For or against the engine reprogramming?

[dede2002]

Hihi, with yours you don't feel if the road goes up or down

To come back to the question, on a petrol engine, disconnecting the full load contactor can save money because it bypasses the regulation and enriches the mixture. But there is a risk of breaking the engine if you drive hard ...
The simplest thing is therefore never to accelerate fully.

Driver reprogramming seems more effective than reprogramming the computer, to consume less!

[alexstorin]

Hello,

After long hesitation, I decided to have my Ford Focus rs 2.5t st reprogrammed at BR Performance Marseille and I went from 305 hp to 390hp, only happiness ;-)

Frankly if you are looking for an engine reprogramming in Marseille do not hesitate! [Url]www.To make your big stew roll even faster.fr[/ Url]

Sincerely,
Alex

[Moderated by Flytox (no commercial links)]

[Flytox]

Hello alexstorin

As you do not seem to have noticed, you can note that it is a site quite marked Ecolo here ....... the subject of the post speaks rather of fuel economy rather than search of orgy of power useless.

[chatelot16]

the links to those who know how to traffic to increase power are not useless, because those who took the time to enter the system can also be useful for programming for an economic purpose ... and not only to try to make more economical than original, but also simply to repair

it's a bit of a shame that it's those who want more power who have the money to run the business, but we have to deal with

[I Citro]

It is especially logical, because these companies address Customers on very superficial desires ... to obtain more power (unusable), to consume more therefore to waste more. The prices charged for the resale of software means considerable profits ... But that does not matter when targeting a clientele on their lack of intelligence, we know that it will be easier to scam ...

Customers who are looking for savings are more pragmatic and intelligent, they start by counting and calculating how many kilometers the announced fuel economy will pay off ... and very often depreciation is impossible ...

This is the reason why I have not experienced water doping; my journeys would not have allowed me to benefit from it ...

By cons my 6 years of experience in electric vehicles have saved me the purchase price of the new electric car of Madame which, by the way, accelerates faster than a Golf GTI, while consuming almost half less that our old electric 106 is only happiness.

106 electric: 20kWh / 100km <3 € or about 2 liters / 100km
VW e-up: 12kWh / 100km <1,8 € or approximately 1,2 liters / 100km
With batteries guaranteed for 8 years, I'm not going to go to schemers to reprogram my car.

[julien88]

the links to those who know how to traffic to increase power are not useless, because those who took the time to enter the system can also be useful for programming for an economic purpose ... and not only to try to make more economical than original, but also simply to repair

it's a bit of a shame that it's those who want more power who have the money to run the business, but we have to deal with

Here is a very sensible and comprehensive answer on a contrary opinion;)

It is especially logical, because these companies address Customers on very superficial desires ... to obtain more power (unusable), to consume more therefore to waste more. The prices charged for the resale of software means considerable profits ... But that does not matter when targeting a clientele on their lack of intelligence, we know that it will be easier to scam ...

Customers who are looking for savings are more pragmatic and intelligent, they start by counting and calculating how many kilometers the announced fuel economy will pay off ... and very often depreciation is impossible ...

This is the reason why I have not experienced water doping; my journeys would not have allowed me to benefit from it ...

By cons my 6 years of experience in electric vehicles have saved me the purchase price of the new electric car of Madame which, by the way, accelerates faster than a Golf GTI, while consuming almost half less that our old electric 106 is only happiness.

106 electric: 20kWh / 100km <3 € or about 2 liters / 100km
VW e-up: 12kWh / 100km <1,8 € or approximately 1,2 liters / 100km
With batteries guaranteed for 8 years, I'm not going to go to schemers to reprogram my car.

Lack of intelligence is not trying to understand others ...

Certe Alexstorin does not seem to be the finest example as selling the reprog for more power on a green site.

On certain engines, a reprog brings more flexibility and a torque available earlier (in equal quantity) which makes it possible to have it at a reduced number of revolutions per minute and therefore to reduce the consumption for an equal driving (not necessarily pollution I grant it, but consuming less is ecological in a way).

So why call a fool someone who just wants to decorate his vehicle and amortize his costs if possible.
It is true that the majority of people who carry out a reprog seek only power while ignoring consumption and pollution, but most do not mean ALL. someone who reprograms his car is not necessarily a Jacky tunning who spends everything he has on co ** eries.

We also talk about prices, but investing in an electric berlinne is relatively expensive in terms of investment, even if over time it is a winner. 500 euros are easier to get out to modify your vehicle than to change it. And then you can be satisfied with your vehicle in many aspects but want a car that performs better without changing it or making it a gas plant.

To come back to it, each engine is different, it is certain that to gain 10 cv and 20nm of torque on an engine already having a good performance is an unnamed stupidity, not to mention the weakening on recent engines. But on certain under-exploited engines, the operation is entirely economically viable (1L / 100) without dramatically weakening them (moreover, an engine which runs slower wears less).

FYI, I came across this subject looking for the positive / negative aspects of a reprog on a particular engine, which is precisely under exploited and which with a reasonable reprog wins 30hp and 60nm of torque (50hp and 90nm if you think about it less). the amendment saves between 0,5 and 1l / 100 according to the testimonies, and these witnesses are not really econologists if you know what I mean. It also allows a more flexible and calm driving but also to be able to double thanks to this available torque without changing gear.
depreciation is therefore between 30 and 000 km on sp60000 and that we go to an honest reprogrammer.

I was pretty happy to come across this forum because I thought I would find more constructive answers and opinions, and not a categorical criticism.


So who is the bottom of the forehead?

[I Citro]

Yes, that's right, my answer was quite brittle ...

It has been more than 30 years since I scrupulously measured the consumption of my vehicles.

I have driven on petrol, diesel, heating oil, LPG and for 6 years on electricity.

I have had old cars, "city cars", compacts, sedans and high end sedans and minivans.

I spoke and reacted like you, julien88, here on this forum.
I just evolved and changed.
I have also tested many miracle systems like magnets, turbulators, additives ...

I have seen improvements with some, but never anything that brings tangible savings because the modification encouraged less virtuous conduct ...

The 250.000 km petrol minivan that I use for family journeys consumed 12L / 100 in the hands of the previous owner and now consumes less than 9 liters for my optimized journeys without any modification for the moment of this pitiful mechanical that I managed to lower consumption to 7 liters on one "SST" driving test comparable to hybrid systems.

Yes, my opinion is quite clear-cut, I persist in saying that it is not by increasing the power of a vehicle and its torque that we will gain in consumption.
By cons the owner's ego ...
We also mentioned the fact that the "power boosters" NEVER mention that the vehicle no longer meets the increasingly draconian standards relating to polluting emissions ... in particular NOx ...

That said, it's up to you to find your way and check for yourself. But will you have the rigor to measure your consumption before (on the longest possible term) and after the modification by refueling each time and by plotting your statements in a spreadsheet or on a smartphone app like sprint monitor as I have done for 30 years ...

[julien88]

I would admit that if I inquire well before, it is also to avoid me to note all my fillings on a calpin.
to "note" my consumption I do not reset the on-board computer which suddenly calculates the average over thousands of km instead of hundreds.

we agree on pollution and I would even say on the increase in power.
Where I haven't been clear enough is the shift in the torque curve. You can modify the curve to have the available torque 500 revolutions before. with the torque available earlier the consumption drops, and if you want you can also ask not to exceed the maximum values ​​of the origin. But I would admit once again, that if I pay 450 euros for the reprog, I will gladly accept the little couple bonus.

as the power is directly linked to the torque multiplied by the revolutions / minutes, this will also increase even if it is not targeted (unless expressly requested not to exceed the maximum values).
that said the power increases less than the torque because the maximum value of the torque is generally around 3500 to 5000 rpm and then decreases while the CV continues to increase with the turns.
(edit: on the turbo petrol engine I own)
without playing fangio, the pleasure and the economy is found with the availability of couple (without necessarily exploiting everything of course).
After I respect your steps (and especially your assiduity to note your consumption), your message simply made me jump into the game fairly quickly and may be a little too much.

[I Citro]

Without measurement, it is impossible to know if we are Scottish.

Also pay attention to the shift in the torque curve.
If the torque values ​​do not decrease at any point on the curve, that's fine.
Otherwise, the optimum specific consumption points are generally placed, according to the different gear ratios at authorized travel speeds (50, 70, 90, 110 and 130 km / h).
A decrease or stagnation of the torque values ​​at its speeds will bring nothing in terms of gain in consumption, or even the opposite ...

From a general point of view, it seems astonishing that manufacturers who spend millions of € on the development of their models in order to make them more efficient and economical than those of their competitors are not able to make the most of their motorizations and that second-class companies do better with ridiculous means.

[Obamot]

Yes but then we come to the question: is it true? And to what extent?

Because we can very well have better performances, but which will only be expressed under certain conditions (I would say at the expense of overall performances ...)

Otherwise you really have to be in the know to get there and possibly do "better" than the manufacturer. And here it is probably necessary to have very extensive manufacturer specifications, access keys. And I doubt they will give them, hence my doubt about this type of manipulation. In addition, any guarantee must fall, as soon as a distributor would notice that the performance of a vehicle may have been inflated (this is already the case for any vehicle transformed for racing by private individuals, by a stable that is is something else, they get free engines and have official support ...).

Maybe one track would be to know how the preparers of the vehicles practice for the competition, they must have the holy grail to know all the tips of the computer that manages the ramp of the injectors and the rest (circuit pressure and all everything ...)

But then again, they must have reinforced concrete contracts with the brand's distributors, a sort of non-disclosure agreement, under harsh penalties for breaches, right?