To answer your questions:

A remap may give you more power but you only have the sellers word for it.

A remap cannot give you more mpg. As an example to cruise at 70 mph you need a certain amount of power, say 25 bhp. To get that power you need to mix a certain amount of fuel with air. Unlike a petrol a diesel runs with wide open throttle all the time normally thus always needs the same fuel regardless. All a remap does is fool the dash gauge into telling lies.

You can do it yourself if you have the software, cables and the "map" they install. The kit the remap people use is nothing special.

But just ask yourself one question. How can a man in a shed with a laptop improve on what manufacturers spend millions developing.

IMHO its just a con and a dangerous one if you get a bad map that knackers your engine.

If you want more power buy a faster car. If you want better economy buy a more economical car. If it was only going to cost Kia £100 to make the Ceed faster and more economical don't you think they would do it.

Save your money rather than giving it to a shark.

 

But just ask yourself one question. How can a man in a shed with a laptop improve on what manufacturers spend millions developing.

Fair enough, but this is the bit I would disagree with and think I saw somewhere else on a post.

Now, I don't know cars, I know computers and phones. With this logic, the way Samsung sell me my Galaxy S4, or LG sell me my Nexus 5 is set up to give the best speed for the least power. It's not.

I realise they are different, but the same logic surely applies? If I can get better speed from less electricity, why don't Samsung and LG do it this way from the get go?

If you want more power buy a faster car. If you want better economy buy a more economical car. If it was only going to cost Kia £100 to make the Ceed faster and more economical don't you think they would do it.

Again, I wouldn't say this to someone with a PC, I would say get some better cooling and overclock the hell out of what you have, it's cheaper!

Still, I don't know cars, so I do appreciate the comments.

 

But that's the thing. With PC's and phones you can. You can speed up the clock, you can optimise code and you can lower the voltage used to do this...

The manufacturers won't do this because a) It can be unstable b) It can generate extra heat which can shorten a products life and probably a few other reasons that don't come to mind right now.

The manufacturers go for nice safe settings that wont cause anyone any problems.

Don'g get me wrong, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything, I'm just saying, manufacturers needs can be different to a users I guess. You can sometimes get more, by pushing a little harder, but there may be risks.

 

AndyCr15,
Unfortunatly for you, most users on this forum have no idea what chiptuning and software remaps are, and the manufacturer is the god of all that is right. And for those people:

(and this isn't even a proper remap)

I'm not from the UK, so I have no idea how diesel tuning is there, but from where I am it's pretty advanced. It's very common to have people that DOUBLE (and a few tripled) the power, on TDi and BMW engines. I can show you more than 100 youtube links!
Speaking of BMW, they do have a performance upgrade that only uses software on most of their engine lineups. With the same train of thought as the other users: "why doesn't BMW just realease it with the extra power"?

Now answering your questions 143bhp is a bit too much on a U1 Ceed. The turbo on it is a bit unapropriate for the car. Kia corrected on later U1 and early U2, by switch the Turbo. They both have a GT1544V, but initially had .33 A/R and then was replaced by .44 A/R, wich later was replaced on the 128bhp by GTB1444V.
Original boost is 1.3bar, I wouldn't go over 1.45-1.5, that will give you ~135-140bhp. I will later explain why.
Better millage... if you don't drive full throttle you can get a small improvement, because the engine is more efficient, but at full throttle it will be worse than stock.

Yes it's done by OBD port, but, no I wouldn't recomend you doing it. An ECU map has A LOT of paramenters and maps you can mess with and you'd have no idea what you'd be looking at. Even if someone prepared the map for you, loading it to the car is tricky.

My experience:
My car has 110K Km. I've had 2 different remaps on the car. The first the car was very fast (~150bhp), turbo did up to 1.65bar. This is a video with a friend of mine with a Megane 2.0 that dynoed at 167Bhp on a MAHA dyno (one of the most reliable).

(it was only up to 200Km/h)
As you can see, the car had a very nice aceleration for a 1600cc, but the turbo broke after 10K Km. That was when I saw it was a .33A/R turbo.

After that, I got a 2nd remap softer than the 1st (~130Bhp, 1.4Bar), but reliabilty has been bullet proof, with more than 50K Km, and trackdays!

 

Unfortunatly for you, most users on this forum have no idea what chiptuning and software remaps are, and the manufacturer is the god of all that is right.

No. People do understand this and nobody claims that electronic tuning can't give better performance. So you show it can be done and if that's the aim, that's fine.

The confusion occurs that there is a belief going round that having more power available but not using it improves fuel consumption. Saying:-

Better millage... if you don't drive full throttle you can get a small improvement, because the engine is more efficient, but at full throttle it will be worse than stock.

yes, it can be agreed that hard driving will use more fuel. More efficient at part load? Please provide evidence. You can't - it is a religion.

(And would people stop using the word "throttle"? Altering the behaviour of the ECU in response to accelerator potentiometer position is not a "throttle" characteristic.)

 

Like I've said, the millage improvement is under some conditions and it's barelly noticable.
But, improvement comes from faster acceleration, if you consider 0-100Km/h:
Instead of injecting say 5ml of fuel for 10s, you will inject 6ml of fuel for 8s
And from the higher boost from the turbo.

Still, the reason why one does a remap should not be for millage improvment, but for better performance.

 

Like I've said, the millage improvement is under some conditions and it's barelly noticable.
But, improvement comes from faster acceleration, if you consider 0-100Km/h:
Instead of injecting say 5ml of fuel for 10s, you will inject 6ml of fuel for 8s
And from the higher boost from the turbo.

Agreed that when an engine is made to work harder its specific fuel consumption improves and the amount consumed over that burst of acceleration should fall. The problem is the common belief (which tuners do little to overcome) that consumption can be made to improve over all conditions.

There are still problems with this idea though. For one, the improvement in SFC is small (about 2% for a 10% torque increase) but getting up to speed sooner means more energy is lost to aerodynamic drag. Any efficiency gain only applies to kinetic or potential energy components, not resistances.

Still, the reason why one does a remap should not be for millage improvment, but for better performance.

Precisely. For someone concerned about fuel usage, they would be better off paying for advanced driving lessons.

 

When Kia introduced the "4" spec model with 128 PS did they simply buy a new map off a 3rd party seller or even e-bay, no, they did the job properly as the worlds 4th biggest manufacturer would.

To get the extra 13 PS they had to fit a different turbo and other components in addition to the new map. Ever wondered why they wasted money doing that when a chip off e-bay will give you 30 PS extra, could it be that the e-bay chips don't do as they claim.

The max torque increased by 4 lbs/ft from 188 to 192, the 3rd part chips claim 40 or more extra torques. Ever wondered why Kia did not give the engine all the extra torque, probably because the extra strain would knacker the transmission and since there is a 7 year warranty on it they don't want 1000's of claims.

The CO2 and mpg figures remained the same, Kia never claimed an improvement.

So OP, are you telling us that a bloke with a laptop can really better what Kia with all their R & D staff in Germany and Korea can manage.

Stick to playing with computers and let the manufacturers develop their cars. They do know a thing or two believe it or not.

 

So OP, are you telling us that a bloke with a laptop can really better what Kia with all their R & D staff in Germany and Korea can manage.

If you can't quote it, I didn't say it...

Are you saying out right, a remap doesn't improve performance at all?

 

seven7,
Kia switched the turbo not because it wanted the extra power, that was a consequence.
The main reason is that the 1544v is an old turbo, that has older techology. It would be inadmissible to use a turbo with 10 years on a 2011 car when all other manufacturers were using the newer GTB versions.

I don't know how tuners are in your country, but here in Portugal it's far from beeing just "a bloke with a laptop". Usually it's an engineer that studied for what he is doing.

Like I've said before, unfortunatly most users in this forum have no idea what performance tuning is about, so if you can't add anything relevant to the topic other than "the manufacturer is my god", just don't post anything.

The manufacturer should know that the Ceed has lousy brakes pads, still they've installed them! I've not used stock pads and rotors for ages and guess what... the car hasn't broke in two pieces!
Also... I've ran my car remaped, done quite a few trackdays (as you can see on my youtube channel), and the car hasn't "knacked the transmission"!

And what better example do you want for BMW's "performance" remap!? Don't they do it in the UK?
What better example do you want than.. ME! I've had my car remaped for ages and other than the initial broken turbo (because if the tuners misjudgement of turbos), I've had no other issues!

 

The manufacturer should know that the Ceed has lousy brakes pads, still they've installed them!

What total and utter nonsense. Our car is still on the original pads and disks and is 3 1/2 years old. Never had an issue. It stops just as well now as it did when new.

And what better example do you want for BMW's "performance" remap!? Don't they do it in the UK?

I had a BMW 118D. When I bought it there were 4 diesels in the range 116D, 118D, 120D and 123D. There were many differences in addition to the map. Different models had different gear and diff ratios for starters. The 123D had twin turbo's. BMW did not offer a "performance re-map and as far as I am aware do not at this time. You want more power, you buy a better car.

Like I've said before, unfortunately most users in this forum have no idea what performance tuning is about, so if you can't add anything relevant to the topic other than "the manufacturer is my god", just don't post anything.

Personally I have built 2 cars forom scratch and many engines. I have tuned one x-flow from the standard 80 bhp to 175 bhp. The car currently has a Ford Zetec engine which I have fitted throttle body fuel injection too and mapped the aftermarket ECU myself, have you ever done any of that.

What better example do you want than.. ME! I've had my car remaped for ages and other than the initial broken turbo (because if the tuners misjudgement of turbos), I've had no other issues!

A great example, your tuning company broke the turbo.

Need I say more.

 

Got to be honest SWCeed, Freakzoide makes better points than you do thus far.

'Brakes are okay for me' doesn't really mean they're great brakes for example.

Then you agree you have to mess with the ECU to get it how you want it. I thought there was one perfect setting for an ECU, which in my case, Kia already had set?

You keep wanting to say it's some idiot in a shed. Why? Again, in the 'phone world' most of the good hackers on XDA Developers Fofum know a lot more than Samsung's own developers. (Or can achieve a lot more as they aren't held to certain criteria)

I'm still not saying one is right and one is wrong, as someone who doesn't know about these things I'm seeing how I'm persuaded by the arguments

 

'Brakes are okay for me' doesn't really mean they're great brakes for example.

I never said the 'brakes are okay for me', check my posts. But I will say that Ceed brakes are fine for all but a tiny majority of drivers who drive in a way that makes them inadequate.

Then you agree you have to mess with the ECU to get it how you want it. I thought there was one perfect setting for an ECU, which in my case, Kia already had set?

The car I am talking about is a Kit Car. The ECU came programmed fro a similar engine but that was on a dyno. All installations are different, no 2 Kit Cars are exactly the same thus the ECU needed fine tuning. Its not a production car thus you have to twwek it to get the best out of it.

Again, in the 'phone world' most of the good hackers on XDA Developers Fofum know a lot more than Samsung's own developers.

If it goes wrong when you tamper with a phone you simply have to either backup the original setting (if you made a copy) or reinstall the OS. If you totally knacker the phone you are a few hundread pounds out of pocket.

If it goes wrong when you let someone tamper with your car it could detroy the engine. No quickre flash of the ECU will cure that and a new engine is more than a few hundread pounds.

And I doubt the hackers know more than the manufacturers, that is just stupid.

 

I didn't. I suggested that you meant they were fine (which it turns out you did) and you got upset, so I said exactly what you said, which was worse... and you got upset again.

Then you made a comment that makes me think perhaps you don't know so much as I thought you might when it comes to people that do something as a job (for a company with restrictions) and people who do something as it's their passion, so I await others comments instead.

 

Andy, don't be such a total fuk wit.

The brakes are fine, end of story. I have no issues with them.

 

And isn't that the point? An ECU would surely be set up for one way of driving? Mapping it will set it for a different way? Surely there's no one perfect set up?

 

Are you old enough to have experienced cars from the bad old days of carburettors? The whole point of software control is the ability to devise maps of points, not to be restricted to two fixed points and have to hope for the best in between.

 

Just to add a little more fuel to this fire, heres a link to a UK site that provides an aftermarket package for a UK car aprroved by Ford UK as an accessory and will not affect warranty......

Fiesta ST (2013 >)

Note the bit that says, Revised engine calibration. IE a remap that helps increse the power and torque!

Going by what has been said on here would it be fair to ask, "But surely Ford know best and get the best possible from their engine?" So why do they not only allow an aftermarket company to provide an upgrade but in fact endorse it and allow it to be fited without affecting warranty?????

Cars ECU are not only mapped to optimum performance but also to meet emissions regulations and to pass drive by noise tests.

Coming from a background of motorcycle tuning both with carbs in the old days and now injection, there is a lot to be gained by reflashing the ECU to remove the restrictions imposed by the EU and their emissions and noise limits. You will get a smoother power curve with no flat spots and very likely to get a slight increase in fuel consumption. An engine running slightly richer will give less power that one with optimium fuelling but will be quiter. And dont ask me why, it just is! If youre that curious then use the internet and find out why! But stoichiometric combustion would be a good place to start! And then of course theres lean burn engines that are set up for economy rather than outright performance, im sure a remap would certainly increase the performance of this engine but at the expense of fuel economy. Horses for courses! And finally having an engine mapped by the factory to, for instance allow it into a certain road tax bracket.

My 09 Pro is the 109hp version yet later versions are 89hp. Why? Was the 109 hp version unreliable? Well ive done almost 70k miles in 5 years with no issues at all. Or was the engine detuned (Probably by just a remap!) to allow it to fit into a lower CO2 bracket for cheaper road tax??????

And now from a performance point of view, by changing the silencer on my bike for a less restrictive one and having the fuelling adjusted to suit i have managed to see the power go up from 128hp at the rear wheel to 143hp with absolutely no loss in reliabilty etc. Just allowing the engine to breathe better and having the fuelling adjusted to suit..... So the manufacturer doesnt know best, at least not when they are restricted by local laws!!!!

So you see, yes the manufacturer may have spent thousands of hours developing their engine etc but they will then have to make sure they can confirm to local emissions and noise limits. To do this they will have to make compromises....... An aftermarket developer will just return the engine to what the factory wanted but werent allowed to do!

 

My 09 Pro is the 109hp version yet later versions are 89hp. Why? Was the 109 hp version unreliable?

As far as I am aware Kia never made a 109 bhp(PS) version of the Mk1 1.6 CRDi. The 89 bhp model was added to the range sometime after introduction, the original 115 bhp(PS) version continued from introduction until the Mk 2 was introduced. The 128 bhp version was added late in the models life in the "4" spec version.

In the new model the 1.6 128 bhp model continues but the 89 bhp is now a 1.4.

In the Hyundai i30 a 110 bhp version of the 1.6 CRDi is available but since its only £300 cheaper than the 128 bhp version I honestly wonder if they sell any.