Quantum Tuning - anyone heard of it?

forgotmyname

A remap can also lower emissions though.

Depends what other mods have been done to the car and whether you want all out power or a balance.

I had mine done to bring more power and torque in lower down the rev range.
I dont care what the top end is. My priority was that. Then work on the top end. But no sacrifice for my low down power.

All i can say he did a good job and managed a smidge over 160bhp.

Genuine figure backed up on the rolling road. Not some claim of an extra
20 - 50bhp from a box that just increases your fuel pressure.

cepheus

I worked for a research group who proposed an interesting project where the ECU on vehicles could be changed via a remote radio signal into a number of dynamic settings. Normally it would be optimised for minimum fuel consumption. However, if the vehicle entered an area experiencing poor air quality, the settings would be temporarily changed to minimise emissions.

red_eye

cepheus wrote: »

There will be a good reason why the manufacturer hasn't done it already. The engine is set up to meet the right balance of emissions, power and fuel consumption. Quite often motorists are selfish enough not to bother about the first of these, it is however illegal and these amateurs could mess up everything.

I doubt if the saving if any is significant anyway. They hope that you may attribute any potential improvement in fuel consumption to what they have done rather than a whole range of of other things it could easily be.

How is it illegal to to chip/ remap your car? nearly all taxi drivers have chipped their car for fuel economy, with a remap/chip your car can still be well with in emissions regs.

manufactures also use the maps to add another engine to their range ie the same engine will be used across the range with different power outputs

to the OP, these chips are generic, one car has been put on the rolling road and a map developed, this map is then sold on chips. All engines are different due to mass production so results will vairy. You can also get custom remaps were you can spec what you want but the use of a rolling road and the labour involved makes this very expensive

red_eye

Dave_C wrote: »

So a major car company with £millions to spend on Research and Development has developed the ECU and its software to give the best mileage, performance emissions etc. Testing on rolling roads, wind tunnels, climatic chambers and so forth.

Yet some after-market company with virtually no R&D can do a better job? And on a huge range of makes and models of car.

Really?

Dave, being skeptical.

the original map is a generic map it has to cater for a lot of things it does not always mean better they dont cater for a individuals use of a vehicle like towing one might like a bit more torque.

So yes Really!. You will be surprised by how big a company like revo and AmD is

Tobster86

Cepheus, I can appreciate a lot of what you're saying and it may have legal status; but so does witchburning and shooting Scotsmen with a longbow from the York bar walls. The theory is there, but it's legally untested.

There is no recorded events in the searchable UK media of people being prosecuted solely for having an ECU remap.

What I think is far more important are the very realistic and tested legal implications of:
-Insurance issues, i.e. ensuring modifications are appropriately declared.
-Testable emissions regulations; i.e. the remap is not causing the vehicle to emit smoke that will cause failure of an MOT (or roadside) emissions test.

As well as the further potential implications on the longevity of the car; i.e. how much R & D has the remapping company done? I think this is the most important issue for anyone considering an ECU remap. As for cheap knockoff boxes on ebay that fool the ECU with skewed sensor data; the best advice should be don't even consider it.

I do also know that engine outputs are generally set to much lower than they're capable of to allow tolerance for lack of servicing. Manufacturers don't want to be tarnished by customers failing to look after their vehicles.

Digressing, I must make an important point: the MOT test is not proof of road worthiness. It even says so on the certificate. For example, vehicle construction and usage regulations, which state that you must have a working speedometer (you stand liable for a £30 invoice from HM's finest otherwise), yet this is not part of the MOT test.

forgotmyname

cepheus wrote: »

I worked for a research group who proposed an interesting project where the ECU on vehicles could be changed via a remote radio signal into a number of dynamic settings. Normally it would be optimised for minimum fuel consumption. However, if the vehicle entered an area experiencing poor air quality, the settings would be temporarily changed to minimise emissions.

But can't the cars ECU can do this already without the need for a radio signal.

Late 80's and early 90's some cars had a small jumper pin where you could put into several positions to match the fuel you used.

It alters the fuel ratio and fuel/ignition timing, retarding it if low quality fuel or in high altitude's.

The modern cars ECU can do all this automatically.

Not sure why it would need a radio signal?

cepheus

Because it would be rather impractical for every motorist to alter their engine every time they drive in and out of an air quality management area. Unless air quality is poor why compromise on fuel consumption? However, how does the motorist know if air quality is going to be poor? Why would they bother anyway, few people on this thread care about exhaust emissions, only fuel or performance.

With radio control this adjustment would be automatic and compulsory controlled via air quality prediction centres. The alternative is to restrict traffic into the air quality management area through taxes or outright bans or put up with poor air quality.

red_eye

cepheus wrote: »

I worked for a research group who proposed an interesting project where the ECU on vehicles could be changed via a remote radio signal into a number of dynamic settings. Normally it would be optimised for minimum fuel consumption. However, if the vehicle entered an area experiencing poor air quality, the settings would be temporarily changed to minimise emissions.

interesting but pointless an engine needs oxygen. regardless of air quality the ecu will automatically adjust the fuel depending on the o2 content of the exhaust gas.

bit like the electric supercharger bull that was going around years ago

cepheus

red_eye wrote: »

interesting but pointless an engine needs oxygen. regardless of air quality the ecu will automatically adjust the fuel depending on the o2 content of the exhaust gas.

bit like the electric supercharger bull that was going around years ago

If it was as simple as that there would be little point in fiddling with the ECU at all!

It isn't stoichiometric whilst warming up. Moreover the mixture can be enriched on prolonged load. The maximum quantity of fuel air mixture will be restricted at certain settings as well especially on a turbo.

In addition to the mixture, the ECU will govern spark timing for a petrol, fuel injection timing for a Diesel, maximum and minimum engine speeds and turbo boost if it has one.

With Diesels and even some petrol fuelled engines nowadays the rate the fuel is injected during within each cycle of the engine is carefully profiled to assist mixing, reduce temperature peaks, and therefore emissions, whilst retaining adequate fuel consumption and performance. Even the valves can be controlled independently on some engines.

Professional Engineers have spent years designing and setting up engine intake, boost and fuel injection systems, trading one emission of for another to meet ever more stringent standards. Then along comes your back street guy and overrides all that stuff to make the car go as fast as possible.

Meanwhile air quality people are baffled why air pollution isn't going down, so the regulators ask for even more stringent limits, and the manufacturers design ever more complexity and cost into their engines in the naive belief that it will be used that way in service!

red_eye

cepheus wrote: »

If it was as simple as that there would be little point in fiddling with the ECU at all!

It isn't stoichiometric whilst warming up. Moreover the mixture can be enriched on prolonged load. The maximum quantity of fuel air mixture will be restricted at certain settings as well especially on a turbo.

In addition to the mixture, the ECU will govern spark timing for a petrol, fuel injection timing for a Diesel, maximum and minimum engine speeds and turbo boost if it has one.

With Diesels and even some petrol fuelled engines nowadays the rate the fuel is injected during within each cycle of the engine is carefully profiled to assist mixing, reduce temperature peaks, and therefore emissions, whilst retaining adequate fuel consumption and performance. Even the valves can be controlled independently on some engines.

Professional Engineers have spent years designing and setting up engine intake, boost and fuel injection systems, trading one emission of for another to meet ever more stringent standards. Then along comes your back street guy and overrides all that stuff to make the car go as fast as possible.

Meanwhile air quality people are baffled why air pollution isn't going down, so the regulators ask for even more stringent limits, and the manufacturers design ever more complexity and cost into their engines in the naive belief that it will be used that way in service!

but you fail to see the point, to get more power you need efficient combustion, efficient combustion means less hydrocarbons out the exhaust. what ever the remap is the ecu will still adjust the fuel according to the o2 in the exhaust so the cat will still be doing its job reducing the other nastys well with in specs. I have seen many big bhp cars that pass the emission test with ease.

if say vw have set a map to what they believe I would be driving that is around town and I do motorway what is going to be the biggest polluter?

if i remap to move the low down torque to the mid rev range would that not be better for every one?