chipexpress

On or around Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:40:38 +0100, Austin Shackles enlightened us thusly:

more info from chipexpress on request:

P1 P2 etc. are differnt programs - P1 cuts in at 1500 revs, P2 at 1350, P3 at 1150 and P4 at 1000.

with this in mind I've reset it to P4 and -1 and will see what that runs like in the morning. Quick run up the road felt OK, not quite the same surge on full boost, but hopefulyl less smoke (although I couldn't see that, it's dark).

looking at the diagnostic leds (and, a thought occurs, could, with an extension wire - it uses a 15-pin dual-ros D connector on the gadget - it'd be possuible to mount it on the dash somewhere, so you can watch the pretty lights and tweak it more or less at will)

anyhow, looking at the lights... it cuts in at the desire revs when accelerating more than veryvery slowly, and cuts out again when the engine goes off load. So it's only boosting when it needs to, style of fing. I assume mostly what it does is hijack injector signals and make 'em subtly (or less-subtly) longer - techincally, there's no reason why it shouldn't also tweak the timing: it could advance the timing say 5 degrees by retarting the injector pulses 355 degrees, and you'd never notice. I didn't actually ask them what it does, in detail, and it may be that they'd not be keen to tell, although I'm hardly likely to make me own. 'course, given recording scope one could compare standard tune with the altered one...

"Austin Shackles" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Do they say exactly what it does? All the ones I have seen plug in-line between the ECU and main loom rather than on the injector loom. From the amount of smoke it sounds like the classic overfuelling which long term causes havoc with the engine.

Not wanting to be a doom-n-gloom merchant but I've had bad experiences with these things before.

On or around Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:10:21 +0100, "Andy" enlightened us thusly:

I've not asked exactly what it does, it may or may not be something they're willing to talk about. However, at the end of the day, to get more power you have to supply more fuel, so it's rather a moot point how you do it.

This thing is adjustable. I turned it down a notch and changed it to come in sooner and now it only smokes slightly. I'm ni the process of running a tankful of fuel through it to see what the MPG looks like, and I may try taking it down another step depending on the results - at the moment it has noticeably more maximum grunt, and is better at 1250-1750 rev range; previosusly it was a lot more powerful but rather more smoky than I'd like - not riodiculously so but I reckon it'd have failed the smoke test. Making smoke is both antisocial and inefficient and my main aim is improving MPG, not making it a racing car. Obviosuly, turning it down too much means it's not doing much and would be a waste of money.

The other thing I'll probably do is invest in a K&N or simialr high-flow filter for the airbox. EGR is already disconnected and has been examined and seen to be properly closed, I doubt, frankly, for what I'm after there's any point in replacing the EGR with a plain pipe or fitting a bigger/better intercooler.

"Austin Shackles" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

Don't forget you ought to check your boost pressure, and adjust accordingly - actuator springs go soft over time, and as this unit is dumb (doesnt have a boost sense line) it will be assuming factory boost, which may not be there.

So if you still have smoke when its boosting then you could up it slightly.

14-15psi is stock, they are quite safe at 18psi. If you hit 20psi the ECU enters limp mode.

Tim.

On or around Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:41:13 +0100, "Tim.." enlightened us thusly:

It's boosting to about 1.1bar - max boost comes in much lower in the rev range though :-)

On or around Mon, 21 Sep 2009 16:41:13 +0100, "Tim.." enlightened us thusly:

I did wonder about that, but are there issues with combustion chamber temperature without fitting a better intercooler?

Mind, I'm not after a big hike in power at full boost, more after better low-mid-range response and hopefully a bit more economy.

I will likely fit a decent air cleaner element.

"Austin Shackles" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

It is fairly well known in circles that a well chipped TD5 will run too warm with regard to EGT's when pushed hard continually (i.e. towing) with the result the exahust manifold cracks pretty spectacularly. So, in that case obviously either you need better charge cooling (we all know all LR's have been under-intercooled since the year dot) or, and more likely the exhaust system is restrictive. Less backpressure always brings down the drive pressure i.e. heat.

These motors will run reliably at ~200bhp /450nm with the right simple mods.

On or around Wed, 23 Sep 2009 16:28:30 +0100, "Tim.." enlightened us thusly:

well, mine didn't today...

being a lazy sod, rather than remove the EGR pipe and fit the blanking plate supplied (Kit to get rid of the EGR valve), I simply made a bung for the end. worked for a couple of days... and then today, the pipe fractured, leading to minimal boost, some extra noise (suprisingly little) and much soot on the RHS of the engine bay.

whatver c**t decided that small (5mm hex) allen bolts in next-to-impossible place to get to were a good idea on an exhaust manifold needs to have said manifold, suitably hot from running, inserted in his personal exhaust.

it's only by the grace of god and the luck of the devil that I got it apart

- one screw rounded out, but I was able to shift the flange by impinging on it with a hammer and drift, then shift the pipe out of the way a bit, then hammer a slightly-larger torx bit into the hole and with much prayer it came loose..

There's no good reason not to use 10mm hex head bolts... which is what it now has holding the blanking plate on, stainless ones too.

My main objective is not silly power but driveability and more economy. so far, it's looking good (before the incident above), and the next stage is to try it on the next power notch down, for comparison. It's still a tad smoky but I reckon would probably pass the test, right now, and looks like it's gained possibly 10% on economy, I'll know tomorrow afternoon when I fill it up.

If the next step down still gives suitable improvement in the driveability, I'll run another tankful and see what the economy is like.

... and even the horrible integral washer ones in that size found elsewhere on the engine are only safe to use with a single hex socket. Nothing these days appears to be designed with anything other than initial assembly in mind.

next-to-impossible

LOL, I didn't know you were a religious man Austin, anyway, at least you got it out.

driveability,

On or around Thu, 1 Oct 2009 20:48:39 +0100, "Oily" enlightened us thusly:

faced with the amount of dis-assembly that'd be needed to get any more heavy duty gear in there, I can assure you that I try anything that might work.

On or around Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:40:38 +0100, Austin Shackles enlightened us thusly:

OK, ran a tankful through with it set to cut in at 1000 revs and power setting -1, which still smokes a bit. It should be noted that I now have a K&N filter and a plain connection where the EGR valve should be.

On that tankful, got about 27.8 mpg, which is not a startling improvement but is still the best average I've had on this motor.

After refilling and a bit more driving (didn't have the required tools) I reset it to -2 setting, still cutting in at 1000 rpm. This setting produces little smoke, it's just occasionally noticeable under provocation, mostly nothing to see in the mirrors. Power is lower but still a good deal more driveable than standard tune, still pulls well at 1500+ revs; hits max boost at about 1800 now, I think, under load, it's hard to say exactly as the boost gauge is on the passneger side of the dash 'cos the pipe isn't long enough. I may decide to geta longer pipe and fit it beside the instrument housing.

first tank (which started off with some miles on the -1 setting) gave a tad over 28 mpg. I'm aiming for 29, which will be about 10% better than standard, without making any special effort to drive very economically: for example, I'll be doing 60-70 on the main road where appropriate, not poodling along at 45.

"Austin Shackles" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com...

So considering the reduction in time spent reaching 60mph, thats not a bad improvement!

Tim.

On or around Fri, 9 Oct 2009 12:49:14 +0100, "Tim.." enlightened us thusly:

yeah, overall I'm impressed with it. If it gets me any improvement in economy in addition to driving and pulling better, that's good. 10% is a kind of benchmark though in that in ballpark terms that's what it'll need to pay for the magic box with a years-worth of fuel savings.