CDTi Remap vs Rover Rons tuning Box – The Answer

[Ti Rich]

Well today the car was on the rolling road to test the Remap done by Angel Tuning as well as a few other things. As you may know i used to have Ron's Synergy unit but decided to try the remap route (big mistake). The remap never drove as well as the car did with the Synergy unit and so Ron did some special maps to be used on my remapped car. For those that don't know the TU3b is the eariler verison of the Synergy unit without the Digital MAFAM section. Here are the results:-

STD Car (taken some time back)
Peak Power 131BHP



Run 3
Remap + K+N Panel Filter + Ron's Intake Mod + Spring Mod
Peak Power 138 BHP
Peak Torque 242 lbft @ 2214 rpm


Run 2
Remap + K+N Panel Filter + Ron's Intake Mod + Spring Mod+ MAFAM
Peak Power 140 BHP
Peak Torque 242 lbft @ 2217 rpm

Run 1
Remap + K+N Panel Filter + Ron's Intake Mod + Spring Mod + TU3b (modified map 4)
Peak Power 151 BHP
Peak Torque 267 lbft @ 2146


On all runs there was plenty of smoke so we can be assured that there was enough fuel.

I believe that either the CAT, exhaust/down pipe or the small turbo is to blame. Just look at the way the torque drops away. It could also be the intake system – this may be a limiting factor.I feel that the power is capped at 150 BHP and to get beyond this more serious work is needed. Sure you can throw more fuel at it but it will just smoke more while adding a bit more power.

So conclusions:-

1. The remap is crap and gives a minimal increase. I will ask the remap company to look into this as + 7 BHP is a waste of time and money.

2. The MAFAM did not show any benefit at full load, although we do know it improves part throttle response by the way it drives. The graphs above don't show the MAFAM effect at 1600-2000rpm where it pulls stronger with the MAFAM.

3.The TU3b gave a very good increase and I am sure that running a stronger map would have produced even more power. But there was already loads of smoke. It is clear that Ron's box does produce more power than the remap - I wasted £320

4. During all the testing I still got 43 MPG so I can confirm that running the TU3b with the reamp did not effect fuel economy at all really.

5. The torque on mine is very good indeed and I am getting peak torque at about 2100rpm – but why it is dropping off so quickly is a mystery.


OH well, at least we have the ZT over 150 - I need to remove my 160 badge

[mad]

well def the exhaust will hinder things, espically the cat, as seen from the 25td 8-10hp can be achieved from a exhaust system. As for the torque could be the intercooler, maybe a gas flowed one or a larger one would be needed. Still 150hpand 267 torque not bad, wish i had that in my 25.

[Ti Rich]

Originally Posted by mad

well def the exhaust will hinder things, espically the cat, as seen from the 25td 8-10hp can be achieved from a exhaust system. As for the torque could be the intercooler, maybe a gas flowed one or a larger one would be needed. Still 150hpand 267 torque not bad, wish i had that in my 25.

Yes but the 75/ZT weighs a ton so the performance still isn't that impressive!

Ron is going to start looking at down pipe and decat - got to be worth a bit although the standard exhaust does look quite big to me.

[E_T_V]

You need to select a "richer" fuel map I reckon. It wasn't smoking "that" much at all (I'll see if I can get some pics from the video I took of it when I get a moment). Still plenty of scope to up the fueling (so long as there is headroom on the pump) to get more power. I'm afraid in the diesel world there is no power without smoke.

[Ti Rich]

Originally Posted by E_T_V

You need to select a "richer" fuel map I reckon. It wasn't smoking "that" much at all (I'll see if I can get some pics from the video I took of it when I get a moment). Still plenty of scope to up the fueling (so long as there is headroom on the pump) to get more power. I'm afraid in the diesel world there is no power without smoke.

That's an interesting comment. I did try a richer map on the road and yes it did produce more power. However - it looked like the James Bond Aston Martin with the smoke screen on.

Looking at the other diesels the Civic (standard) didn't smoke at all while the Golf smoked but not as much as mine. I don't know what is and isn't acceptable!

I am sure that with a richer map 160 could be achieve but i would not want to drive about with that much ****** comming out the back.

I still feel that there are gains to be by improving the breathing. This might be on the intake (although that looks very difficult) or by the exhaust and decat route. The pump is not a restriction at all, we have more thanj enough fuel to play with.

One thing is for sure, I think a genuine 155-160 is about at far as this engine can be taken.

[MGOracle]

Actually Rich, what is sad is that the peak power comes in at a rev range which we'll never ever use.



The exhaust is a good 2" jobbie all the way through I reckon. The turbo is massively restrictive. I'm sure there is room for improvement here, but thats big bucks and the intercooler is failry meaty anyway. IMO it doesnt get enough air to it though, and secondly, the main restriction is in the amount of air the car can take in. Its only ever going to be as powerful as the air aperture.

Reminds me of the 1.6 ECOTEC GM units that were more powerful in standard trim than their 2.0 16v brothers. In the end GM had to add over 4ft of trunking before the air meter to keep the power down.

[E_T_V]

I really which I'd taken my van now, just for the comedy value to show just how much smoke you can get away with.

It is tuned to give a smoke reading of about 2.0-2.5 at the MOT (the limit is 3)
and it produces about twice as much smoke as the smokiest car at the RR day this weekend. At the next day I'll see if I can bring my rust bucket over to cover everyone in soot!

[MGOracle]

One other thing. I didnt think Diesels needed CATs really, so surely we can ditch it!

[Ti Rich]

Ron is looking into downpipes, decats and exhausts - it's all in hand........

[Rover_ron]

Anyone know whether the replacement manifold to cat (downpipe) part no
WCD000220
includes the flexy pipe, and does it have a flange to bolt on to the cat, or a stub for welding?

My plan is to remove my existing system which is one piece (no joints) from turbo flange to tail pipe, fit a new downpipe, and Sebring back box / centre section and then join the two with a decat pipe.

(Gary at Rimmerbros is on hols this week or he'd be able to tell me.)

If it works, I'll then source a cheaper alternative rear/centre section than the Sebring one.

Ron

[mad]

do u not need a flexipie section, so the engine can rock with acceleration etc, without it the system will wreck itself

[Ti Rich]

Originally Posted by Rover_ron

Anyone know whether the replacement manifold to cat (downpipe) part no
WCD000220
includes the flexy pipe, and does it have a flange to bolt on to the cat, or a stub for welding?

My plan is to remove my existing system which is one piece (no joints) from turbo flange to tail pipe, fit a new downpipe, and Sebring back box / centre section and then join the two with a decat pipe.

(Gary at Rimmerbros is on hols this week or he'd be able to tell me.)

If it works, I'll then source a cheaper alternative rear/centre section than the Sebring one.

Ron

Ron

That part number is item No1 in the diagram below - I hope that helps!

[Rob Bell]

Originally Posted by MGOracle

The exhaust is a good 2" jobbie all the way through I reckon. The turbo is massively restrictive. I'm sure there is room for improvement here, but thats big bucks and the intercooler is failry meaty anyway. IMO it doesnt get enough air to it though, and secondly, the main restriction is in the amount of air the car can take in. Its only ever going to be as powerful as the air aperture.

Would not a later M47 BMW with a larger turbo be a reasonable source of parts from the scrap heap? Would be cheaper than buying new (!) and ought to be reasonably easy to fit - especially if a new downpipe etc were planned...

[Ti Rich]

Originally Posted by Rob Bell

Would not a later M47 BMW with a larger turbo be a reasonable source of parts from the scrap heap? Would be cheaper than buying new (!) and ought to be reasonably easy to fit - especially if a new downpipe etc were planned...

Rob

It's not that simple. The engine is the wrong way around (rwd), different gearbox, different engine covers (not sure if it would fit under the bonet, dirrent pipes and hoses, different engine management system so it would need new maps etc.

I think if we aim for 160 BHP with good torque that will be enough for most owners. At the end of the day if we can get that with a Synergy, intake mod, spring mos, decat and exhaust you are looking at £700ish i guess.

Even now mine is quite rapid and totally different to the standard car - it feels more like the VW engine now low down. I also think if i took it down my local rolling road it would show over 160BHP!!

[Rob Bell]

Rich - I was thinking of just swiping the turbo from it

But even if its orientation is different from the Rover version, if you wanted to use a BMW M47, it might not be so difficult to fit (the bell-housing mounting pattern is very likely to be the same, and I am sure that the engine mounting points are not going to be unique to the M47R). Regarding maps - well, we have Ron to help us out there, don't we? I don't think we need to be too scared of this - but the main problem is likely to be cost/benefit. Unless you can source a BMW M47 for peanuts, the modest gain in power is unlikely to be justified by outlay.

Back to the turbo idea - not necessarily that expensive - and if the standard intercooler is man enough for the task, not too difficult to fit. But it will need a completely new map...

[Rover_ron]

If anyone knows of a used intercooler, let me know and I will have it gas flowed.
If its anything like the L series one, quite a lot can be done with a grinder to improve the flow and reduce the pressure drop across it.

I'd have liked to grind out the egr valve as well as that is quite an obstruction.

Ron

[Ti Rich]

Originally Posted by Rob Bell

Rich - I was thinking of just swiping the turbo from it

But even if its orientation is different from the Rover version, if you wanted to use a BMW M47, it might not be so difficult to fit (the bell-housing mounting pattern is very likely to be the same, and I am sure that the engine mounting points are not going to be unique to the M47R). Regarding maps - well, we have Ron to help us out there, don't we? I don't think we need to be too scared of this - but the main problem is likely to be cost/benefit. Unless you can source a BMW M47 for peanuts, the modest gain in power is unlikely to be justified by outlay.

Back to the turbo idea - not necessarily that expensive - and if the standard intercooler is man enough for the task, not too difficult to fit. But it will need a completely new map...

Rob

The problem is that by changing the turbo for a larger one you COULD generate a lot more power. BUT the bottom end is not strong enough to take it. I have heard from people that worked at MGR that about 160-165 BHP is as far as anyone should take it - the crankshaft can give up after that.

If you look now at my torque curve it's as good as a 150ps 320d with the variable vane turbo. Peak torque at 2100-2200rpm. I don't think we can improve on that by much at all even with a VV turbo.

Also, looking at tuned BMW's with the 136PS engine no one take that engine above about 160 - I think there is a message here!

I honestly think that 160/165 is achieveable with the standard turbo and intercooler (maybe gas flowed, maybe not). But a new exhaust, decat and downpipe is much simpler than an engine or turbo swap.

[Ti Rich]

Originally Posted by Rover_ron

If anyone knows of a used intercooler, let me know and I will have it gas flowed.
If its anything like the L series one, quite a lot can be done with a grinder to improve the flow and reduce the pressure drop across it.

I'd have liked to grind out the egr valve as well as that is quite an obstruction.

Ron

One here Ron:-
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rover-75-inter...QQcmdZViewItem

[Rob Bell]

Originally Posted by Ti Rich

Rob

The problem is that by changing the turbo for a larger one you COULD generate a lot more power. BUT the bottom end is not strong enough to take it. I have heard from people that worked at MGR that about 160-165 BHP is as far as anyone should take it - the crankshaft can give up after that.

If you look now at my torque curve it's as good as a 150ps 320d with the variable vane turbo. Peak torque at 2100-2200rpm. I don't think we can improve on that by much at all even with a VV turbo.

Also, looking at tuned BMW's with the 136PS engine no one take that engine above about 160 - I think there is a message here!

I honestly think that 160/165 is achieveable with the standard turbo and intercooler (maybe gas flowed, maybe not). But a new exhaust, decat and downpipe is much simpler than an engine or turbo swap.

So we'd be looking at an engine upgrade rather than a turbo swap? From the perspective of keeping things 'affordable' then you're right to concentrate on what we've got. And I am sure that you're right that 160 is just about achieveable with the kind of mods that you and Ron are thinking about

[Ti Rich]

Rob

You haven't fitted the Synergy yet have you??

Oh that will keep for sometime believe me!