Remap of my QPV
- Thread starter drewf
- Start date
drewf
Member
- Messages
- 7,159
Difficult to make a measurement like that at Brunty - you can't really see who has what power/torque, since there's no way of knowing whether the exit from the chicane was to amuse passengers or to get max speed on the straight, aircon on/off, and also I expect mine weighs rather more. It had a spare wheel, trolley jack, tools, fridge, second full-size 12V battery in the boot (as usual, plus all the other stuff that seems to reside in there). The rest of the car is stock btw, completely standard exhaust with the cats and all the silencers.
Haven't had any issues with the engine post-remap, it runs very well, keeps pace with the other cars which I guess weigh less, and is a lot nicer to drive mid-range than the original map. Don't forget, I said earlier in the thread we were not looking for ultimate power, but to get some better mid-range response. Still happy with it. It's meant no loss of performance against the other cars despite adding loads of weight to it.
Haven't had any issues with the engine post-remap, it runs very well, keeps pace with the other cars which I guess weigh less, and is a lot nicer to drive mid-range than the original map. Don't forget, I said earlier in the thread we were not looking for ultimate power, but to get some better mid-range response. Still happy with it. It's meant no loss of performance against the other cars despite adding loads of weight to it.
Last edited:
Andyk
Member
- Messages
- 61,184
My good friend Tim has been badgering me for some time to allow him to remap my QP, so after quite a few months diaries finally aligned and the day was set. Yesterday...
To ensure I had a baseline of the performance, I took some stopwatch timings on a straight, flat section of tarmac (let's say it was the runway where we keep the aircraft, to avoid anybody worrying about the danger...), knowing that I could repeat the readings post-remap and see what changed (if anything). I don't know what the exact distance between the fixed points was (about 1km), but it's the same for both sets so doesn't really matter.
Measurements as standard (just me in the car, full tank of fuel, spare wheel and tools in the boot) :
0..100mph 13.2s
60..100mph 6.8s
Time between fixed points: 21.0s
The car turned out to be producing 403bhp before we touched it, so was clearly an engine 'running well'
Torque figure was 338lbft.
Now, I have no idea if those figures are real, but they are a measure of what the machine could see, and provide a baseline against what the same machine could see later with the same settings.
The upgrade was not without some trial and error, mostly on the 'how can we get round the blocking features' thoughtfully installed by the factory. That proved to be extremely easy in reality, but meant removing the ECU from the car - the ECU is according to the chaps the same as that used by VW on the R32. It's a Bosch unit, and common to many cars. The original map was downloaded and investigated. Given the vast experience they have with this particular ECU, it didn't take very long to work out what needed to be changed, particularly when compared to a Ferrari map for what we know is essentially the same engine. The main reason for doing this was to increase the responsiveness of the engine, and to release more power by allowing more airflow and a corrected fuel ratio. Interestingly, Maserati have set the engine to run very rich, much richer than the Ferrari system. The rev limit remained unchanged - I don't drive it bouncing of the limiter, so could see no reason to allow even higher rpm and risk damaging the engine that way.
During this visit, the gearbox ECU remained untouched - we ran out of time to do that as well as the engine.
A few test drives on the roads showed the upgraded car to be much more responsive to the throttle, apparently quicker (it certainly felt faster), and had a much harder edge to the engine note under load. Nice noise
I drove the 150 miles home at varying speeds as requested, checking all the modes still worked without any issues. No problems.
So... the current figures:
0..100mph 12.4s
60..100mph 6.1s
Time between fixed points: 19.2s
Peak power 431bhp
Torque 357lbft.
That's a 28bhp increase, or 7% which seems realistic to me. There's not a lot left to come from it though without spending thousands on a new exhaust and induction systems. The map may well be tweaked after I've driven it a bit, and particularly with Brunty coming up to use as a test bed...
After that, the same remap will be available to SM members for £400.
I am rather looking forward to Brunty next year drew ;-)
All sounds very interesting buddy....
drewf
Member
- Messages
- 7,159
In furthering my research in masertilife I found this this very intereting and informative link..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bkDKqoGSdU&feature=youtu.be
Killing line is that there's not much to be gained for N/A engines.... but more is still better, even if it's getting more hp lower down the rev range.
Eb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bkDKqoGSdU&feature=youtu.be
Killing line is that there's not much to be gained for N/A engines.... but more is still better, even if it's getting more hp lower down the rev range.
Eb