1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Has REMAP gone wrong?

Discussion in 'A4/A4 cabriolet/S4 forum(B6 chassis)' started by fasttdi, Jun 3, 2008.

  1. fasttdi
    Offline

    fasttdi New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jun 3, 2008]
    I had a remap done on my 2004 1.9tdi 130 6spd. The rolling road report shows an increase in bhp to 184 from the standard 130bhp. Whats worrying me the most is the standard torque on my car is 285 lbs/ft but AFTER remap the report shows only 275.5 lbs/ft torque!

    Surely after a remap the torque and bhp should increase.
    Ive been back to have it checked out and the remap was updated to the latest software (so i was told) but now the car seemed slower than before with hardly any torque. I was told its because the fuel ratio has been adjusted and will take up to 50 mile to settle in, but ive over 250miles since and still no torque. Whats going on!!![​IMG]

    Has any one had this problem or had a remap and knows what torque their getting, any advice or views would be appreciated
    #1
  2. Ads

    Ads

    [Oct 21, 2014]

  3. james0808
    Offline

    james0808 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,548
    Likes Received:
    3
    [Jun 3, 2008]
    Who did the remap?
    Every remap ive had and there have been quite a few have all worked instantly,no mention about driving it to settle the fuel ratio.
    285 lbs/ft standard seems a little high,alot only make this after a remap.
    I would not be happy with the results you have if it was me and i would be going back to get it checked.
    #2
  4. duane
    Offline

    duane Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jun 3, 2008]
    I've never heard of a remap having to settle in due to the fuel either???. Unless you have a problem somewhere? in which case it should have been checked before the map was put on to your car. Like James said i would be going back to get it looked at....
    #3
  5. Macduff
    Offline

    Macduff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jun 3, 2008]
    Standard torque for a 6 speed 130PD is approximately 228lb/ft. 5 speed is approx 210lb/ft.

    The settling in sounds like rubbish. I'd take it back again and if you're still not happy have it removed and get a refund.
    #4
  6. evilscotsman
    Offline

    evilscotsman Space Cowboy

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    12
    [Jun 3, 2008]
    emaps quote for a 130 tdi is:

    Before: 130bhp & 310 n/m
    After: 172bhp & 370 n/m

    Nm x 0,74 = ft/lbs so 229.4 ft/lbs before, and 273.8 ft/lbs after, so it does look like the RR figures after the map are correct, you did get the quoted upgrade. Better in fact.

    What makes you think it has no torque, Is the boost coming in late? What rpms does it kick you in the pants at?

    If it feels "wrong" after the remap, as for it to be put back to original and drive it, if its back the way it was, get a refund and go to emaps for instance, i've heard good things about them and they come to you!
    #5
  7. fasttdi
    Offline

    fasttdi New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jun 3, 2008]
    'evilscotsman' I found this website and confirmed it with my audi handbook that the standard torque should be 285Nm is this different to 285 lb/ft? I may be a little confused from the readings but a friends audi standard 130tdi had me for breakfast!, he beat me on take off and top end, which proves remaps made it worse not better

    http://www.diskdrive.co.za/road_tests/rt2002/audi_a4_19_tdi_18t_test.htm
    #6
  8. ChriS3
    Offline

    ChriS3 hud at ye bam

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2006
    Messages:
    2,235
    Likes Received:
    13
    [Jun 3, 2008]
    285Nm is 210lbs/ft. Looks like the map did its job ;)
    #7
  9. james0808
    Offline

    james0808 Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    3,548
    Likes Received:
    3
    [Jun 3, 2008]
    I wouldnt say the remap has done its job if it feels slower after.
    There is no way a standard 130 should beat a remapped 130.
    When i had my A4 130 remapped the difference was amazing.
    #8
  10. evilscotsman
    Offline

    evilscotsman Space Cowboy

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    12
    [Jun 3, 2008]
    Yeah mate, nm is Newton-Meters which isnt the same as Foot-Pounds, ft/lbs is about 3/4 of nm figure, you multiply nm by 0.74 to get ft/lbs - i.e. your handbook figure of 285nm = 285x0.74 = 210.9 ft/lbs of torque as standard.

    ft/lbs means the torque (twisting force) on a lever of 1 foot long exerted by a 1lb weight on the end = 1 ft/lb

    nm is the force exerted on a 1 meter lever by a force of 1 Newton (3.59 Oz) = 1Nm

    Quite different, and as the chris says, it looks like it worked in numbers terms, so if it feels slower theres something wrong. Get it put back for a refund and go to emaps or someone else reliable.

    This seems to be a rare occurrence mate, you were maybe unlucky wi the choice of tuner or software. Most generic maps arent perfect either, they maybe used a "one size fits all" map with only a couple of tables adjusted, in fact there are almost 35 tables in the 1.8t ecu apparently.
    #9
  11. Macduff
    Offline

    Macduff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2004
    Messages:
    742
    Likes Received:
    0
    [Jun 3, 2008]
    If your car is 6 speed then standard torque is 310Nm ir approximately 229lb/ft. Nm (Newton metres) is a metric torque measurement while lb/ft is imperial.

    As before, I would say take it back and get them to double check.
    #10
  12. J7USS
    Offline

    J7USS Shuddup Foooool!!

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2006
    Messages:
    3,683
    Likes Received:
    1
    [Jun 3, 2008]
    Evil - Was you ever a Maths teacher.....science maybe....You lost me after the 2nd line,lol!!!!...

    Carry on though,its better than Learn direct :respekt:
    #11
  13. evilscotsman
    Offline

    evilscotsman Space Cowboy

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    12
    [Jun 3, 2008]
    LOL - cheers j7uss, my old teachers would have a right laugh there! Nah im actually **** at pure maths, I just know all the engineering **** that comes wi the job (electronics design engineer in machine automation) - I do love physics tho!



    :ermm:
    #12
  14. jase0851
    Offline

    jase0851 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2004
    Messages:
    784
    Likes Received:
    1
    [Jun 4, 2008]
    that sounds like a cool job to me scots well it sounds better than mine anyway lol a miner
    #13
  15. evilscotsman
    Offline

    evilscotsman Space Cowboy

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    12
    [Jun 5, 2008]
    no way jase, thats a dying breed mate. I was born bread and buttered in a mining town, there used to be 7 pits around the area i come from but its all gone now.

    I would have gone into mining too probably but jobs there were getting scarce in 1981 after the strike, so went to college and got an apprenticeship as a spark wi a company that sold lathes and milling machines, then got into automation stuff like robotic welders and packaging machinery. Not always been as much fun as it sounds mate, i'd rather be a bra engineer fnaar fnaar LOL
    #14

Share This Page