Remap For those of you with chips/maps...

[czechplastik]

How does the VSA handle the extra power? I have thoughts of it going crazy and slowing down things. And does anyone know if the type 'R' has VSA set up differently to handle the extra oomph?

[gray52]

A Chipped Diesel Will Have Loads More Power Than The Type R

[Pottsy]

A chipped diesel will not have loads more power than a Type R. At peak revs, the R will have a lot more power, although it's possible that a chipped diesel will make a little bit more torque at the wheels than an R, for the same gear.

It's all irrelevant to the VSA though. It doesn't care about power, it just looks for rapid changes in wheel speed or vehicle yaw (so that's power-on wheelspin, locking up brakes and skidding off the road).

I wonder if the question is inspired by a comment made by Clarkson on that Brabus Merc "it produced one thousand torques and the ESP just couldn't cope so they turned it down to 700"? When translated into "truth" this means "the cars chassis is so awful that it could not get the engines power through the wheels and onto the road, resulting in perpetual wheel slip and thus remedial action by the ESP. Making the chassis work better was a far more difficult and expensive an option than turning the power down, and then as you can see on the test track we still didn't turn the power down enough".

Or maybe it wasn't inspired by Clarksons comment!

[323GT-R]

The Honda VSA is relatively mild imo, and doesn't seem to have any problem coping with the remap on mine. It does cut in more, but seems to just back off enough for the wheels to gain traction, just as it did when the car was standard. It's not helped by the fact my front tyres are pretty close to dead, and the wheather is doing it's usual at the moment...

[damianscott71]

Don't forget. There's a "VSA OFF" button. It makes things a bit more fun if you're thrashing it!

[czechplastik]

Originally Posted by damianscott71

Don't forget. There's a "VSA OFF" button. It makes things a bit more fun if you're thrashing it!

Think you have to be brave to turn it off, could possibly save your life.

[damianscott71]

Originally Posted by czechplastik

Think you have to be brave to turn it off, could possibly save your life.

Yeah, but don't they say the same about seatbelts?



Just kidding.

Turning VSA off can make a bit of a difference if you're taking the car for a blat down country roads though.

[IWANTACIVIC]

Any one had any problem with remaped civics ? does your tyres wera down faster etc , who is best for remaped inscances quotes. Whats pepole geting mpg out of them before and after?

[CID]

My re-map is great (Superchips). No noticeable increase in tyre wear or fuel consumption. Insurance in generally +£75-£100. Recommend BP or Shell fuel with it though.

[cylon2007]

Originally Posted by Pottsy

A chipped diesel will not have loads more power than a Type R. At peak revs, the R will have a lot more power, although it's possible that a chipped diesel will make a little bit more torque at the wheels than an R, for the same gear.

Actually looking at the figures a Diesel 2.2 mapped to 185BHP (Celtic) is only about 7-8BHP down on the R Type BUT is has TWICE the torque around 300ft/lb against 150 ish ft/lb for the R Type.

A standard 2.2 diesel has around 250ft/lb of torque and this is also considerably more than the R Type.

[Pottsy]

Cylon,

You cannot compare the torque of the two cars, since they use different gearboxes and final drives. Torque is multiplied by gears - and since the gearing in the R is reducing wheel revs roughly twice as much as the 2.2 (the R revving to 8,000 compared to 4,000 of the 2.2) then the torque multiplication is roughly double that of the 2.2. So multiply the 150 ftlb of the R by 2 and it's roughly... 300 - the same as the 2.2.

What is needed is a system of measurement which removes the effect of gearing. Then we could compare torques between cars. What we do then is to multiply the torque by revs, so a low revving car that is penalised by its gearing gives a proportionally lower figure. This evens things out. Conventionally torque x revs is called power, and is measured in bhp, PS, kW and so on. Cool eh?

You can read more here:
http://www.civinfo.com/index.php?page=bhp

PS - The formula to convert power to torque (and back is):

Power = torque x revs / 5252 (bhp, ftlb). So any power curve in bhp and ftlb must have the torque and power curves crossing at 5252 rpm - a good check to see if the figures have been "manipulated" by the publisher.

[cylon2007]

Pottsy.

of course you can compare them, the 2 engines have different torque outputs, no one up to you had mentioned gearing. Even when gearing is brought into it is still a fact that the diesel has far more torque then the petrol Type R engine. What the effect is at the wheels wasn't being discussed

As you yourself point out power = t.ue x revs and the Type R having a higher rev limit produces more power BUT less torque. FACT.

BTW I am well aware of the rev/torque curve cross over


Cylon

Originally Posted by Pottsy

Cylon,

You cannot compare the torque of the two cars, since they use different gearboxes and final drives. Torque is multiplied by gears - and since the gearing in the R is reducing wheel revs roughly twice as much as the 2.2 (the R revving to 8,000 compared to 4,000 of the 2.2) then the torque multiplication is roughly double that of the 2.2. So multiply the 150 ftlb of the R by 2 and it's roughly... 300 - the same as the 2.2.

What is needed is a system of measurement which removes the effect of gearing. Then we could compare torques between cars. What we do then is to multiply the torque by revs, so a low revving car that is penalised by its gearing gives a proportionally lower figure. This evens things out. Conventionally torque x revs is called power, and is measured in bhp, PS, kW and so on. Cool eh?

You can read more here:
http://www.civinfo.com/index.php?page=bhp

PS - The formula to convert power to torque (and back is):

Power = torque x revs / 5252 (bhp, ftlb). So any power curve in bhp and ftlb must have the torque and power curves crossing at 5252 rpm - a good check to see if the figures have been "manipulated" by the publisher.

[Pottsy]

Sorry, didn't realise you realised.

I'm sure there are people who think that a car with 150 ftlb of torque will have a poorer performance than another externally similar car with 300 ftlb - you keep hearing/reading car reviewers stating that a certain car has more torque than another car, with the implication that it may go better.

Comparing the torque between two different cars is of course a non-starter, but comparing torque changes say before and after tuning a car is quite valid.

[damianscott71]

Oooh, handbags at dawn, ladies!

[Pottsy]

Originally Posted by damianscott71

Oooh, handbags at dawn, ladies!

I hope I came over as polite...

It's a tricky one, since lots of people (including the press) get very confused about torque. I always cite the example of the 1100 bhp engine I used to use (with only 140 ftlb of torque), which went quite well...

[smurf79]

Where did you get your 2.2 tuned to 190 Pottsy? Been thinking about it for mine, just wondering which is best and are there any drawbacks?

[Pottsy]

Originally Posted by smurf79

Where did you get your 2.2 tuned to 190 Pottsy? Been thinking about it for mine, just wondering which is best and are there any drawbacks?

Superchips at last!!!

No drawbacks, other than the cost and the tiny warranty risk.