Fuel Saving Remaps

[hawk20]

Oops...
I have never had a complaint that our maps are not doing what we say and me personally, I have not done a bad remap to warrant a claim...

That's the problem: you have to prove it was a faulty remap. How?
Nobody guarantees 15% better fuel economy. Not with a guarantee any court would accept.

I notice no reply to why you don't get What Car Autocar or Which to do a scientifically based trial to prove your claims. See my posting 53 (no reply to any of the points in that were there?) Seems I shan't need to buy five members a proven chip then?

 

[sr-performancelive..]

Hi Russ,
I do fully understand the point you are making regarding warranties and it can be a bit of a grey area.. I used to have a franchise with another "well known" company but left them because, even me as an installer for them had no backup/advice/help, nothing and I know personally that anyone that rang with a prob was "fobbed off"... Me, I treat people the way I like to be treat and am always at the end of a phone if anyone wants me.. sorry to ramble on a bit.... it's a sunday thing!!

 

[SQ_W211]

Steve, you never mentioned how much discount you are willing to give us????:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[sr-performancelive..]

Hi Amo, thought i'd got away with that.. he he..
RRP on yours is £269 I can do it cheaper obviously but as your down in "smoke" would be better if there was 2 of you. Better discount then. Pity I didn't know last week as I was in surrey remapping some Audi's...

 

[sr-performancelive..]

Sorry Hawk, wasn't ignoring your question's just that post's on here now I forgot!!
Surely a simple test is just to fill up brim to brim and check how many extra miles you have and not use the cars fuel computer..
And i just might contact a magazine.... so start saving!!!

 

[psmart]

Some clarification is needed here.

Everyone talks about 'chipping', what is 'chipping'?
In the old days, a microcontroller (a standalone single chip computer) would have its program encapsulated in a ROM (Read Only Memory) or more commonly OTPROM (One Time Programmable ROM). EPROMS (Electrically erasable & Programmable ROM) would tend not to be used as the data inside them could be lost over 10 years (MTBF). Chipping was the process of de-soldering the existing ROM/OTPROM and soldering in its place a new ROM/OTPROM/EPROM with an updated program. Another common practise was to just piggy back a new ROM/OTPROM/EPROM on top of the existing device and cut the power/CS (Chip Select) lines.

Today, modern systems, including ECU's tend to use Flash ROMS/RAMS, ie. devices who's data can be changed in-situ just by applying a high voltage to them and pumping the data into it in a given format. Newer Flash RAMS allow you to re-program them by an instruction as they embed all the high level voltage/programming logic inside.

The designers of the ECU's in the Mercs Ive played with (220/270), in this case Bosch, have chosen to use a microcontroller with an external Flash RAM. They could have used the internal OTPROM/FlashROM inside the microcontroller, but chose to use an external device instead. The base program allows, via the OBDII, an upload of a new program into the FlashROM. (Mercs beware, always ensure external 12V applied to the car and that the cooling fan is unplugged). This is how you re-mapper can reprogram the ECU (the guy who originally changed my 270 map chose to remove the ECU and reprogram it on-bench).

So 'chipping' is really just a change of program, just like an update in Microsoft Windows, its just shrouded by a hazy cloud because most people dont understand micro-electronics or software.

A few points of interest here
1. Bosch designed the ECU, and from the 220 and 270 ECU's Ive used, they are standard design with additional components soldered on according to engine (ie. the units had 6 driver transistor to drive the injectors as the ECU would be the same used on the 320 Straight 6 CDI, but only 4/5 were populated).
2, Unless Bosch (and/or Mercedes) provided the Software inside the ECU to the re-mappers, disassembly and re-engineering would be illegal. It would be very doubtful a re-mapper would re-write the software. What a re-mapper does though is change the data map, ie the configuration parameters, which specify to the software what pressure, timing, values etc should be applied/received for given engine conditions. Either they have the necessary software from Bosh/Mercedes to create a new data map, or they have written it themselves (or bought from a third party).
3. If changing the configuration data was illegal, then anyone who has re-configured windows, MacOS etc, such as tweaking the registry to gain better performance etc would be committing a crime.
4. Fuel computers - If the ECU knows the rail pressure, boost pressure, air mass, air density, temperature, period of injection, HOW can the fuel computer mis-read? It doesnt physically measure the fuel dispensed, it uses an accurate guess based on the parameters, ie rail-pressure to injector period opening. If the re-mapper codes the injector wrongly, then it can under or over read, as the values it believes for injection quantity are wrong. Re-mappers dont need to do this, they just instruct the injector to be open longer or shorter, fuel calculation for the fuel computer should be the same.
5. Fuel savings- should be quite easy to achieve, consider that on the 270, Mercedes de-tuned it for a manual box, resulting in higher fuel consumption. If you have extra power though as a consequence, only the fuel savvy drivers will notice real savings.

Any Bosch engineers out there to fill in this missing gaps above? Micro-electronics was my original career, working on quite a few microcontroller systems, but would be good to here from 'hands on' designers in the ECU field.

 

[rf065]

Having owned the first production car to have an ECU, I can confirm it used an EPROM chip.

Russ

 

[psmart]

Having owned the first production car to have an ECU, I can confirm it used an EPROM chip.

Russ

EPROMS (Erasable Programmable ROMS, I misquoted above, EEPROMS are Electrically Erasable) would typically be used in shodrt runs or where your not sure of your programming, ie. less cost to change the program. Mass produced would either use factory mask ROMs or One-Time Programmable devices.

Would be interesting to see if your old car is still around and running, I have an 8749 from Intel programmed back in my university days that no longer contains its program!

 

[rf065]

EPROMS (Erasable Programmable ROMS, I misquoted above, EEPROMS are Electrically Erasable)

Sorry, it was an EEPROM, electrically erasable, I did not know you could get EEPROM & EPROM

Russ

 

[sr-performancelive..]

Now that was a good read, very well put and informative and no way I could dream of putting it into words..
We still change the eprom in some older cars, read the "chip" and write back to a new one, some are just a push fit(easy) and the rest mainly desolder..

 

[sr-performancelive..]

Gone quiet again??

 

[Axcontrols]

I write and sell software for a living. Or, should I say that I don't sell software - nobody ever buys my software. I always own it - they just buy a license to use it without permission to make changes to it.

However, certain things about my software allow a user to make changes to the environment in which the software is used - for example they change a graphic chip in their PC and even change some run-time parameters making the software behave differently. All of that is possible without the user actually changing my software. Many users change the way my software behaves to suit their own requirements and there's nothing I can do (or want to do) about it.

But - this is the important bit - if there was some way that a user could really improve my software by making such changes then you can be sure that I'd already have done it or will do it real soon.

 

[*Thumper]

No ones interested in my software .................. I've tried on many occasions to promote the use of my softeware, to little or no avail ............. however, my hardware, see's a lot more interest ......... by many percentage points ........... I would'nt say my hardware is the best, or even the biggest ....... but it works well, and does the job it's intended for ......... very few complaints, but a lot of moans from time to time ............ when I ask if my hardware is good .... I often get a mixed response ... sometimes it's yes yes yes .......... other times it's no, no, no, ................ so user feedback can be a little confusing for me .......... hence the promotion of the software ........ but then I end up having to reboot ......... and it all goes round again !

 

[SQ_W211]

I think we are going off track a bit:lol::Oops::lol:

 

[sr-performancelive..]

Abit, is an understatement Amo, made me chuckle though!!!

 

[psmart]

I write and sell software for a living. Or, should I say that I don't sell software - nobody ever buys my software. I always own it - they just buy a license to use it without permission to make changes to it.

However, certain things about my software allow a user to make changes to the environment in which the software is used - for example they change a graphic chip in their PC and even change some run-time parameters making the software behave differently. All of that is possible without the user actually changing my software. Many users change the way my software behaves to suit their own requirements and there's nothing I can do (or want to do) about it.

But - this is the important bit - if there was some way that a user could really improve my software by making such changes then you can be sure that I'd already have done it or will do it real soon.

Unfortunately, normal PC application development is different to firmware development. Also, individual developers and their development cycle is quicker than large corporates.

Firmware has to be programmed into a memory chip and as easy as it sounds, generally requires specific equipment and carries dangers of mis-programming. For example, Bosch ECU's dont carry a protected bootstrap loader, which allow for multiple re-tries of failed programming, thus if any programming attempt fails, the ECU is toast (requiring the memory chip to be de-soldered, programmed and re-soldered, or specialist in-circuit programmers used). Consider PC's which allow for Firmware updates, some manufacturers opted to have dual FlashRAM memory chips to minimise failure due to mis-programming.

PC applications are just a matter of patching or updating hard drive files, with space to incorporate a rollback strategy in the event something goes wrong. ie. PC's are more fault tolerant in updates compared with embedded control systems such as an ECU.

A general rule of thumb for large manufacturer software development is they make a decision on what to provide the end-user with, make a development cut and enter a thorough test cycle. The test-cycle can take many man months and the base-cut wont be changed unless errors are identified. Improvements are generally not applied until the next release, which could be months, years or never. An individual developer has no such constraints and can react to client wishes much more quickly as development, test and release cycles blur into one action.

Going back to cars, Mercedes cannot update ECU or other control modules like Microsoft can update windows. For a starter, an update requires STAR at a dealer, which requires time and money, so any update has to have a reason, which would generally be down to a fault. They have nothing financial to gain by improving the performance or economy and every change they make follows the long change-test cycle, which is very costly (ie. a PC application vendor makes a mistake a simple rollback is needed but if Mercedes make a mistake, you could end up with all your cars being RAC/AA ferried to workshops and perhaps a guy with a laser-solder station replacing the memory chips).

If you take the 220cdi engine as an example, each vehicle change, such as a facelift or new model, Mercedes have upped the power, so they do incorporate improvements, but at a much slower pace and often with engine component changes at the same time.

Re-mappers are just filling an obvious gap and they dont need to worry about emissions changes or potential long term component damage (gearbox, half-shafts etc) as would the manufacturer, they are also more adapt at fixing firmware programming failures.

 

[sr-performancelive..]

And we fill the gaps quite well!!!

 

[turbopete]

if i was in regular work, id risk a power boost on mine, even after 146k miles! and if someone can tell me a suitable anual 'box, just in case........................................................

 

[sr-performancelive..]

Hi Pete,
Dont worry too much about mileage as long as it's been serviced regular etc..
just mapped a audi A6 2.5 tdi with 180,000 odd miles on.
And quite a few that have around 130-160,000 on clock..All depends on condition and servicing...

 

[turbopete]

Hi Pete,
Dont worry too much about mileage as long as it's been serviced regular etc..
just mapped a audi A6 2.5 tdi with 180,000 odd miles on.
And quite a few that have around 130-160,000 on clock..All depends on condition and servicing...

no idea how well it has or has not been serviced prior to my ownership. no matter how far up the creek i am financially when my car is due a service, it gets an oil and filter change if nothing else! the rest can be put off until finances allow! ive got to admit extra economy would be nice, but id end up cancelling it out using the extra power!