So, got my remap !

[puntokris]

Level.....Until you come to a bend in your GPS and it carries on in a straight line...haha!

True!

I don't have that problem anymore though

 

[Shropshire_lad]

True!

I don't have that problem anymore though

No ST's grip real well...Did you part ex your GPS against it?

 

[Ffoxy]

No ST's grip real well...Did you part ex your GPS against it?

Kris has been slightly incestuous with this car swap.... his mate bought his GP and he got the STI (lmao, no its not THAT kind of STI) off another mate!

 

[puntokris]

Kris has been slightly incestuous with this car swap.... his mate bought his GP and he got the STI (lmao, no its not THAT kind of STI) off another mate!

No ST's grip real well...Did you part ex your GPS against it?

Yep, what ffoxy said (apart from the incest bit)

 

[Se7enHP]

How will my T-Jet handle then?

 

[punto_matt]

Stick on a set of eibach sportlines and it improves them so much. Obviously wont compare to your cup but then its completely different

 

[dave]

that car is ugly

 

[jug]

as much as i would love to be a really pedantic swine and demonstrate how mpg can not improve with a remap, i really cant be arsed. instead i will open the floor and ask the people who think they have seen a mpg improvement how they think it is possible to use less fuel when a remap results in increased injection duration.

 

[Ffoxy]

as much as i would love to be a really pedantic swine and demonstrate how mpg can not improve with a remap, i really cant be arsed. instead i will open the floor and ask the people who think they have seen a mpg improvement how they think it is possible to use less fuel when a remap results in increased injection duration.

Not as technical as you Jugsy but I definitely use less fuel now and my driving conditions, places I go and driving habits / style have not changed.
In fact I sometimes boot it a bit more cos its fun. I will say that I dont have to downshift at all now during normal driving, my power and torque now peak earlier and the delivery curve is much smoother without the 2 "dips" I had before.
Since my re-map I have spent £30 less in fuel than I normally do over a month, coincidence or some other spooky effect but I suspect the re-map has something to do with it. I can say for sure that my economy is definitely no worse.
Maybe Oldschool could help a bit more?

 

[jug]

Not as technical as you Jugsy but I definitely use less fuel now and my driving conditions, places I go and driving habits / style have not changed.
In fact I sometimes boot it a bit more cos its fun. I will say that I dont have to downshift at all now during normal driving, my power and torque now peak earlier and the delivery curve is much smoother without the 2 "dips" I had before.

wow i didnt expect a confession that early. most diesel owners will not accept that their driving style has changed rather than their engine's fuel consumption at any given load

 

[Ffoxy]

wow i didnt expect a confession that early. most diesel owners will not accept that their driving style has changed rather than their engine's fuel consumption at any given load

Using the improved efficiency is where the savings are IMO.

 

[jug]

if you did a before journey, and then an after journey exactly the same in terms of the speed throughout the journey, then the after journey would put the engine under less load the vast majority of the time, so it would use less fuel.

under the same load conditions the engine should use more fuel with the remap (and more air too), but thanks to traffic and the fear of points you are unlikely to put the engine under the same load after a remap; you dont drive faster all the time just because its been remapped, you simply find it easier to drive the same as before (well you dont find it easier, the engine does).

so technically the engine's fuel consumption will have increased slightly, but in real world terms you are able to use less fuel.

under hard acceleration it should use more fuel, but cruising at a constant speed it should use less because the engine load is reduced. since you cruise a lot more than you accelerate the net result is a reduction in the amount of fuel you use.


actually now i think about it i was wrong to say "mpg" earlier because it is only fuel consumption per load that increases after a remap, your MPG figure can actually improve.

 

[Oldschool]

if you did a before journey, and then an after journey exactly the same in terms of the speed throughout the journey, then the after journey would put the engine under less load the vast majority of the time, so it would use less fuel.

under the same load conditions the engine should use more fuel with the remap (and more air too), but thanks to traffic and the fear of points you are unlikely to put the engine under the same load after a remap; you dont drive faster all the time just because its been remapped, you simply find it easier to drive the same as before (well you dont find it easier, the engine does).

so technically the engine's fuel consumption will have increased slightly, but in real world terms you are able to use less fuel.

under hard acceleration it should use more fuel, but cruising at a constant speed it should use less because the engine load is reduced. since you cruise a lot more than you accelerate the net result is a reduction in the amount of fuel you use.


actually now i think about it i was wrong to say "mpg" earlier because it is only fuel consumption per load that increases after a remap, your MPG figure can actually improve.

Thanks Jug, you saved me a lot of time.

The key is the driving style that needs adapting to the new performance situation allowing you with less effort (higher gears = less drag in engine) to maintain the same levels of performance.

 

[Ffoxy]

if you did a before journey, and then an after journey exactly the same in terms of the speed throughout the journey, then the after journey would put the engine under less load the vast majority of the time, so it would use less fuel.

under the same load conditions the engine should use more fuel with the remap (and more air too), but thanks to traffic and the fear of points you are unlikely to put the engine under the same load after a remap; you dont drive faster all the time just because its been remapped, you simply find it easier to drive the same as before (well you dont find it easier, the engine does).

so technically the engine's fuel consumption will have increased slightly, but in real world terms you are able to use less fuel.

under hard acceleration it should use more fuel, but cruising at a constant speed it should use less because the engine load is reduced. since you cruise a lot more than you accelerate the net result is a reduction in the amount of fuel you use.


actually now i think about it i was wrong to say "mpg" earlier because it is only fuel consumption per load that increases after a remap, your MPG figure can actually improve.

Pretty much I guess, the only facts I have at my disposal are that I get an extra day before re-fuelling now. Over the month thats almost a weeks fuel less, as I usually put in £35 its approx a £30 saving even at these inflated fuel prices, and most of all I am happy

 

[Ffoxy]

Thanks Jug, you saved me a lot of time.

The key is the driving style that needs adapting to the new performance situation allowing you with less effort (higher gears = less drag in engine) to maintain the same levels of performance.

and Peter knows I am not one of the "rag it and brag" brigade.

 

[jug]

Thanks Jug, you saved me a lot of time.

its amazing, if anyone types your username into a post you appear as if by magic within a few mins. how on earth do you manage that

 

[Oldschool]

its amazing, if anyone types your username into a post you appear as if by magic within a few mins. how on earth do you manage that

Didn't you know we Germanz have got our wayz.
(and this despite the fact that I hardly know how to use them blooming computers')

 

[J333EVO]

Is the M-Jet remapped faster than the T-Jet remapped, I know there is about 25bhp difference, but I also know the M-Jet is about 100kg heavier.

Article in July's Auto Italia magazine pitched the M-Jet 130 and T-Jet 120 GP's against each other, kerb weight of M-Jet was IIRC 145kgs more than (1060kgs V's 1205kgs) T-Jet, all that weight is up front of course because its all down to the engine. It didn't give front/rear bias, but must be verging on 65/35 in M-Jet which dynamically is poor.

Auto Italia's results were T-Jet a much more enjoyable and faster B road car as it had a better balanced chassis and more planted front end less likely to wash wide with understeer. The brakes also worked less hard and felt less likely to wilt.

Although they praised the M-Jet for doing its best to disguise all that weight up front, there is only so much you can do. Both cars were specified with same size wheels/tyres so the tyres on M-Jet are working much harder to transmit more weight and torque which will greatly reduce there life span. As they do not produce "diesel" tyres, this disparity is reflected on any like for like comparison and has to be considered as part of running costs.

Genuine MPG's fig's from test as driven were 36mpg M-Jet 28mpg T-Jet so they were being driven fairly hard, but not excessively so, 8mpg difference is not huge and I think M-Jet was £1K dearer, so take a while to recover that differance in fuel alone.

Therefore you can conclude as the Abarth version uses same engine as T-Jet its weight balance will be as good, and added to properly developed suspension and uprated brakes its going to be much quicker cross country than a M-Jet re-mapped or not.

Anyway, enjoy your car now its remapped, its always fun when adding power to your car, then two weeks later you get used to it and crave more :devil:

 

[Ffoxy]

Article in July's Auto Italia magazine pitched the M-Jet 130 and T-Jet 120 GP's against each other, kerb weight of M-Jet was IIRC 145kgs more than (1060kgs V's 1205kgs) T-Jet, all that weight is up front of course because its all down to the engine. It didn't give front/rear bias, but must be verging on 65/35 in M-Jet which dynamically is poor.

Auto Italia's results were T-Jet a much more enjoyable and faster B road car as it had a better balanced chassis and more planted front end less likely to wash wide with understeer. The brakes also worked less hard and felt less likely to wilt.

Although they praised the M-Jet for doing its best to disguise all that weight up front, there is only so much you can do. Both cars were specified with same size wheels/tyres so the tyres on M-Jet are working much harder to transmit more weight and torque which will greatly reduce there life span. As they do not produce "diesel" tyres, this disparity is reflected on any like for like comparison and has to be considered as part of running costs.

Genuine MPG's fig's from test as driven were 36mpg M-Jet 28mpg T-Jet so they were being driven fairly hard, but not excessively so, 8mpg difference is not huge and I think M-Jet was £1K dearer, so take a while to recover that differance in fuel alone.

Therefore you can conclude as the Abarth version uses same engine as T-Jet its weight balance will be as good, and added to properly developed suspension and uprated brakes its going to be much quicker cross country than a M-Jet re-mapped or not.

Anyway, enjoy your car now its remapped, its always fun when adding power to your car, then two weeks later you get used to it and crave more :devil:

Some reasonable assumptions there, but even at a lowly estimated 8 mpg difference thats still a good saving as a minimum, the cost to buy (£1k) difference didnt apply to me as I paid £9,500 for my diesel as a 1,500 mile pre-owned. I dont and wont crave even more power as I am not power mad but point taken. Motorway miles constitute around half of my mileage currently so diesel was the right choice for me but as my business mileage may be falling I would consider a petrol 1.5 Swift.

 

[jug]

8mpg difference is not huge

especially whern you consider that diesel costs more per litre so you need a few mpg difference just to cover the difference in cost.