Quite Extreme ReMap Figures!

[KeithJG]

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.

I can see that you alone understand what I am getting at...."a map out of the box" why waste money on the dynos when I am happy how it drives on the road and not on the dyno.

 

[KeithJG]

@C350Carl

You could of saved all that writing if you had understood what I wrote?

If my motor will accelerate to 60mph in 5.7 seconds then because of its weight it has to be around the bhp that Celtic say it is......that is the only reason why I believe them. If it were the saloon it would be even quicker.

If you bother to learn about physics it all becomes clear without wasting money on dynos for the ordinary man in the street.

Oh, by the way I am too old and streetwise for anyone to get up my nose it is just that I have to agree with a certain person on here as now he is not posting anymore so must be sulking

 

[C350Carl]

@C350Carl

You could of saved all that writing if you had understood what I wrote?

If my motor will accelerate to 60mph in 5.7 seconds then because of its weight it has to be around the bhp that Celtic say it is......that is the only reason why I believe them. If it were the saloon it would be even quicker.

If you bother to learn about physics it all becomes clear without wasting money on dynos for the ordinary man in the street.

Oh, by the way I am too old and streetwise for anyone to get up my nose it is just that I have to agree with a certain person on here as now he is not posting anymore so must be sulking

Ok I'll put another way for you.

I've used the same Torque App you have to time my cars in the past. I even posted one on here when I put a tuning box on my C350.

I've also used a Racelogic performance box system

I've also been to Santa pod.

The RL system was average reading 0.1 secs quicker (in other words car was slower)

The torque app was on average reading 0.8secs quicker. So I wouldn't put too much faith in an app on your phone.

 

[Lit.91]

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

It's still an impressive 0-60 figure Matty, with standard being approx 7 sec from the top of my head. It would be great to put two of the same cars, with different company maps head to head

 

[daveenty]

It's still an impressive 0-60 figure Matty, with standard being approx 7 sec from the top of my head. It would be great to put two of the same cars, with different company maps head to head

Or on the same dyno...

 

[AMGeed]

The torque app was on average reading 0.8secs quicker. So I wouldn't put too much faith in an app on your phone.

Oh dear.

It's still an impressive 0-60 figure Matty.

Not so impressive if the app is reading 0.8 sec out
Depending on which 0-60 time you believe a C320CDi estate is 6.9secs.
Add 0.8 to the indicated 5.7 and you have 6.5. A gain of 0.4secs.
It's all unproven anyway.
I'm off to sulk again

 

[Lit.91]

Oh dear.











Not so impressive if the app is reading 0.8 sec out

Depending on which 0-60 time you believe a C320CDi estate is 6.9secs.

Add 0.8 to the indicated 5.7 and you have 6.5. A gain of 0.4secs.

It's all unproven anyway.

I'm off to sulk again

Didn't know the how accurate or inaccurate the app was, but would be highly sceptical if the 6.9 sec was achieved in a standard car in real world conditions, so still impressive in my eyes. Would have no clue in what that equates to in bhp terms though.

I'm for the dyno, which should really be provided by the tuner, but also understand that it may be of no interest to some who are happy with the map results, at the end of the day it's a personal preference. I don't understand why Keith is getting all of the stick for it, there are plenty of forum users here with remaps & no dyno proof, who are happy the way they are (GAD customers for example).

 

[AMGeed]

I don't understand why Keith is getting all of the stick for it, there are plenty of forum users here with remaps & no dyno proof, who are happy the way they are (GAD customers for example).

I agree. I'll just keep out of this from now on.

 

[V6Matty]

I'm for the dyno, which should really be provided by the tuner, but also understand that it may be of no interest to some who are happy with the map results, at the end of the day it's a personal preference. I don't understand why Keith is getting all of the stick for it, there are plenty of forum users here with remaps & no dyno proof, who are happy the way they are (GAD customers for example).

That's pretty much the crux of it, if your happy with the map your provided then that's fine, but when you say your car produces x amount of tourque or bhp without a dyno read out there is no proof it may feel like its producing that power but that could be easily all in their head as well, just due to the fact the delivery of the power is different. I certainly not having a go at any one but if it was me and a tuner said they could get x amount from my car I want a bit of proof more than just their word.

Oh and those acceleration figures a pretty impressive, would be happy if my car produced them

 

[KeithJG]

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

My model for 2006 sold in Europe had a 6 speed manual box available or the auto 7g.

 

[KeithJG]

Oh and those acceleration figures a pretty impressive, would be happy if my car produced them

I have a video of my speedo during 0 to 60 and you can count the seconds.

I have to sort it to put up on here as I have never done that before.

 

[turbopete]

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.

point is ive seen 12% as a common 'loss' so why 18% here?

 

[turbopete]

My model for 2006 sold in Europe had a 6 speed manual box available or the auto 7g.

I have to admit, I'm the biggest manual 'box fan there is on the forum. but ive yet to see anything with a diesel engine above a 250 with a manual box. id love to be wrong and someone sell me a 320 cdi manual in UK spec though!

 

[C350Carl]

I have a video of my speedo during 0 to 60 and you can count the seconds.



I have to sort it to put up on here as I have never done that before.

Is that 0-60 indicated? If so that will explain some of the figure as 60 indicated will be circa 56-57mph.

To be honest the figures are for pub talk/bragging rights. As long as you're happy with how it drives then that's the main thing. Just be wary of believing the figures they have quoted you is all I would say.

 

[Lit.91]

That's pretty much the crux of it, if your happy with the map your provided then that's fine, but when you say your car produces x amount of tourque or bhp without a dyno read out there is no proof it may feel like its producing that power but that could be easily all in their head as well, just due to the fact the delivery of the power is different. I certainly not having a go at any one but if it was me and a tuner said they could get x amount from my car I want a bit of proof more than just their word.



Oh and those acceleration figures a pretty impressive, would be happy if my car produced them

Agreed.

 

[Lit.91]

I have a video of my speedo during 0 to 60 and you can count the seconds.



I have to sort it to put up on here as I have never done that before.

Would be great to see that Keith, not to prove yourself, just out of curiosity of how it performs

 

[KeithJG]

I have to admit, I'm the biggest manual 'box fan there is on the forum. but ive yet to see anything with a diesel engine above a 250 with a manual box. id love to be wrong and someone sell me a 320 cdi manual in UK spec though!

I will copy it from my hand manual for the car but I have to delete some images.....everything and everyone so difficult on this forum!

Is that 0-60 indicated? If so that will explain some of the figure as 60 indicated will be circa 56-57mph.

To be honest the figures are for pub talk/bragging rights. As long as you're happy with how it drives then that's the main thing. Just be wary of believing the figures they have quoted you is all I would say.

Do you think I would honestly count seconds on my speedo for accurate readings?.....the app. does it but I did another run with my camera on the mobile......in passing my speedo is virtually accurate with my GPS satnav.

Do you know what......you lot are so demeaning I am surprised you have got so far in life.

Although retired I was an experienced builder that worked only on fact not hearsay!.....and certainly didn't earn my money at a polski wash.

 

[C350Carl]

No one is being demeaning and if my posts come across that way then I offer my apologies.

As said I have a fair bit of experience tuning cars so know about claimed figures never being what you actually get.

I asked about the time for the reading as I wanted to know if that's how you were calculating your timings. I didn't once say or imply you would be counting the seconds watching your speedo.

The main thing is that you like how it drives.

Just remember that the written word is a lot harder to gauge how someone is being as you can't hear tone or see facial expressions. But I don't think anyone is intentionally being demeaning.