RSTuner map loaded, with dyno charts!

[Gardus]

Hi guys, today I finally got to upload the map from Henk of Fastchip.nl.

As I have access to a MAHA 4x4 dyno at work, I figured I would make a dyno run before and after the job.

The car is a 172 '02 FF. I bought the car used 3 years ago, here are the mods done on the engine:
182 manifold
sports kat (probably a k-tec...anyway I'm replacing it with a Supersprint one as this is KO, lots of smell)
63.5 Supersprint silenced centre section
54 mm "stealth" custom made Supersprint rear exhaust (the 63.5 mm one was too loud with the sports cat)
k-tec yellow panel filter

Fuel used for the dyno runs is Tamoil WR100 (100 ron)

We did two runs with the original map (which I'm not sure if it's actually the standard map or the car was mapped by the previous owner...I always felt it was pretty strong, especially at low rpm)
The results were almost identical:
173,4 hp @ 6470 rpm
207,6 nm @ 5370 rpm
Compared to the stock car and even the car with our full exhaust alone it's faster (you'll see the charts)

Then I connected the car to a charger and to the pc with the RSTuner (I bought it used so it's not the last version).
It took a while to save the old CAL and RST and to upload the new ones received from Henk.

Today I'll test the car again and see if I got some gain.

I'll post the dyno charts when I have all of them, to save time.

Here are the pictures:

 

[olliewebbuk]

So you're not testing the car on the same day with the same tank of fuel?

With the same weather etc?

Gonna be an unreliable test...

 

[Gardus]

No I tested it this mortning and I'm testing it later today, I loaded the map on the lunch break! same fuel, same day.
The weather is getting a bit warmer but I'll post the charts with both the corrected (EWG factor) and not corrected values.
Don't worry, I'm trying to be as scientific as I can.

 

[olliewebbuk]

Ah excellent. I await figures.

 

[JackD]

Sounds good, interested to see results!

 

[M@tt_182]

I've always been tempted by an RSTuner but never taken the plunge and actually purchased one. It'll be interesting to see the results especially with 100 ron fuel...

 

[Tutuur]

I'm very curious!

 

[Joe R26]

I ran the rs tuner map for a good few months and had the car rr. My power seemed to drop off quiet early I think it was about 6200rpm. I loaded the standard map back on recently and it pulls harder after 5k and pulls right up to 7.

I think it sacrifices peak power for more mid range. But I guess well find out in a bit!

 

[hatyy]

very interesting ....gardus ...pm me the results as I want to an rs tuner ...

 

[GBH14]

Do you have the results of this yet?

 

[PP200t]

Yeah results, results, results please!!!

 

[davo172]

What was the readings at the wheels ?

 

[Gardus]

I'm going to upload the charts tomorrow morning. Today it was holyday in Italy and as I did the dyno run after the map very late I didn't have the time to post them.
Anyway I've lost a bit of torque in the low range and increased the power a bit at high rpm, the final max power was 175 hp.
I'll send the old files to Henk to know if the car was already mapped or not.
I can tell you that the car is more regular from cold and at idle.
The increased rev limiter helps to keep the car on the boil, we've seen that the power stays up well over 7k.
I have to say I expected a bit more...the better behaviour is welcome but I'm not sure it was worth the price (100 £ for a used rstuner, that I hope to get back, pluse the license and map, € 85)
The car anyway is way faster than a standard 172, as the comparison charts I'll post will show you.
I also compared my car to the 182, both standard and with a full exhaust, to see how much the manifold could influence the power delivery.
Watch this space tomorrow!

 

[Fastchip]

Please note that my cal is suited for a standard car. Especially the 182 manifold modification requires different fuel map settings.

 

[Gardus]

How much would it be for a custom map for my configuration? If I knew that I would buy that one directly.
Note that I changed the cat because it was exhausted..I suspect there could be some difference because of this, it should have less backpressure because of the slightly increased diameter, the 15 mm longer body and the bigger pipes (the k-tec is 55 mm from the cone to the flange, the HJS 60)
I know is not a perfect comparison, I wanted to test the car as it was with just the map but the tester (my boss) refused to do it becasue of the fumes.

Anyway here are all the charts.
Mind that I'm also using the charts from our demo cars, a 172 and a 182, both in stock configuration and with our full Supersprint exhaust, for comparison.

My car has 60k miles on the clock.

1st run - Clio 172 2002 - k-tec panel filter - 182 manifold - k-tec 200 cpsi 100mm cat (exhausted) - Supersprint 63.5 mm mid silencer - Supersprint 54 mm "stealth" homologated rear exhaust - Tamoil 100 RON fuel - stock (?) map.

2nd run - Clio 172 2002 - k-tec panel filter - 182 manifold - k-tec 200 cpsi 100mm cat (exhausted) - Supersprint 63.5 mm mid silencer - Supersprint 54 mm "stealth" homologated rear exhaust - Tamoil 100 RON fuel - stock (?) map.

1st run - Clio 172 2002 - k-tec panel filter - 182 manifold - Supersprint HJS 100 cpsi 108mm cat (new)- Supersprint 63.5 mm mid silencer - Supersprint 54 mm "stealth" homologated rear exhaust - Tamoil 100 RON fuel - RS TUNER MAP

2nd run - Clio 172 2002 - k-tec panel filter - 182 manifold - Supersprint HJS 100 cpsi 108mm cat (new) - Supersprint 63.5 mm mid silencer - Supersprint 54 mm "stealth" homologated rear exhaust - Tamoil 100 RON fuel - RS TUNER MAP

Best run stock map vs best run RSTuner map:

A few things are evident: I've lost a bit of torque in the low range (could be the cat), but I gained a bit of power at high rpm, and the increased rev limiter show that the power stays there so the revs are usable (even if I won't use them often).


Clio 172 standard (fuel unknown) vs my car mapped: if this is the real gain over a stock 172 I'm very satisfied!

More comparative charts:

Clio 172 standard (fuel unknown)

Clio 172 - full Supersprint exhaust (HJS cat, homologated midsilencer and rear exhaust) (fuel unknown)

Clio 172 standard vs Clio 172 SS exhaust

This shows that a full exhaust with the stock manifold gets you more torque and so more power everywhere but...

Clio 172 standard (fuel unknown) vs my car mapped

...the car can be much stronger with other mods.

Clio 182 standard (fuel unknown)

Clio 182 - full Supersprint exhaust (HJS cat, homologated midsilencer and rear exhaust) (fuel unknown) (I GOT TO DOWNLOAD THIS AGAIN BECAUSE IS DIN CORRECTED)

Clio 182 standard vs Clio 182 SS exhaust (I GOT TO DOWNLOAD THIS AGAIN BECAUSE IS DIN CORRECTED)

The 182 seems to feel more an exhaust system than the 172

Clio 182 standard vs my car before the map

Clio 182 SS exhaust vs my car before the map

The car is as fast as a 182 judging by the dyno.

This was the best I was able to do. If you need specific comparative charts I'll be happy to provide them.

I would like to get a custom map from Henk for my configuration and do some more testing. As the loading of the .cal is very fast I won't need the battery charger.
The problem is I fitted winter tyres now so I won't do any more dyno runs during the winter.


All the charts are EWG corrected, but you can also see all the not corrected values and all the info about the conditions.

This morning I tried the car from cold (5°C) and it's amazingly better than before. It starts and the idle is perfect, and it doesn't jump for the first 2-3 minutes as it did before.
The fuel consumption seems a bit better but that could be because of the thinner, 15" winter tyres.

What do you think?

 

[Cup_Phil]

I'll be interested to see this

I ran my car with the standard map and the RSTuner map alternatively for a year - did several track days on both the standard and the remap

I found the RSTuner map to be MUCH smoother on idle, I got better fuel economy, and it allows you to rev fully sooner (not entirely sure this is a good thing if the oil isn't up to temp)
However with regards to power the last track day I did at Anglesey was on the standard map and it did feel better pulling out of corners and definitely had a better top end

I wouldn't get another one - I've gone for a standalone omex ecu now and will be having a proper map put on it

 

[PP200t]

Well I think I got the graphs etc and it looks good! I need an rstuner in my life!!!!!

 

[Gardus]

Thanks for you feedback Phil.
I don't know how much difference it would made on a stock Clio but I have to say that I think there could be more power available with a specific map with my mods.
I'm filling it up with 95 ron today, I want to see how it behaves. The fuel prices are too high to run on 100 ron all the time.

I think the map I had before was stock becasue the rev limiter was standard.

One question: with the new 6500 firmware would the cruise control work if I fit the 182 wheel I have at home?

 

[Gardus]

I noticed a few things:
-idle from cold is much higher, around 1500 rpm
-the revs decrease at a slower rate, it gives the impression of a "sticky throttle"
Is this right?

 

[Cup_Phil]

The idle on my standard map is around 850rpm - the idle on the rstuner map was 1000rpm
I think that's why it always felt smoother lol

Sounds like you've got a vacuum leak somewhere

 

[Gardus]

I don't think so as it was running fine. Anyway the cold idle of the stock map I think it's higher than 850.
The warm idle of the rstuner map is the same, 850/900.