Quite Extreme ReMap Figures!

[PROJUMPER]

I just had a look at the Celtic tuning website. I entered my car details ML164 280cdi, to see what was achievable, the figures shown were Very Impressive, yet when entering my vehicles details in other well known tuning sites, the results were considerably less impressive! The Celtic Tuning website shows an increase of 103bhp, is this possible? or is a data input error?

https://www.celtictuning.co.uk/comp...l/280cdi-187-bhp-2005-2011/stage-2#t3-content

 

[AMGeed]

I would be doubtful any tuning company could achieve a 103bhp increase on a diesel. It does however state its a stage 2 remap so I don't know what else that involves.

The only car I've seen produce those increases from just a remap were on a 5.5lt Bi turbo E63.
I'd be asking what they do to achieve those figures and more importantly, how much!

 

[Yugguy]

Celtic always over estimate. Superchips give a more realistic figure.

 

[JBell]

Celtic always over estimate.

Really, their web site said after a map my car would put out 100Nm of Torque less than standard

 

[Yugguy]

The exception proves the rule.

I've always found them accurate although I've never actually used them funnily enough.

 

[PROJUMPER]

Im not sure if you have written this? yet, you contradict your last thread!

Celtic always over estimate. Superchips give a more realistic figure.

The exception proves the rule.

I've always found them accurate although I've never actually used them funnily enough.

 

[Lit.91]

Their stage 2 on 280cdi looks to produce the same as stage 1 on 320cdi.

As the engines are technically the same, the stage 1 on 280cdi looks like OBD map, which encounters the 280 ecu restriction.

Stage 2 looks like a physical ecu removal and unlocking to the potential of 320cdi.

That's my theory of thinking, but 290bhp still seems pretty high.

 

[V6Matty]

Their stage 2 on 280cdi looks to produce the same as stage 1 on 320cdi.

As the engines are technically the same, the stage 1 on 280cdi looks like OBD map, which encounters the 280 ecu restriction.

Stage 2 looks like a physical ecu removal and unlocking to the potential of 320cdi.

That's my theory of thinking, but 290bhp still seems pretty high.

probably not too far off in your thinking there, but I'd still say that high for a 280/320 I'd be thinking more like 260/270bhp even then it's a pretty aggressive map that could potentially eat your injectors

 

[KeithJG]

Here we go again ....all get ready to hammer me but at least the proof of the pudding is in the eating and that is what i did all for £250 ECU in place to remap and have been running around 45mpg at a leisurly pace and 38mpg using the power.

Yes...i have the Celtic 290bhp 628nm of torque tune and the motor has been running great for over 30 months with that tune and i use the power when i can. No problems, no black smoke, i use 2T with the Shell Nitro diesel so great burning of fuel and lubrication to the fuel pump.

My acceleration figures in the pics. had 5.7 with new tyres, ok approx.as it`s no dyno but for an Estate C class i would of though quite good for the mpg and torque with the 7g on the move figures.

No DPF on my model so i think that may also help the figures, and it sounds burbly not like the thirsty V8 rubble but a very nice sound.

 

[Lit.91]

probably not too far off in your thinking there, but I'd still say that high for a 280/320 I'd be thinking more like 260/270bhp even then it's a pretty aggressive map that could potentially eat your injectors

It may still be plausible, I look at the Brabus D6 figures as a benchmark, which should most probably be accurate due to their reputation (272bhp)

No DPF on my model so i think that may also help the figures, and it sounds burbly not like the thirsty V8 rubble but a very nice sound.

Has the Celtic remap changed the way that the car sounds Keith?

 

[V6Matty]

Here we go again ....all get ready to hammer me but at least the proof of the pudding is in the eating and that is what i did all for £250 ECU in place to remap and have been running around 45mpg at a leisurly pace and 38mpg using the power.

Yes...i have the Celtic 290bhp 628nm of torque tune and the motor has been running great for over 30 months with that tune and i use the power when i can. No problems, no black smoke, i use 2T with the Shell Nitro diesel so great burning of fuel and lubrication to the fuel pump.

My acceleration figures in the pics. had 5.7 with new tyres, ok approx.as it`s no dyno but for an Estate C class i would of though quite good for the mpg and torque with the 7g on the move figures.

No DPF on my model so i think that may also help the figures, and it sounds burbly not like the thirsty V8 rubble but a very nice sound.

good to hear Keith, and glad your finding it works for you, on a side note have you had the car on a dyno to see what the figures are or are you going by what your being told it should be producing, just interested to see if what their claiming is accurate (or at least as close as it can be)

 

[KeithJG]

It may still be plausible, I look at the Brabus D6 figures as a benchmark, which should most probably be accurate due to their reputation (272bhp)



Has the Celtic remap changed the way that the car sounds Keith?

The thing is i really use the power so with no DPF all is taken out on the rear box and yes, it does sound a lot better than it a year ago .....no holes in it...lol, i will have to try and record it!

good to hear Keith, and glad your finding it works for you, on a side note have you had the car on a dyno to see what the figures are or are you going by what your being told it should be producing, just interested to see if what their claiming is accurate (or at least as close as it can be)

Ok so another dig coming for me as i don`t like dyno`s

Being old school and rebuilding my own tuned motors years back i have always gone the power to weight ratio way and acceleration tests. It has to be done accurately but i consider it more fun and the car can be more easily be compared with another similar car.

First of all over here in blighty BHP at the flywheel is used but most dyno`s are WBH.....the dyno is only as good as the bloke using it also.

Ok so i believe 18% is added on to WBH to get BHP but to me that is nonsense when one comes up against the 7g box which gives the C class an extra 75ftlbs of torque .....so what percent would be added to that to get BHP as torque is closely related to bhp?

I believe although the older 5g box is a good box but it is the 7g that adds more torque?

To me a dyno that reads WBH is not a given accurate figure for BHP but a 0-60 time is as it can be compared to other motors.

As an example given by a magazine to fully appreciate the engine’s achievements, however, it’s best to look at the 50mph to 75mph in-gear time of 6.2sec – the same time as the 362bhp 5.4-litre V8 C55 AMG. Which is why i own my motor which is giving me excellent mpg compared with the C55.

So when my 0-60 time of 5.8 for the estate version when you work it out it does give around the 290bhp. without paying for an inaccurate dynorun.

I am really pleased with my remap and do swear by Celtics figures and i will always argue their case.

 

[AMGeed]

Ok so another dig coming for me as i don`t like dyno`s

Being old school and rebuilding my own tuned motors years back i have always gone the power to weight ratio way and acceleration tests. It has to be done accurately but i consider it more fun and the car can be more easily be compared with another similar car.

First of all over here in blighty BHP at the flywheel is used but most dyno`s are WBH.....the dyno is only as good as the bloke using it also.

Ok so i believe 18% is added on to WBH to get BHP but to me that is nonsense when one comes up against the 7g box which gives the C class an extra 75ftlbs of torque .....so what percent would be added to that to get BHP as torque is closely related to bhp?

I believe although the older 5g box is a good box but it is the 7g that adds more torque?

To me a dyno that reads WBH is not a given accurate figure for BHP but a 0-60 time is as it can be compared to other motors.

As an example given by a magazine to fully appreciate the engine’s achievements, however, it’s best to look at the 50mph to 75mph in-gear time of 6.2sec – the same time as the 362bhp 5.4-litre V8 C55 AMG. Which is why i own my motor which is giving me excellent mpg compared with the C55.

So when my 0-60 time of 5.8 for the estate version when you work it out it does give around the 290bhp. without paying for an inaccurate dynorun.

I am really pleased with my remap and do swear by Celtics figures and i will always argue their case.

A before and after dyno run at the time of remapping will show the increase in black and white. If it's "inaccurate" on the stock run, it will be just as "inaccurate" on the remapped run. But it will show the exact increase.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand?

You mention torque and the 7g gearbox giving the C class an extra 75ft lbs. The engine gives you the torque, not the gearbox

What torque has the Celtic remap given you? Only what Celtic Tuning tell you I'm afraid. I hope its under 542ft lbs.
Be careful you don't wreck your gearbox with all that torque Celtic told you you have. You know why the 7g 'box was never put in the 55k's? Because the engine produces too much torque. You might want to read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_5G-Tronic_transmission

Before you reply and start crying that I'm having another go at you, I'll make it clear I'm not. I just fail to see your reasoning and refusal to actually put your car on a dyno and see the real figure using the 18% every dyno operator uses. Your figures mean nothing.

 

[V6Matty]

just to note on that, the 0-60 or 60-80 figures you are using are also not really relevant, those figures can be changed by tiny influences that people and cars have no control over, a dyno give you the most controlled environment to get figures from that why manufactures use them as well as the engine gearbox rigs

 

[C350Carl]

All I can say about those Celtic figures is....

 

[KeithJG]

A before and after dyno run at the time of remapping will show the increase in black and white. If it's "inaccurate" on the stock run, it will be just as "inaccurate" on the remapped run. But it will show the exact increase.
I don't know why this is so hard to understand?

You mention torque and the 7g gearbox giving the C class an extra 75ft lbs. The engine gives you the torque, not the gearbox

What torque has the Celtic remap given you? Only what Celtic Tuning tell you I'm afraid. I hope its under 542ft lbs.
Be careful you don't wreck your gearbox with all that torque Celtic told you you have. You know why the 7g 'box was never put in the 55k's? Because the engine produces too much torque. You might want to read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_5G-Tronic_transmission

Before you reply and start crying that I'm having another go at you, I'll make it clear I'm not. I just fail to see your reasoning and refusal to actually put your car on a dyno and see the real figure using the 18% every dyno operator uses. Your figures mean nothing.

Why do you belittle me with your sarcasm as i do believe it is you that does not like what i write and not the other way around!

Everything i write is what i have read about and learnt and not to just pull members by the bo££ocks...

I don`t like dynos as like + or -18% here or there means nothing just as my figures mean nothing to you. They are all neither here or there but do mean something if they are understood instead of dismissing.

If something weighs an amount and it is pushed up to 60mph in so many seconds then that means something.

If i was tuning an engine properly with more than a remap then i agree go get on a dyno but not for the ordinary man in the street as the remap company has done it for you. Celtic cannot tell lies about the increase as they will be sued in court just use your sarcastic brain for once.

You really don`t understand mechanics do you?.......go read the hand manual and you will find that the C320CDI has 224bhp it`s rated torque is 415Nm for the manual box and 510Nm if fitted with the 7g auto box. The Power is still 224bhp

The C55 with 367bhp is rated at 510Nm but has the 5 speed autobox. So the torque for the C320CDI and the C55 are identical except the diesel does nearly twice the mpg.....

Concerning the amount of power from the E280CDI :
http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/performance-lounge/209146-e280-remap-dyno.html

No doubt you already have read about it?

But:

2007 Mercedes-Benz E 280 CDI 7G-Tronic DPF (Classic, Elegance, Avantgarde)

Mercedes-Benz E 280 CDI 7G-Tronic DPF (Classic, Elegance, Avantgarde), manufactured or sold in 2007, version for Europe
4-door sedan body type
RWD (rear-wheel drive), automatic 7-speed gearbox
diesel fuel engine with displacement: 2987 cm3 / 182.4 cui, advertised power: 140 kW / 188 hp / 190 PS ( ECE ), Torque net: 440 Nm / 324 lb-ft
characteristic dimensions: outside length: 4856 mm / 191.2 in, wheelbase: 2854 mm / 112.4 in
reference weights: base curb weight: 1640 kg / 3615 lbs, gross weight GVWR: 2240 kg / 4938 lbs
how fast is this car ? top speed: 238 km/h (148 mph) (declared by factory);
accelerations: 0- 60 mph 7.2 s, 0- 100 km/h 7.6 s (declared by factory), 1/4 mile drag time (402 m) 15.6 s (simulation ©automobile-catalog.com)
fuel consumption and mileage: 7.2 l/100km / 39.2 mpg (imp.) / 32.6 mpg (U.S.) / 13.9 km/l emission: 191 gCO2/km average estimated by a-c: 9.5 l/100km / 29.6 mpg (imp.) / 24.7 mpg (U.S.) / 10.5 km/l

The dyno must be fast by 12bhp to start with ok so it ends with 12 bhp fast also but then could be just pub talk

 

[C350Carl]

Celtic cannot tell lies about the increase as they will be sued in court just use your sarcastic brain for once.

Keith,

I am in no way trying to belittle you here. You can take what i put next with a pinch of salt or whatever.

In the past i have invested considerable sums of money tuning cars. Before i bought my last C350 CDI i spent just shy of £20k tuning 3 different cars (one of which was a diesel)

The diesel i tuned was a standard 2.0 140bhp VAG Diesel. With a Remap, New intake from a 170bhp version, full silicon hose kit for turbo discharge and intercooler piping i made the car increase from 148 bhp and 241lb/ft (standard car even though VAG quoted slightly less) to 186bhp and 341lb/ft (all proven on a dyno that did the before and after runs) So 38bhp/100lbft increase

I tuned 2 petrol 2.0 Octavia vRS. One a TFSI that went from 197bhp and 207lb/ft to 332bhp and 318lbft.

That required the following (power mods only. There were extensive handling mods):

K04 turbo upgrade from an Audi S3
Full Turbo back Exhaust with a 3" downpipes (2.5" standard)
Full Neuspeed Turbo discharge and intercooler piping
Revo K04 Stage 3 Remap
Evolution Motorsport CAI
APR High pressure 225bar fuel pump
Audi S3 injectors
Diverter Valve relocation (to enable the higher boost to be maintained)
Audi S3 Intercooler
Sachs Uprated Clutch and Lightened DMF

The second was a 2.0 TSI Octavia vRS DSG that went from 210bhp and 217lbft to 360bhp and 387lbft

Again a similar list of mods were required to the above. The only thing i didn't need was a fuel pump as the TSI engine had a revised pump that would run 250bar iirc. Nor did i need a Clutch & flywheel as the car had DSG.

In the process of doing all this my cars (and many many others i saw at the many RR days i attended ) did a lot of dyno runs during the setup. Both cars were well into triple figures.

I have seen literally hundreds of cars go on the dyno including ones with Celtic Tuning remaps. I have never ever yet seen any car make the claimed figures. This is not due to the company lying (i'll get to that in a minute). It is more to do with their are far far too many variables.

For example:

Dyno problems,

Wrong type of scale selected
Incorrect or no temperature given to the computer
Cooling fan at front not optimal
Incorrectly strapped down (too tight or too loose)
Incorrect rpm scale selected
Incorrect ratios selected

Car problems,

Bad or not optimal fuel
Car not warmed up correctly prior to the run
Car not run in the correct gear (should be done in 4th or 5th. There are the odd exceptions but in the main its 4th for 6spd and 5th for 7spd)
Ambient Temperature too hot or too much humidity
Time since last service

etc etc.

Dyno operators also know how to cheat. I used to joke about one well known company in that if you turned up with "land of make believe" playing on the stereo then you would get a fantastic run.

But the critical thing here is not the claimed figure. It's the difference between the before and after that is key. Most companies will caveat their claim with "up to" on the power claims. This is there get of jail card as they can't give you a specific figure. There is far too much to influence the figure in a test for them to do so.

So although Celtic can't lie. They can pluck any figure they like out of the air and caveat it with up to.

As an example the last Celtic tuned car i saw (was a petrol VW Scirocco). They claimed 260bhp from just a remap. The car made 238bhp on the Dyno. We know the dyno was accurate that day as a stock car ran 204bhp (Mk5 Golf GTI) and my heavily tuned Octavia ran 351bhp (even though my peak was 362. But that run was done in Feb and this particular day was in August).

So to surmise that long explanation. Don't believe the figures they quote. They do not ever have to make them and couldn't ever be sued for a car not making them.

 

[turbopete]

where has the +/- 18% come from, if no one minds me asking? I'm far from knowledgeable about such things, I know how they work in principle to an extent but that's it. HOWEVER each and every dyno run ive ever seen on youtube, TV (Top gear etc) and the likes, runs the engine up to pretty much flat out, then allows the engine to 'run down' by itself, in gear (irrespective of the transmission type) this means that the mass of computers attached to the rollers can calculate the EXACT percentage drag caused by transmission components etc, and therefore calculate EXACTLY the power produced by the engine where it counts, the FLYWHEEL.

I have actually seen videos somewhere (either on TV or online) where they did a time lapse thing where they dyno's an engine on the flywheel, then fitted it to a vehicle, and 'rolling road' dyno'd the same engine. the results were so close (within 2bhp from memory on a 600bhp+ engine) you would NEVER be able to tell.

in addition to this, as every mechanic knows, every engine is different. I have had 2 identical cars (same make, model, engine, gearbox, year, even colour) through my hands, both 100% standard showroom spec cars. yet 1 was 20mph faster in 3rd gear at the point where a driver could feel 'valve bounce' than the other. so could I say that 1 car had 90bhp, the other must have had 150bhp, because the fuel injected, turbocharged 130bhp version of the carburettor fed engine in question couldn't do the same trick? I doubt it. but because of the way that engine could hold revs, the same mods, carried out to both engines, would yield very different power increases.

we could all go to the MB factory right now, in theory, pull 3 identical 220cdi engines (for example) off the production line, with successive engine numbers, dyno all 3, and you could GUARANTEE that they wouldn't be EXACTLY the same. which is why, when you read the manuals, they used to (probably still do) say that 'no guarantee can be made that this car is identical to the one tested as this particular car may not be the exact car tested' or similar such wording.

timed runs also have their place however. yes you get bragging rights about power and torque figures, but for what its worth the first vehicle I ever drove, I'm told, had something in the region of 1000BHP (I was 10 years old, it was a huge piece of plant machinery)

I looked into remapping my car. its front drive so I decided against it, mostly because firms were claiming between 30 and 40bhp extra, which would be very nice. EXCEPT if I drive it like I stole it (which happens more than it probably should) it will spin the wheels once the turbo spools up anyhow (especially 1st and 2nd) so with more power, I'm just going to spend MORE time spinning wheels. so ide have more power but where would the benefit be? the only way to find THAT out would be to run timed runs etc.

I can see pro's and cons for both methods, but whilst performance can be measured with a stopwatch, power CANT be measured without a dyno of some sort, so you can have a 'claimed' xxxBHP OR you can have a before and after (or even an after only if you aren't bothered how much you gained) dyno reading that SHOWS what you REALLY are putting out. ive seen plenty of modded Fords over the years, with the mods fitted to take a car to a magical number (say 300bhp) having spent a fortune, only to have it on a dyno and find they only make maybe 240bhp as the car needs fine tuning at certain points, and the owners are almost in tears having spent a few £k and find they have gained about 20bhp instead of 80+!


Incidentally KeithJG, do you know which market the C320CDi was available with a manual gearbox, as to my knowledge MB never made such a thing, certainly for the UK, hence my query

 

[AMGeed]

Why do you belittle me with your sarcasm as i do believe it is you that does not like what i write and not the other way around!

I can't be bothered to reply any longer. Believe what you want Keith.
But nobody has belittled you.

 

[daveenty]

where has the +/- 18% come from, if no one minds me asking?

It's a very rough conversion of wheel power to crank power Pete.

Some good info HERE on transmission power loss.

Incidentally, most of the US tuners tend to use wheel horsepower figures unlike over here. I'm not commenting on the dyno/no dyno argument here, people can make their own minds up on that. Suffice to say that mine spent nearly 6 hours on it the last time undergoing a lot of data logging whilst being constantly adjusted, which a map "out of the box" would apparently not need.