General Anyone had there ECU remapped for the 1.2?

[Nuova500]

power exhausts (on motorbikes), induction kits & remaps, admittedly remaps not on any of my cars but 3 workmates who all say they were waste of money & after driving them (we use each anothers cars alot) I agree, one was actually noticably worse and the company came out and agreed and mapped it again and it was still sh*t.

My opinion (re-read that 'my opinion') they are a waste, save up & get a faster car if thats what you want that way you have no warranty problems, chassis & other parts will not be (in some cases) over stressed & insurance not invalid.

When my std exhaust on my Vespa got clogged up with carbon I replaced it with a bigger bore one and upjetted it too, the result is very good as Ive gained both acceleration and top speed with no loss of low down torque, and its nice and loud... with only a 200cc 2 stroke engine that is good news indeed... but thats old technology and things like that DO work as there aint no daft ECU trying to undo the work youve put in.

 

[Venters]

I'm too much of a boyracer to leave my cars alone.

 

[grimwau]

but then all you have to talk about is fecking blue an me

hey! don't forget the ongoing clutch/transmission noise on the diesel.

 

[Roadsterchinsk]

It is possible to remap a 1.2 and to be happy with the results just as many any other n/a petrol cars. However, you have to temper this against expectations.
If you wanted a faster car you should have bought a faster car in the first place.

You wont get a lot more from a basic 1.2 engine without changing many parts.
When I drove the 1.2 I was very impressed at it for what it was. Strong torque low down , nice and flexible and a bit revy if asked.

If you want to remap to get more bhp you should have bought the 1.4 or more.
If you say have a 1.4 but want it smoother low down and the torque more accessible lower in the range be prepared to maybe loose a couple of bhp top end but may end up with a slightly quicker more flexible low down drive.

Also am i right in thinking the 1.2 500 is exactly 1gram of co2 within the tax bracket to qualify for £35 tax? If so then you can bet there are some compromises in the map which have achieved this. So maybe some changes there can make some gains?

Just dont expect earth shattering changes from a petrol n/a remap. If you already love your car and dont want to change the car a remap may be for you, but in all cases understand what is possible and you tend to get what you pay for.

Im not as fussed with rolling road figures. How it feels on the road afterwards will tell you everything you need to know an if you cant feel a definite difference then it wasnt worth it.

So basically im saying that if you want big bhp a car that has more as standard is the right choice.
If you want to make some smaller changes to the way a car you really love otherwise drives, then maybe a remap is what you want.

Have fun
Jonathan

 

[T14086]

Also am i right in thinking the 1.2 500 is exactly 1gram of co2 within the tax bracket to qualify for £35 tax? If so then you can bet there are some compromises in the map which have achieved this. So maybe some changes there can make some gains?

you mean a slight improvement in performance in sacrife of emmision levels?

 

[Roadsterchinsk]

you mean a slight improvement in performance in sacrife of emmision levels?

if thats what someone wants to do then yes. In order for it to fall below this point some things will have been compromised. By how much I dont know. Depends on your priority's.

Maybe changing the map which then did 130grams but made the car a little quicker but stopped the person from changing it to a car that did 160grams would still be better for the environment. I guess its a matter of perspective.

Most people who want a faster car will get one. Im just pointing out that they wont of hit that point by accident and it was just to make a car more attractive to the eco concious or tax conscious.

My friend is one of the engineers at Ford. He designs the engine mounts on the c-platform and one of his mates we see occasionally does the drivability tuning. The three of us were in his focus ST and he was giving it some beans. The little display came up saying 224grams when he was going for it. I mentioned that it was great how you could get so much performance and still be below the 225 gram tax band. At which point they pissed themselves laughing.

 

[John R Smith]

The problem with re-maps in general, aside from the issues already aired here, are that in most cases you are buying a pig in a poke, and a pretty expensive pig at that. Some tuning houses refuse to do n/a maps at all, because the gains are so slight. Hardly anyone in the business will actually provide a set of curves (bhp and torque) showing the effect of the map. For an engine like the Fiat 1.2 or 1.4 mappers will quote 6 or 7bhp gain - but where? At 4,000rpm or 6,000? Really you need someone like Peter at GSR who will put the car on a rolling road and show you the before and after results. Angel quote an extra 10 lb/ft of torque at 2,000rpm for the 1.4 engine, but so what? I never use 2,000rpm - I want to see my power increase above 4,500, please Mr Re-mapper..

Then what happens if the ECU is flashed for a firmware upgrade at the first or second service and my expensive map is over-written? At least with bigger carbs or a race cam you used to be able to see what you were buying . . .

John

 

[[email protected]]

It's a fair point John.

I think everybody has to be clear as to what their expectations are as the results can make or break their enjoyment.

I have had mine re-mapped, primarily to get rid of the jerkiness at low speed and to add a bit of low-down torque, which has been achieved. Top end power ?, maybe there is some, maybe not, I don't tend to drive it on the redline. (Fear of ridicule here)

I have had bikes done before, all before and after'ed on the dyno. I had a Kawasaki which achieved big gains, which was fantastic for top-end power, day to day nightmare but great on the track. Yet my current Suzuki achieves both as I sacrificed the extra couple of bhp I could have got over the already impressive gains to retain the driveability.

But the bikes are high performance engines. The 500 is a good, solid lump, with a big budget in developing it, the gains will be less for sure.

The moral IMO, you don't get anything for nothing. Somewhere, now or in 150k miles there will be a downside. Just be clear peeps, £250 is not going to get your 500 to be a sub 8min ring-meister, or a 100mpg eco-warrior.

(Although Milfy's might do a 9min !)

 

[Roadsterchinsk]

Overall I broadly agree with you John.

However, I did say its about priorities. You are the opposite to the person i was describing before. Im a different sort of person from you in that the example you gave above works for me very well. Id much prefer the extra torque at 2000 rather than a peaky wait for it come alive at 4500 any day. You normally have to pass 2000 to get to 4500 and if you accelerating out of a bend the extra torque low down would be most welcome. In the modern day crowded roads and congestion has tended to change my driving style. I notice you live in Cornwall which im hoping is less congested than here as i drive into East London everyday.

I agree in a more "spirited" driving situation you wont be dropping down that low but my daily commute down the A12 into London doesn't normally let me get out of low rpm where I would prefer it to have a bit more pick up for various situations. In a weekend fun trackday car or similar different story.

My point before is that if you just want more power remapping a 1.2 in all honesty isnt going to do it for you. However, if you want to give the car you have got a bit more torque low down and eliminate any peaky'ness then it could be good value.

A garage can over-write a map, but generally a mapper should be willing to re-install covered in the original price if they are worth their salt. (as was the case in my previous maps - on diesels) although dealers never did flash the ecu.

As for the other upgrades, ive seen too many not meet expectations or claims as well as owners living with bad idle or similar as you rarely get something for nothing. So a remap seems no worse.

 

[Ffoxy]

Overall I broadly agree with you John.

However, I did say its about priorities. You are the opposite to the person i was describing before. Im a different sort of person from you in that the example you gave above works for me very well. Id much prefer the extra torque at 2000 rather than a peaky wait for it come alive at 4500 any day. You normally have to pass 2000 to get to 4500 and if you accelerating out of a bend the extra torque low down would be most welcome. In the modern day

Wouldnt a 500 diesel have made more sense for you then?

 

[John R Smith]

Well, if you drive like I tend to when I'm having fun you never have to pass 2,000 rpm, but I do know what you mean about traffic crawling which I also have to do from time to time of course. But down here in Cornwall there are still some quiet roads with great corners where a lot of fun can be had . . .

Actually I am amazed by the tractability of the 1.4 engine just as it comes. Modern engine management means it will actually pull like a little steam engine in first gear - in fact you can take your feet off the pedals and it will trickle along at idle like this, even slightly uphill with no snatching or jerking at all. You try that on our old Pug 205 and the engine will just stall dead.

John

 

[Ffoxy]

Well, if you drive like I tend to when I'm having fun you never have to pass 2,000 rpm, but I do know what you mean about traffic crawling which I also have to do from time to time of course. But down here in Cornwall there are still some quiet roads with great corners where a lot of fun can be had . . .

Actually I am amazed by the tractability of the 1.4 engine just as it comes. Modern engine management means it will actually pull like a little steam engine in first gear - in fact you can take your feet off the pedals and it will trickle along at idle like this, even slightly uphill with no snatching or jerking at all. You try that on our old Pug 205 and the engine will just stall dead.

John

Thats the anti-stall system in the ECU, most if not all modern cars have that functionality now.

 

[Roadsterchinsk]

Wouldnt a 500 diesel have made more sense for you then?

No, as i was just giving an example as I where I think a remap on a normally aspirated petrol engine would make sense. The 1.4 500 (the example given by the other poster was for from the 1.4 remap) feels a bit low on torque low down to me but if I was in the position to buy a 1.4 500 id maybe want this addressed at some point.

The 1.2 500 we have on order is perfect for what we will use it for.
I may have to take it to work some times, however mainly i drive a large family car with a very strong 2.2 diesel which as you would guess would be a better choice for my journey.

Cheers
Jonathan

 

[dave]

there is only one way to settle this.........











































































































FIGHT:slayer:

 

[Ffoxy]

there is only one way to settle this.........

FIGHT:slayer:

I win.... diesel for torque, petrol for revs... easy...

 

[Spoons]

I win.... diesel for torque, petrol for revs... easy...

Actually... I win

I can promise you all, doesnt matter if its a 1.2, 1.3 or a 1.4

If you know how to drive properly, the driver will make the difference, forget the remap

 

[dave]

nar you lose for bumping a dead thread

 

[01101001]

Don't make me get my rolling road 1.2 500 print out again

 

[grimwau]

Don't make me get my rolling road 1.2 500 print out again

OK ........You Win.

 

[Spoons]

nar you lose for bumping a dead thread

lol