remap torque figures

vicktor

Tuner
Points
67
Location
coventry
Car
seat leon tdi cupra
Had my car on a rolling road saturday, my bestfigures were 180.9 bhp &329.3 lbftorque is it unusual to get such a high torque figure? car was remapped 8weeks ago returned 189.5bhp 310lbft.

both figures done on same RR with same mods except i replaced air filter with green cotton.
 
That's the only thing that really makes a diesel worth having ie. stupidly high torque figures when remapped. I wouldn't drive one otherwise.
 
yeah love the torque too:)
reason i ask is the remapper said torque was really high for a stage one with my mods. said he'd like too read my ecu/remap too see why???

is there any reason why i should be worried or should i be driving with the biggest smile ever:toung:
 
If the guy at the dyno,

Checked your car fully and found everything was okay. Plus if the car feels good to you...why worry about a peak figure.
It's the average torque throughout the rpm range that's important. Any engine is only at it's peak figure for less than a moment. But it uses the average power and torque throughout the rev range constantly. :)
 
Diesels are more linear now than previously. Most now don't like really low revs (below 1200rpm, say) because of the very low (relatively speaking) compression ratios employed. The turbo(s) is (are) doing nothing at all really at that time.

The lowered ratio means that more air can be crammed in under boost, thus enabling more fuel to be burnt.

Turbo diesels used to be very peaky indeed with the engine feeling dead off boost and spineless once the torque peak had passed. Try a 97-98 Passat TDi 110 (pre PD) to see what I mean.

Sometimes an old fashioned non turbo diesel can be surprisingly flexible at modest speeds. Very high geometric compression ratio and no turbo to wait for.
 
That tidal wave of torque is something you never really tire of. It's more addictive to me than the hyterical 8000+rpm thrash of a revvy petrol engine.
 
That tidal wave of torque is something you never really tire of. It's more addictive to me than the hyterical 8000+rpm thrash of a revvy petrol engine.
yeah had a go in a petrol leon cupra R stage2 remappad same day, power goes on &on but still prefer the head jerk torque off mine:lol:
 
I'd take the high revving petrol version if it was a straight six and silent. I still maintain that a 200bhp diesel drives with the midrange feel of a 300bhp petrol given the difference in gearing etc.
 
Maybe a remapped diesel but not a standard one.

I agree there as well. OK, BMW 535d or Jaguar XF Diesel 3.0S should be absolutely fine in standard tune.

But somehow I know that I'd still remap; just because I can.

I'd still struggle with the XF 3.0 Diesel S over a 510bhp petrol though. It would be like choosing a 535d over an M5 - you wouldn't would you if money was no hindrance.

As I said elsewhere, money no object then I would plump straight for the biggest, many cylinders as possible petrol engine.

Diesel is a good way to get barnstorming acceleration power for relatively small amounts of money. That's all.

I manage similar MPG from mine (40 ish) as my Dad gets from an 02 plated 1.6 Astra - but his car is 115bhp down on mine and has about 1/3 of the torque, so you can see the attraction.
 
I agree there as well. OK, BMW 535d or Jaguar XF Diesel 3.0S should be absolutely fine in standard tune.

But somehow I know that I'd still remap; just because I can.

I'd still struggle with the XF 3.0 Diesel S over a 510bhp petrol though. It would be like choosing a 535d over an M5 - you wouldn't would you if money was no hindrance.

As I said elsewhere, money no object then I would plump straight for the biggest, many cylinders as possible petrol engine.

Diesel is a good way to get barnstorming acceleration power for relatively small amounts of money. That's all.

I manage similar MPG from mine (40 ish) as my Dad gets from an 02 plated 1.6 Astra - but his car is 115bhp down on mine and has about 1/3 of the torque, so you can see the attraction.

But thats my point. I don't see the attraction. Even with the MPG figures I'd still take the petrol version.
Like I said in the Thread about "Real Drivers".... We don't worry about MPG. ;):lol::lol::lol:
 
If Peugeot had made a 2.2 petrol turbo model then I would have driven it made a decision based upon that comparison. Possibly I'd have chosen the hypothetical 2.2 petrol turbo.

I'm still content with my choice of 2.2 HDi over 3.0 V6 petrol though. The performance in real world driving is little different. The remapped HDi is still much quicker in the midrange when compared to the 24 valve V6 petrol.

I am no stranger to high performance cars and I truly adore the flexible and effortless shove which a 4.0 V8 petrol engine has to offer.

I've driven numerous proper fast cars over the years so please don't think I'm hammering on about my own car simply because it goes pretty nicely - it's nowhere near the liveliest car I've driven. (I actually quite fancy a Porsche 928 S4 from around 1987).

I'm also a fan of Honda's silly revving VTEC units - I got very fond of a 2.2 VTEC prelude I was using during 1998. Just when you think it's over at 5800rpm things change - and you get another 3000rpm to play with.

If PSA had done a 2.2 litre turbo petrol then that would have possibly attracted me, as it, too, could be tuned via the, again, hypothetical, OBD2 port.

Diesel does have it's place, and it suits me for now.

Please do remember that HDi used to hate and despise diesel cars for years and years.

Why - because they were SLOW AND NOISY. And if they were still as such, I would not be driving one of 'em, or any of 'em.
 
I used to be a petrol only bloke until I got a remapped diesel. Now I've got a car that feels like it can pull a freight train and does 50mpg.

Interestingly, Alfa's 159 with the 2.2 petrol is no quicker 0-60 than with the 150bhp 1.9 JTD engine, and the diesel has way more torque for midrange and much better mpg.

Go figure.
 
Don't be silly Yugguy.

Everyone knows that a 205bhp diesel car will never outrun an 85bhp petrol car. You see, it's all about being a good driver and good drivers don't ever drive diesel cars.

Never.

Ever.
 
I used to be a petrol only bloke until I got a remapped diesel. Now I've got a car that feels like it can pull a freight train and does 50mpg.

Interestingly, Alfa's 159 with the 2.2 petrol is no quicker 0-60 than with the 150bhp 1.9 JTD engine, and the diesel has way more torque for midrange and much better mpg.

Go figure.

What you conveniently forgot to mention though is that the diesel has a turbo, and the petrol car does not. If all these tractors you have didn't have turbochargers, you wouldn't be driving round in them because they'd be unbearable. Go figure :blink1:
 
What you conveniently forgot to mention though is that the diesel has a turbo, and the petrol car does not. If all these tractors you have didn't have turbochargers, you wouldn't be driving round in them because they'd be unbearable. Go figure :blink1:

I completely agree that diesels without turbos are basically unpleasant. I wouldn't drive one for exactly that reason.
 
What you conveniently forgot to mention though is that the diesel has a turbo, and the petrol car does not. If all these tractors you have didn't have turbochargers, you wouldn't be driving round in them because they'd be unbearable. Go figure :blink1:

At last someone on my wave length. ;):lol:
 
I'm still struggling to see the point you're trying to convey. I agree that a naturally aspirated diesel is not exactly desirable. Which is why I don't drive one.

Diesel engines really to lend themselves to turbocharging by virtue of having no throttle as such.
 
I'm still struggling to see the point you're trying to convey. I agree that a naturally aspirated diesel is not exactly desirable. Which is why I don't drive one.

Diesel engines really to lend themselves to turbocharging by virtue of having no throttle as such.
 
The point I'm trying to make is that you can't fairly compare a turbo diesel to a non-turbo petrol and say it's quicker. No sh*t. In terms of performance, with exactly the same capacity and induction method, petrol wins every time. What are you struggling to see about that?
 
The point I'm trying to make is that you can't fairly compare a turbo diesel to a non-turbo petrol and say it's quicker. No sh*t. In terms of performance, with exactly the same capacity and induction method, petrol wins every time. What are you struggling to see about that?

I have no problem with petrol cars whatsoever. I used to detest diesels without exception. I still dislike quite a lot of 'em.

What I don't understand is why more manufacturers don't do as Saab, Volvo, and VW Group do with their petrol engines and use forced induction liberally across the range.

I had the misfortune to drive a new Vectra SRi (140bhp 1.8 petrol) last year for a week or two. Horrid - slow, loud, spineless. Had GM seen fit to turbocharge it to get some decent torque from the thing I would probably have reported very differently.
 
But it's not all about torque. The old sayings about torque are far too over-used. Just look at Honda's engines and cars; torqueless wonders but they make some rapid N/A cars.

Look how quick (ish) some of the old N/A vauxhalls are though, that Vectra was slow because it was heavy, like most new cars. That engine in a Nova though would be no slouch. You don't need boatloads of torque if you're pulling 900kgs.

I have no problems with modern turbo diesels either btw.
 
The Vectra is about 1300kg. My car is 1510kg - remarkable for a company that used to make lightweight flimsy things! It does have a hell of a lot of equipment; electric seats, for example, are very heavy. And it's laden with vibration damping measures and sound deadening materials.

I am too large of stature and build to drive about in a compact hatchback. OK, if I'm honest, I'm too old as well :-( Getting in should be OK, though I pity the poor sod who has to sit behind me. Getting out could be a challenge!!

I do think it comes down to personal choice as to how you wish to drive.

You can no longer buy a diesel purely for economy as the servicing costs and fuel cost per litre does mount up. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't buy one. The refinement and performance really has made massive progress with the advent of ultra high pressure injection systems.

You also can't just choose petrol for performance anymore unless there is a good, as you and I say, turbocharged variant available.

Honda is a good example of how to do petrol (although the i-CDTi engines are pleasant) properly. The 212bhp VTEC 2.2 is a belter. Frantic and revvy and fun in a very non-diesel way.

The sheer midrange shove of a good diesel is fun as well though. Sticking your toe down a bit at 2000rpm in 4th gear and getting flung into the seat has an appeal as well.
 
I've had a revvy, fast car - a Clio 172, very quick, great fun to drive, BUT, nothing happened until 4200 rpm - after that the scream to the redline was addictive. Great car IMO.

Trouble is though if you're caught in the wrong gear, or just can't be bothered to have to rev the nuts off it to go anywhere, it can get a little tiring.

Diesels these days are getting great BHP as well as the torque, while still keeping the great mpg - check out BMW's 123d specs:

204 bhp, 295lb ft, 0-62:7.0s, 148mph top speed, 54.7mpg.

It's said by reviewers that it's a quiet engine too. Crucially though, their use of multiple turbos is getting rid of the last drawback of a diesel - lag.

And it's very likely a few hundred quid on a chip will make it even more potent.

Don't get me wrong, I love the feel and sound of big petrol engines, but I'd need a 4.0V8 to get me the same torque as I have now, and that'd give me 20mpg and not the 50 I get now. I can't afford to do my 20k miles a year at 20mpg.
 
I've had a revvy, fast car - a Clio 172, very quick, great fun to drive, BUT, nothing happened until 4200 rpm - after that the scream to the redline was addictive. Great car IMO.

Trouble is though if you're caught in the wrong gear, or just can't be bothered to have to rev the nuts off it to go anywhere, it can get a little tiring.

Diesels these days are getting great BHP as well as the torque, while still keeping the great mpg - check out BMW's 123d specs:

204 bhp, 295lb ft, 0-62:7.0s, 148mph top speed, 54.7mpg.

It's said by reviewers that it's a quiet engine too. Crucially though, their use of multiple turbos is getting rid of the last drawback of a diesel - lag.

And it's very likely a few hundred quid on a chip will make it even more potent.

Don't get me wrong, I love the feel and sound of big petrol engines, but I'd need a 4.0V8 to get me the same torque as I have now, and that'd give me 20mpg and not the 50 I get now. I can't afford to do my 20k miles a year at 20mpg.

My sister has a Clio 182 and that is absolutely rapid. Dump your foot in any gear and it goes like stink. You tell me any 2 litre non turbo, diesel that will keep up?
 
My sister has a Clio 182 and that is absolutely rapid. Dump your foot in any gear and it goes like stink. You tell me any 2 litre non turbo, diesel that will keep up?

Not one. 172 and 182 are rapid and the Cups are RAW! You cna pick them up for £4.5kish now in decent nick as well! I don't like the look of that shape Clio though.
 
Not one. 172 and 182 are rapid and the Cups are RAW! You cna pick them up for £4.5kish now in decent nick as well! I don't like the look of that shape Clio though.

My sisters is the RenaultSport Cup version. Cocks a back wheel in tight corners. Loads of fun. There ain't no 2 litre diesel that can bring that sort of smile across your face. (non turbo that is).
 
Similar threads

Similar threads


Please watch this on my YouTube channel & Subscribe.


Back
Top