses at some fuel economy expense!

SunnySideUp

I don't remember that article.

The basic problem I have is this:-

If, by having a re-map, you can improve the mpg significantly (it needs to be measurable, so has to be an absolute - unquestionable - increase, 2mpg isn't going to convince anyone [let alone an old sceptic like me!]) ...... why on earth doesn't Subaru do it?

Don't tell me they are too stupid to, because that won't wash .....

If they could increase the mpg via a simple re-map ... they would do that in an instant. They could then claim that their cars do 50mpg (say) - most of the negatives about Subarus is the cost to own and run. A huge increase in sales would result from a increase in mpg - so, again, why don't Subaru do it?

The reason is, of course, that to have a re-map means that something suffers (it MUST do!) ..... my question is this ...

What suffers when you have a re-map?

scooby L

emissions

When you have your foot on the loud pedal... the emissions are to high..

My example was pointing out why you can get better mpg with a re-map... not that Subaru could quote better mpg's

Which is what the OP asked

Cannon Fodder

iTrader: (100)

TBH I am giving up on this thread, in my personal opinion if fuel is burned more efficiently and therefore it is burned more economically meaning that MPG increases within 'normal' driving.

I have to say though that I did not buy an Impreza for fuel economy as if I did buy any car for economy purposes it would undoubtedly be a BMW 335d which is a very good compromise between economy and performance.

The arrogant and obstinate attitide of a certain individual on this thread has been entertaining to say the least - how anybody can deny the overwhelming information that has been posted by experienced individuals just beggars belief.

As I have stated earlier nobody has an Impreza remapped in order to gain more MPG, the increase in MPG is a byproduct of the modifications carried out and mapping process.

If you are happy with a standard car running a standard map then that is fine, it is a generic base map which is not fully optimised for the car.

There are a lot of Impreza owners on Scoobynet who have modified cars and have had their cars mapped with no problems whatsoever, perhaps a thread should be started "Remapping and the problems after" and see how many posts you see giving instances I bet there would be very very few if any at all.

Please do not mention your constant retort of what warranty do mappers offer, Subaru offer blah blah blah. It is getting rather boring reading it again and again.

And to quote somebody from another thread "but, am I just being clouded and blinkered?".

bluenose172

iTrader: (2)

I'll state my opinion again. The gains seen are in no small part due to the accompanying modifications. Yes, the remap can contribute, but only if the mapper is that way inclined, not all are.

Zen has already pointed out that there is very little you can do to improve mpg at cruise on the oem ecu. A free'er flowing exhaust, no cats, air intake, WILL improve your engines efficiency. A case in point, I mapped my old man's wrx, I really only concentrated on the wot sections of the map(he has the same driving style as you Pete) Yet, his mpg increased markedly, why? We removed 2 cats, fitted a larger diam exhaust and a free flowing panel filter.

lunar tick

iTrader: (2)

To be fair to Pete, I think he has a point here. Increased fuel economy is now the holy grail of modern automotive engineering and I'm sure most manufacturers leave no stone unturned to improve it.

However, to be fair to us Pete, I think the point that many people (including me) are try to make is that (providing it's done skillfully), remapping to take advantage of modifications like bigger turbos/free flowing exhausts etc doesn't have to mean poorer fuel economy when that extra power is not being unleashed - ie when cruising on part throttle

ZEN Performance

Okay you're getting somewhere now.

Since maximum power is at around lambda 0.85-0.9 on an N/A engine, it follows that by going richer than this, that the power will drop, which is contrary to your preached "more fuel = more power". On turbo engines at max power you're typically looking at lambda 0.78 with subaru OE maps being more like lambda 0.74.

If you look at my previous posts you will see reference to some standard maps running very rich in the lowe boost regions, boost so low that with the compression you can treat the running conditions as to be ver similar to an N/A engine (since N/A doesn't mean a specific setup at all really, only that it's not forced induction, CR and cams etc are still free). Why would Subaru run down in the 11.5:1 AFR region with such miniscule boost levels? It is these areas the are used in real driving where improvements can be made.

I suspect a lot is to do with the older style tests which were largely constant load and speed.

Evolution Stu

iTrader: (2)

Some interesting arguments from both sides here. Sadly I have this discussion almost every day of my life. LOL