Stage 1 tune

[inkey$]

Evening all. Has anybody got experience of a stage 1 ECU tune? Considering it for my 2.2 - mainly for the extra 25Nm torque, but of course has the bonus of an extra 15bhp.

- 168bhp to 185bhp
- 210Nm to 235Nm

Feels like a no brainer to be perfectly honest, but I’m keen to hear from those that may have done it.

 

[t-tony]

Depends on the cost I suppose as to whether its worth it?

Tony.

 

[inkey$]

Depends on the cost I suppose as to whether its worth it?

Tony.

£250 incl VAT from a reputable place.

 

[ChrisD]

Evening all. Has anybody got experience of a stage 1 ECU tune? Considering it for my 2.2 - mainly for the extra 25Nm torque, but of course has the bonus of an extra 15bhp.

- 168bhp to 185bhp
- 210Nm to 235Nm

Feels like a no brainer to be perfectly honest, but I’m keen to hear from those that may have done it.

This is from an engine ECU recalibration only? If so, sounds too good to be true to me. I'd want to see real proof as it's possible to claim +10% by cherry picking the data. People who paid £250 won't necessarily be disappointed because the throttle response is usually easily modified but this gives 0% performance increase.

 

[inkey$]

It’s the torque I’m mainly looking to up slightly. I’ll do some more digging.

 

[Duncodin]

This is from an engine ECU recalibration only? If so, sounds too good to be true to me. I'd want to see real proof as it's possible to claim +10% by cherry picking the data. People who paid £250 won't necessarily be disappointed because the throttle response is usually easily modified but this gives 0% performance increase.

I kind of agree with this. Many of these 'tune ups' is just snake oil.

having said that - in some cases a model is intentionally tuned down by the OEM to stop it competing with the higher spec model and tune up just releases unused power.

My Mercedes GLA 200d is a good example. The 200d is actually the same 2.2ltr engine as the 220d but the 200d model is tuned down quite a bit. I'd expect other things such as exhaust and intake to be different but I guess it's cheaper for the OEM to make both models identical and just tune it in the ecu. The people selling the snake oil claim the performance gain brings the 200d up to the level of the 220d. The 220d can also be fiddled with but the gain isn't quite as much.

So I can 'almost' unstand where this magic power increase comes from but I wouldn't believe it without doing more research.

 

[ChrisD]

With a naturally aspirated engine it is normally difficult to get any meaningful performance increase without changing hardware. Did BMW do such a bad job with the 2.2 engine calibration?

 

[the Nefyn cat]

It's easy to get more BHP, you just need to take out the rev-limiter. Not necessarily a good idea, but can be done.

 

[Duncodin]

It's easy to get more BHP, you just need to take out the rev-limiter. Not necessarily a good idea, but can be done.

If you look at the graph on a rolling road or whatever else is used to measure BHP you see max bhp is reached at a a certain number of revs.

Allowing the engine to rev beyond that point won't change that max bhp.

 

[the Nefyn cat]

A rolling road measures torque, BHP is calculated from that torque figure multiplied by the revs, divided by 5252. If an engine can rev higher while still producing torque the BHP figure will go up.

 

[Richard29]

If you do get that increase and its noticable £16 per bhp is reasonable value.
My 325i was tuned for about 50bhp more and it worked out at £24 per bhp. This was with a new intake manifold though.

 

[Duncodin]

A rolling road measures torque, BHP is calculated from that torque figure multiplied by the revs, divided by 5252. If an engine can rev higher while still producing torque the BHP figure will go up.

My bad for mentioning BHP. I'm not a 'tuner'. Never have been. So I don't fully understand why torque curve and HP curve always cross at 5252RPM.

But whenever I look at a 'Torque' curve on a dyno graph it reaches max torque way before it reaches the engine red line. As revs go higher the torque curve curves down. Extending the red line, at least in my mind, isn't going to move the Max Torque.

I guess your statement "while still producing torque" is key. Engines are more or less efficient at different revs so wouldn't the engine need something else doing to it, porting, better intake/exhaust etc to keep the torque going up as revs increase. Just moving the red line, on its own, won't do it - but. As I said. I don't really know what I'm talking about so I'll now go and read up on it.

 

[Sajk]

A before and after dyno on the same day without taking the car off the dyno will settle the discussion. Offer to pay for the dyno time. It will be worth it. I don't think the 2.2 is drive by wire but I might be wrong. Drive by wire makes it easy to improve throttle response to feel like more power.

EDIT. I am wrong it's an m54 not an m52tu so drive by wire it is.

Edit 2. All the m54 engines are rated at about 76hp p litre. To give you some idea I got 14% out of my m52tu 2.8 with and m543.0 intake manifold, cams and a custom tune. The 2.8 tu was choked from the factory at only 68 hp p litre.

Now that I remember my own numbers 10 pct from tune alone seems unlikely. Unless they are willing to guarantee it with dyno proof.

 

[inkey$]

Great responses and I think I may give it a miss. There‘s nothing ’wrong‘ with the 2.2 but I was just intrigued by the numbers being quoted; especially torque. Might put the money towards something else instead, so thanks all for the input

 

[the Nefyn cat]

So I don't fully understand why torque curve and HP curve always cross at 5252RPM

It's one of those "because they do" things. It makes numbers for people to get excited about for no real reason. If an engine makes 100 lb/ft of torque at 5252 rpm you get 100 bhp, if you can make the engine rev to 10,504 rpm and still produce 100 lb/ft you get 200 bhp, if it stays together at 15,756 rpm... you get the picture. That's how F1 engines manage to make huge bhp figures, the higher you can make it stay together the more "power" it'll make. That's how a lot of the "chip tuning" fraternity used to work, just take out, or lift, the rev limit, and you get more "power". Could be described as bs in some circles, obviously not round here.
Ain't no substitute for proper tuning.

 

[Duncodin]

No. I still don't understand.

You said it again. "IF" you can keep the torque.

An F1 has other things done to it so that it has high torque at high revs.

Looking at the torque curve for most standard road engines the curve, amount of torque, is coming down by the time the revs are getting near the red line. So reving my engine more is not going to make the torque curve come back up again

 

[the Nefyn cat]

That'll be down to manufacturers putting a red-line/rev-limiter on their engines around 6,500 rpm and tailing off the power to meet it. F1 engines are built with no worries about warranties and the like, so long as it finishes the race that'll do, and they spend a vast amount of money on an engine compared to what you or me would want to pay. If you look at the differences between the normal BMW engines and the M/// variants there's plenty of differences in construction and service requirements, and a higher rev-limit which all helps to produce the higher power quoted. Makes them whoosh about, but I feel I'd rather have hydraulic (self adjusting) tappets than having shims under buckets as you tend to find with the M/// engines. The more frequent oil changes don't help, either.
All part of the price you pay for having more power.
(if you read that last bit in Clarksons' voice it'll be more convincing).

 

[Sajk]

Actually these days there is a limit on the number of power units an f1 team can use per season without a 10 grid place penalty so as to stop the race once and throw away.

 

[Pond]

I don't understand where these 'remapping' people are able to get 10% power (and torque) gain from a n/a engine, especially a 25 year old one, without any hardware changes TBH.
It's a piece of cake on a forced induction engine, just up the boost pressure on the ECU and re-map the fuelling. Not so easy on a n/a. IMO. And if they can write a new fuel map for the ECU, it will come at the cost of other things.

You see a lot of re-mapping companies say they do magic for a few quid, then stipulate you must use 99 octane fuel. If you didn't do anything and used 99 octane rather than E10, you would see a gain on a RR anyway. IMO.

The 4 pot N20 turbo in 18i guise in the E89 makes 156BHP and about 250nm of torque at 3000rpm. It runs at almost zero boost from the factory.
A cheap remap, increasing the boost pressure and a new fuel map will get 280BHP and 350NM of torque at 2500rpm without any hardware changes and is pretty safe (as the engine was designed for 250BHP and 320nm). Now that is worth having (ask me how I know).

 

[the Nefyn cat]

Actually these days there is a limit on the number of power units an f1 team can use per season without a 10 grid place penalty so as to stop the race once and throw away.

The point still (sort of) stands, it seems, according to the interweb, and that never lies, an F1 engine costs in the area of $10 million. Just the engine. And, yes, there is a penalty, but the way F1 goes these days if you're one of the teams at the front it may almost be worth getting relegated a few places in order to have a fresh engine. Our engines may not produce anything like the power theirs do, but we don't have to write them off every couple of thousand miles. Which is nice.
https://www.sportingnews.com/uk/for...parts-most-expensive/sbvxis3e0fveuzxevx56b470