What do you understand from the words Placebo effect? :lol1:

Right .... what was your old mpg? what is your new mpg? How long have you been analysing the figures? Were the temperatures the same? were the roads the same? was the distance travelled the same? was it the same driver?

As another little test .... let's say you 'think' you are getting an extra 2 mpg - work out what that is saving you in real money. Take the cost of the re-map and divide the fuel saving into it .... this will tell you how long it will take for the placebo effect to pay for the re-map.

Works out at something like 237 years - doesn't it? :lol1:

If it was mapped to use less fuel, yes, of course it would.

But, if it was mapped for more power it would use more fuel .... logic and science dictates this to be the case.

No-one has yet answered this, if you are improving the mpg, why you need an uprated fuel pump???? To supply more fuel, of course - but why - if you are using less?

I have nothing against hobbyists playing with their cars and getting loads of enjoyment out of it ..... just don't get carried away thinking that, somehow, because you get oily you can re-write physics ;)

does power have to increase with a map though? can't it be mapped to do the same power more efficiently?

i could seriously benefit from that, you can smell neat petrol near my 98 turbo for a while after each trip. it has induction and exhaust, i'm getting about 20mpg. :Suspiciou

because as I said,most re-mapps are for more power...and do as you say need more fuel,but the general fuel and air ratio is leaner than a stock map.

I'm sure you will notice better mpg of boost on a nice long drive

the car that produced this dyno plot is the owners only car and on a run at 70mph it did 27mpg..

Attachment 53890

Simon

How impressive is that simon,that is about the same mpg i got from my bog standard MY1999 uk turbo when i first bought it running 215 bhp.

Wow this has really generated some differing opinions for sure!!!

It was just a general question for peoples thoughts and opinions and that's what I have got, the beauty is that everyone will have differing opinions and experiences so it's not too sa anyone individual is wrong

As far as re-writing physics goes I am not sure that's true.....surely Subaru map their cars to suit Mrs Miggins who goes to the shops, the Colin Mcrae wannabe, the father of 2 the end result being it has to be a bit of everything. As I see it with a perfoance remap it brings the turbo in earlier thus not havoc to work the engine as hard to get to it??

I am happy to be stood corrected because I am new!!!! Lol!!!!

Cheers though guys.

Ralph

Before i got my Hawkeye sti remapped it was getting around 180-220 from a full tank of v-power. After the remap i was get around 130 from a tank. That was mostly town driving and off boost but so was the driving i did before the remap.

The car was dyno'd standard and made around 300bhp but the standard map was terrible and the afr went off the scale. The operator wasn't a fan of the stock map on the 2.5 and said if i was to get that sorted out with a remap to lean the mixture i would get a fair few mpg more and a bit more power without any mods.

As it happens a bit more power wouldn't have been enough so i did the usual panel filter, pump, decat, 3" exhaust and Andy F remap producing around 350 bhp 380 lbs/ft but a lowly 130 from a tank.

So from my experience i would imagine an ecutek remap on a standard 2.5 sti would give better mpg and a slight power increase which is win win but if you go just for more power then the mpg will slip severely.

All thoughts and opinions are based entirely on my experiences and my own car. HTH

Cheers
Melly

...and the car that produced that is also a 99 uk in DMB :)

That's not good before and after mpg, but then driving style and environment are main impacts on mpg, so no firm statement on mpg benefits of remaps can be given.

My old 03 wagon went from 265 up to 340 bhp and mpg INCREASED from 25 to 28. The remap paid for itself in a year due to the mileage I did.

The current 06 STi did 25 mpg in std form and now does the same but power has risen from 280 up to 370 bhp.

Unlike our pseudo-engineer would have us believe, the answer isn't black and white.

Surely when a Manufacturer creates a map for their car they have to create it to satisfy the UK Govmt for their MOT's etc etc.. (the beauty of living in Guernsey NO MOT :) )

I have got a 2005 STi and I get about 15MPG whilst driving normally here, but when i am away in the UK or France i get about 22MPG.

I don’t know what the original map would have done but mine has had a EcuTEK re-map along with panel filter 3" exhaust system and tubular manifold..

So all in all its not that bad at all..

At the end of the day you have your car mapped to suit you - either pour as much fuel in as the car can cope with to produce as much power as possible OR you have a nice conservative map done that will give you better MPG but less power.. both of which im sure can be done with whatever mods you have on your car.

Im sure that the mapper will let you decide what’s best for you.. if your driving long distances at a steady speed all the time you can get better MPG than town driving every time.

I know I will be getting mine mapped to probably less power but better MPG as living in Guernsey I only ever do the equivalent of town driving apart from the odd trip away.

But this is just my my opinion.. I may be well be wrong but it makes sense to me.

The small increases in mpg can be attributed to supporting mods not solely the remap, discuss...........;)

:D

I agree - the remap will improve MPG quite when driven sensibly(Andy Forrest remapped my MY05 STI some time ago)

However......................



The fact that you want it remapped sort of means it won't be driven sensibly :lol1:

That is often true :)

Mine still gets 300 to a tank full even running 550bhp if I am on a long trip motorway cruise etc.

Mine's changed by -0.3mpg since Dunc released the extra ponies.. The truth of the matter is I spend more time in s mode rather than s# now... because it's just better all round.... (when I do have a play in s# the mpg does drop mind you, but I'm hardly driving ecconomically at that point)...

Scooby L-curious about the hatches in respect of fuel economy.What power and mpg/miles per tank is yours putting out?:thumb:

:brickwall

It can go either way. Too many factors to take into consideration to generalise, but ideally a good mapper should safely be able to improve mpg and power. The one size fits all ECUs are set to run rich to safeguard the engine in their target market. Returning back to a stoichiometric AFR will boost power and reduce fuel consumption.

Why don't Subaru or any other OEMs do it? Take fuel type, driving style, tyre pressures, engine condition, environmental and a million other factors out of the equation first... Because it would add £600+ to the cost of every car.

i think the difference in opinion stems from some people driving their scoob like they did before the map i.e. foot down, bit of town, after the map they still go foot down, except the car goes a lot quicker and obviously uses more fuel. Some guys saying that after the map their car is more economical, well a steady 60mph with 230bhp and 60mph with 500bhp won't make a great difference unless the acceleration to 60 is being used differently.............

What did you have done to get that big jump in power Butty. I have just bought a standard STI Hawkeye and really want a map but thought it was hard enough getting 340BHP

MAPS are designed in the factory to work the engine internals safely, keep the engine easily within VOSA MOT regs ect... BUT
you can adjust and tweek the MAP to create more power and still keep a relative amount of reliability.

I had my previouse car remapped with just a larger intake and a panel filter.
My MPG went for 42 to 46 and that was taken as an average of steady off boost driving and thrashing it around.

At college I was taught that a remap uses the extra power produced by the turbo hitting a higher pressure to burn the fuel more efficiently, remember this is all down the 'volumetric effieciency'.

Basically the more air you can feed into the chamber, the easier the fuel burns, this leads to better fuel efficiency at steady driving but a far worse MPG when under heavy acceleration.

340 is easy on a hawkeye sti

:lol:

And, of course, Subaru - with their top Engineers and Scientists (not hobbyists, but hard nosed Top Designers!) - decided that, yes they can get 45mpg ...... but decided NOT too!!?? Yeah ........... RIGHT!! :lol1:

More power = More Fuel burned ... simple.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is either kidding themselves, or kidding others for some reason.

Someone pointed out a very good observation above - a re-map is only done once 'other' things have been done to the car ..... so, maybe the re-map is NOT responsible for any increase in mpg AT ALL?!

My car returned on average (taken over 20 tanks) 263 miles to a tank on the std map, stage 1 powerstation (exhaust and filter) gave me an average of 258 (20 tanks) Add APS turbo, TMIC and Pat Herborne map gave me 276 (5 tanks), currently looks like about 280 (1 tank) on a JGM map with changed induction setup.

why o why are we speaking about mpg, these cars are built to be driven!! who cares about mpg!

If people are worried about mpg then buy a diesel or better still get a hybrid!

well said mate:thumb::thumb::thumb::thumb:

because monitoring mpg is one indicator on how your car is running, i monitor mine and it is always 22mpg-ish, so if it suddenly drops, then something is wrong......................i always have and always will monitor my mpg. Economy wise, 22mpg is sh1t, so thats not the reason i monitor it.

I have a Prodrive Exhaust and Green Filter. Would I still get near 340BHP with a Walboro and a Ecutek remap

Because it gives us something to talk about :D
I like to know what sort of mpg I'm getting as mine is used as a work horse and a weekend toy, And I know if driven normally (town and motorway) I can just get about 300 miles out of the tank;) but when driven hard about 50% less :norty:
2006 Sti spec D With a JGM (safe map) 333 BHP

yes and lots of torque ;)