How i got more power, safely for my 2013 D4 SE SDV6

[Muskie]

deleted

[matti4556]

"And in case you have some poorer owners...." .? What a stupid thing to say!

[Bytemrk]

"And in case you have some poorer owners...." .? What a stupid thing to say!

Considering the ratio of TDV6's to SDV6's around, it does seem like an effective way of alienating a significant proportion of your potential clients :angel:

[AnD3rew]

"And in case you have some poorer owners...." .? What a stupid thing to say!

Maybe we can have a collection taken up for us poor TDV6 2.7 owners.

Hey buddy can you spare a quarter for a cup of coffee.:p

[scarry]

Maybe we can have a collection taken up for us poor TDV6 2.7 owners.

Hey buddy can you spare a quarter for a cup of coffee.:p


Starting today??

I grabbed one the last of the D4 2.7 because of the tyres i wanted to run..

Just going down to the soup kitchen to grab a cuppa,they might have some out of date biscuits as well,joining the rest of the 2.7 owners...:angel:

Never found the 2.7 wanting,so don't see the need for a chip...

[DiscoDB]

Maybe we can have a collection taken up for us poor TDV6 2.7 owners.

.:p

While you are at it, spare a few coins for us poverty stricken Td5 D2 owners - we have to live in the back ours and that ain't as easy with the shorter wheelbase!

[Muskie]

you're all so Funny, Peter does have a good sense of humour.

Pls don't take any offense, as he's really a nice Bloke!

i had a giggle anyway, especially about the biscuits !!:p:p:p:p

[LandyAndy]

Would be interesting to know which vehicles he has been chipping for 38 years;););););)
Im happy with my performance over the D2 TD5,it may change when loaded and towing.
I wont be touching it whilst under warrantty;);););););)
Andrew

[jon3950]

Im happy with my performance over the D2 TD5,it may change when loaded and towing.

Somehow I don't think it will. :)

Cheers,
Jon

[isuzurover]

Would be interesting to know which vehicles he has been chipping for 38 years;););););)
Im happy with my performance over the D2 TD5,it may change when loaded and towing.
I wont be touching it whilst under warrantty;);););););)
Andrew

The NZ guy is a reseller. Superchips UK claims to have been doing (petrol) ECU remaps since 1977. Though I am not sure what had efi back then - even a Saab 900 turbo had mechanical injection in 1979.

I would like to see safe defined by the op and what testing the company has done to confirm this.

[jon3950]

I should have written this last night as I can't quote the original post now, but some of the their claims about working closely with manufacturers and keeping within their tolerances seem a bit of a stretch. I'd like to see them back those claims up.

From what I know of Superchips, they are involved in a couple of racing series in the UK, one of which has a loose connection with Volkswagen UK, but I'm fairly certain they have no involvement with the VW WRC team.

As for working closely with manufacturers, I'd be very surprised if JLR were sharing any engine data with them.

Vague statements like those are easy to make on the internet, but they are at best deceptive.

I'm not making any comment on whether it is a good product or not, just their marketing. However I just can't see the point in re-mapping a 2.5t road-going 4wd that has enough power to do everything it needs to very comfortably - and I include the 2.7 that some of you "poor" people seem to be driving.

Cheers,
Jon

[gghaggis]

For those of you on the West Coast that want to consider a remap, Peter's thinking of coming over and giving a short talk at one of the GOE seminars, with a "price for the day" offer on the remaps whilst he's here.

The details haven't been worked out yet, but if you're interested PM or email me and I'll send updates when they're to hand.

Cheers,

Gordon

[Redback]

I also want to make the poorer people with their 2.7l TDV6 aware of the fact that if your 2.7l D4 has the Bosch ECU, it will need to be re-mapped in the same way as the 3.0L D4, on the bench, so ECU removed and sent to Superchip.
Only the 2.7l D4 with the Siemans ECU can be re-mapped with a file downloaded by the device to the ECU.

Baz.

[scarry]

I also want to make the poorer people with their 2.7l TDV6 aware of the fact that if your 2.7l D4 has the Bosch ECU, it will need to be re-mapped in the same way as the 3.0L D4, on the bench, so ECU removed and sent to Superchip.
Only the 2.7l D4 with the Siemans ECU can be re-mapped with a file downloaded by the device to the ECU.

Baz.

And how do us poorer people work out which ECU we have?
Does it work on MY?
Or is it easy to tell by looking at it.

[pibby]

Why did the posts questioning if this was advertising get removed? Thought they were legitimate questions deserving a legitimate answer. Normally posts like this have a disclaimer from the originator saying they are not connected with the product so you know whether to take them with a grain of salt (at least I do).

[AnD3rew]

Why did the posts questioning if this was advertising get removed? Thought they were legitimate questions deserving a legitimate answer. Normally posts like this have a disclaimer from the originator saying they are not connected with the product so you know whether to take them with a grain of salt (at least I do).

Maybe because they weren't relevant after the original post was deleted?

[isuzurover]

Maybe because they weren't relevant after the original post was deleted?

The whole thread is not relevant after the OP had a tanty and deleted it...

I thought Inc changed the system to stop people being able to do that?

[LandyAndy]

The whole thread is not relevant after the OP had a tanty and deleted it...

I thought Inc changed the system to stop people being able to do that?

Ben
I think you will find those posts were deleted by the moderating team for blatant advertising.
I deleted the thread,its been re-instated as there is some usefull additional information posted.
Andrew

[Ean Austral]

Why did the posts questioning if this was advertising get removed? Thought they were legitimate questions deserving a legitimate answer. Normally posts like this have a disclaimer from the originator saying they are not connected with the product so you know whether to take them with a grain of salt (at least I do).


If you read the text left by the moderator it tells you why. Once the post was deleted the next post asking if it was advertising was irrelevant and was deleted.


Cheers Ean

[Redback]

And how do us poorer people work out which ECU we have?
Does it work on MY?
Or is it easy to tell by looking at it.

When I spoke to a tuner in the UK about this, he said you are better off looking to be sure.
He couldn't understand how I had a MY11 2.7l, the UK don't have the 2.7l after MY10, even more confusing for him was the fact that my 2.7l D4 is a July 2011 build.

I also spoke to Davis Performance Landy, he said that he could do it, but couldn't garrantee it would work AND if it didn't work, wouldn't refund us the $850 it cost, his solution, buy a second ECU, that way if it didn't work, you still had a working ECU:eek:
So $600 odd for the ECU, $850 for the tune spent for no result, he thought that's OK:twisted:

Hence we have no tune, I didn't bother re-contacting the tuner in the UK to ask if he could garrantee it would work, but he did say he does warrant all his work when I was originally talking to him.

Jonesy63 has a superchip tune in his D4, he said his works, maybe PM him.

Baz.

[PeterOZ]

Well I drive a D3 2.7 TDV6 and I'm definteily poor, married/divorced twice, paid child support and still do on one. do the maths.

I got the car the and lease plan!

Now does this wonderful chip/remap come with steak knives? Id rahter the dicer gadget. i can hear Joe the Gadget man now - byeeeee now!

I have looked at this remapping a few times and lots of people swear by it, good on them but my thoughts are you are placing the engine into parmenters it was not meant to run in. Instead of plodding along nice a stress free like an old big block V8, well not quite, instead you are making it scream like a F1. Exaggeration perhaps but it is working harder.
Are the EGT also raised? What increase in pressure on big ends, mains and those critical journals?

For those that keep a vehicle 2 or 3 years becase they are not poor not so much an issue as they have a shiny new one to play with and any issues are passed on to the next sod, err owner. Called transfer of risk in my game.

I am quite happy with what I have, it runs well, has reasonable power and hopefully once I do the intercooler hoses with nice blue silicon ones will be even better. I also need to check that turbo actuator arm mmm

Just me sumasing so dont take offence. I just dont see the point in risking an already stressed engine by hooking up its gonads to some electric shock treatment :eek:


I see to recall the early Patrol 3.0 engines were very highly stressed, the big ends or main bearings and I think might be the rear pistons used to cook on those. all in the name of getting that last bit of oompf.

Rant over :wasntme:

[SBD4]

I admire your objective view Dr!

Sounds like that vehicle never got serviced!

[jonesy63]

And how do us poorer people work out which ECU we have?
Does it work on MY?
Or is it easy to tell by looking at it.

Not MY - both Baz and my D4 are MY11... so it must have changed between mine and his! I'll look tomorrow to see the manufacture month of mine.

[DiscoDB]

I have looked at this remapping a few times and lots of people swear by it, good on them but my thoughts are you are placing the engine into parmenters it was not meant to run in. Instead of plodding along nice a stress free like an old big block V8, well not quite, instead you are making it scream like a F1. Exaggeration perhaps but it is working harder.
Are the EGT also raised? What increase in pressure on big ends, mains and those critical journals?

For those that keep a vehicle 2 or 3 years becase they are not poor not so much an issue as they have a shiny new one to play with and any issues are passed on to the next sod, err owner. Called transfer of risk in my game.

I am quite happy with what I have, it runs well, has reasonable power and hopefully once I do the intercooler hoses with nice blue silicon ones will be even better. I also need to check that turbo actuator arm mmm

Just me sumasing so dont take offence. I just dont see the point in risking an already stressed engine by hooking up its gonads to some electric shock treatment :eek:

Peter - your concerns are all valid. Any increase in performance from the same engine is a compromise between risk and reward. If you were ultra conservative you could de-tune an engine (or just use that connection between brain an right foot) knowing you will get many years of reliable performance.

I find it interesting to watch the car companies start with a fairly mild engine and then progressively offer each new upgrade the same engine with more power. How much remapping has been done with the 3L to now get 200Nm of torque per litre capacity. That would put the Td5 at 500Nm, or the 2.7 at 540Nm - figures scoffed at not that long ago. Are the Pistons ceramic coated, is the head something special, all good questions? Whilst under warranty not an issue.

For me, I will happily take the risk once a car is out of warranty and seek the regards within moderation. My crude as tuning box on the Td5 pushes the torque up beyond the limits of the gearbox, and yes the gearbox is on its way out, but it has been fun. When I do upgrade to a D3 or D4 and get bored with the improvements over the D2, I am sure I will start again to seek that incremental improvement. Just never take more risk than you are prepared to pay for or write off!

Just came home with the D2, entering the freeway on ramp nice gentle curve which tightens up, in 4th (the one gear that makes no terrible noises), plant it at 50kph and quickly accelerate up to 110kph limit with a good solid push in the back, slight cloud of grey smoke, and I instantly crack up laughing. Yes juvenile I know. But some of us are just boys and girls playing with our toys.

[jon3950]

Just never take more risk than you are prepared to pay for or write off!

That's the important bit. Unfortunately the way these things are marketed, many people are not aware of the risks they are taking.

cheers,
Jon

[jonesy63]

One other thing to consider - the bottom end of the D4 2.7 is the same as the 3L. That is good for 183kW, so not so much a risk as remapping a D3 2.7. That said, the engineers also factor in breathing space and can also detune to suit fuel available - remember 500 ppm sulphur diesel was around when the D3 was released.

[Kieren]

Newbie question, I'm under the impression that the 3.0l TDV6, SDV6 for the Disco and RRS is the same physical engine just mapped differently. So why would a little tuning to get closer to the full power version hurt?

[PeterOZ]

It is worth noting the difference in thinking.

I'm ex RAAF so lets use an analogy related to that.

The Russians build some damn nice aircraft and very lethal fighters. They are powered by turbofan engines that put out by Western standards incredible amounts of thrust for a similar sized engine.

Interestingly the avionics and in particular the radar systems have been tweaked to transmit increadible amounts of peak power through rather narrow radar apetures.

All sound familar?

The GE F414 turbofan that powers our current Superbugs, that is F/A-18F Super Hornet is deliberatly de-rated from some 25,000lbs of thuust in full AB down to some 22,000lbs. This emans the core operates much cooler, engine life is much longer and MTBF is considerably better.

If a comparison was done on avaial;bility rates for modern Western aircraft like the superbug compared to say the SU-27 series the Superbug would win hands down. It is delsigned for reliability in mind and longevity. Russian thinking is to produce as many aircraft as possible and hope enough will be working for a shooting war.

Western thinking is keep cots down yet generate max number of sorties per aircraft.

So yes tweak those engines up and enjoy playing with them.

All a trade off and compromise. As one has aluded to right foot is a big de-tuner in its own right.

[isuzurover]

...

I have looked at this remapping a few times and lots of people swear by it, good on them but my thoughts are you are placing the engine into parmenters it was not meant to run in. Instead of plodding along nice a stress free like an old big block V8, well not quite, instead you are making it scream like a F1. Exaggeration perhaps but it is working harder.
Are the EGT also raised? What increase in pressure on big ends, mains and those critical journals?

...

They are valid concerns. The remap people will of course claim there is no change in engine life, but of course they haven't measured that.
Indeed, many remapping companies these days are filled with people who may understand IT and electronics but have no qualifications in mechanical / automotive engineering.

The only modification which could be argued not to affect engine life (or even improve it) is EGT removal. However it should be noted that is illegal. However so is chipping/remapping an engine if it means it no longer passes emissions.

You should hear what automotive engineers who design engines for major truck companies say about rechipping...



...

I see to recall the early Patrol 3.0 engines were very highly stressed, the big ends or main bearings and I think might be the rear pistons used to cook on those. all in the name of getting that last bit of oompf.

...

This bit is not quite true AFAIK. The failures were due to problems with the engine management systems - and were at the top end of the motor not the bottom. This was in the early days of modern engine management and there weren't adequate controls for overfuelling when the turbo vanes malfunctioned. [ which shows that even major manufacturers with lots of R&D $$$ don't always get it right either ].

However you raise a good point. Engine designers consider everything Landrover size and smaller "toy" engines, and do not design them to last much longer than the warranty period.

[PeterOZ]

some interesting points. Think it was in one of the 4x4 journals about the issues with the Patrol donks, especially when operating on the beach or towing.

EGT I was referring to the exhaust gas temps, not the valve. If you are forcing more fuel in and obtaining more grunt it stands to reason the gasses are getting hotter which will have an adverse effect on the longevity of the donk.

I have to say I was very surprised when I first looked at the D3 back in 2007 that it was a 2.7L engine! A few test drives later and a bit of research convinced me to go ahead.

One does wonder though at the different approaches. the Yanks, Dodge, Ford etc have these huge 4x4 ute things with whopping big "train" engines of the GM or Detriot variety. Not overly refined or fuel effiecient but they would pull a tree stump out and chug along quite happily. big block V8 theory. chug chug chug.


So pay your money, chip it up have fun and repair or pass on as appropriate.

As I'm a poor bachelor I need mine to keep on chugging along for quite some time yet. So regualr services essential. Restrain my right foot and natural inclination to be a hoon.

So will find a bowls hat and find a Volvo (or is it Ford badge now) and plod along while listening to Red Hot Chili Peppers or the like while those behind comapin at my audacity for sticking to speed limits. :angel:

[PAT303]

I don't go for this over stressed rubbish,if you look at real life experiences engine size means nothing in regards to engine life,engine design,engine fitment,conditions of use and how they are maintained are the things that matter,real life proves that.If you do the normal 10K engine services,50K tranny and cooling system services all things considered you should have no issue's remembering they are vehicles,things do go wrong,from my experience people have trouble and blame the engine because of it's size instead of looking for the real cause. Pat

[PAT303]

It is worth noting the difference in thinking.

I'm ex RAAF so lets use an analogy related to that.

The Russians build some damn nice aircraft and very lethal fighters. They are powered by turbofan engines that put out by Western standards incredible amounts of thrust for a similar sized engine.

Interestingly the avionics and in particular the radar systems have been tweaked to transmit increadible amounts of peak power through rather narrow radar apetures.

All sound familar?

The GE F414 turbofan that powers our current Superbugs, that is F/A-18F Super Hornet is deliberatly de-rated from some 25,000lbs of thuust in full AB down to some 22,000lbs. This emans the core operates much cooler, engine life is much longer and MTBF is considerably better.

If a comparison was done on avaial;bility rates for modern Western aircraft like the superbug compared to say the SU-27 series the Superbug would win hands down. It is delsigned for reliability in mind and longevity. Russian thinking is to produce as many aircraft as possible and hope enough will be working for a shooting war.

Western thinking is keep cots down yet generate max number of sorties per aircraft.

So yes tweak those engines up and enjoy playing with them.

All a trade off and compromise. As one has aluded to right foot is a big de-tuner in its own right.

The engines are turned down because it's peace time,if we were in a shooting war would the tune stay the same?,no chance. Pat

[PeterOZ]

I don't think you understand engines especially aircraft.

[isuzurover]

...

EGT I was referring to the exhaust gas temps, not the valve. If you are forcing more fuel in and obtaining more grunt it stands to reason the gasses are getting hotter which will have an adverse effect on the longevity of the donk.

...

Sorry I meant to type EGR not EGT.

On the topic of EGT, anyone who does any engine tuning or chipping without first fitting an EGT guage is insane IMHO.

[PeterOZ]

I agree heartily about checking EGT.

No worries, worked out what you meant. Can't do it on mine, well not without fitting an old one to fool the ECU which is very naughty to do so. :wasntme::angel:

Nope havent done it, still have the valves fitted. Toying with idea of pulling them out and the throttle body to give them all a clean out but not sure it would be worth the hassle?:confused:

[PAT303]

I don't think you understand engines especially aircraft.

I read that straight from an RAAF article about prolonging in service aircraft engine life,can't believe anything these days. Pat

[PAT303]

Sorry I meant to type EGR not EGT.

On the topic of EGT, anyone who does any engine tuning or chipping without first fitting an EGT guage is insane IMHO.

I wonder how many chip manufacturers and back yard tuners bother?,I bet excessive EGT's is a leading contender in engine failures. Pat

[Celtoid]

I don't think you understand engines especially aircraft.









As an ex RAAFie myself .... a pilot is quite capable of burning the hot end out of a jet engine, over-boosting the old Caribou or over-speeding a prop in a C130J .... over-torqueing, stalling, breaking lifting surfaces off the aircraft ...


A whole myriad of things can go wrong and can be induced.


And if you knew anything about modern multi-engine jet aircraft you'd know that degradation or loss of one engine will allow you to run the other to exceed it's "safe" limits.


So Pat's comment about tuning may not be technically correct ... but ... no need for the Dis!


You've waded into a pool of so many variables with no way of measuring ...


The old L13 Lycoming engine in the H model Huey (1300SHP) was (once all the peripherals were taken off) quite a bit larger than the GE T700 that the Australian Blackhawk is running. As in, the turning and burning parts in the newer T700 are smaller but produce a lot more power ... in normal flight mode. They also have the ability in several levels of contingency to exceed 2000SHP. A Rolls Royce version of the same engine running in a civil Westland variant of the Blackhawk exceeded 3000 SHP.... same size engine.


So the RR engine was not designed for boy racers, nor was it down or over-tuned .... it was just designed.... possibly like the JLR Engines ;).


So did you get the other part? ... contingency power ..... I think it's common on all platforms! That was Pat's point I think.


What's the physical size difference of a Super or Classic Hornet's engine Vs the F111? I think they produce far more power for their size Vs the older engine, don't they? ... all from the same conservative US engine industry...

Panavia Tornados were capable of running on far more AB time than any American equivalent at the time. Doesn't actually make the engine any better (unless you are flying the thing and wanting to be somewhere else... for whatever reason) but it's just a case of engineering.

Is it possible ... has it crossed your mind, that the Yanks design under their limits to stop failures versus longevity. They design phenomenal stuff but their maintenance regimes and people are sub-standard (that sounds nasty ... but If you've worked in the ADF and have ever seen how the US AF, Marines or Army maintain their aircraft, you'd know exactly what I mean)....so they have to compensate. As an Ex-RAAF'ie you would know that to be true.

Mean Time Between Failure is stated but often not quantified or qualified in a true measurable sense .... and if you dug into the root cause of that analysis it's a Pandora's Box of politics, etc. When have you ever seen anything designed using the LSAR data? It's a BS methodology, yet the industry hangs on to it. It is useful as a CM tool but all the things about engineering being based on reliability engineering data, functional maintenance, etc, is generally BS. Geeks design and the Logis figure out (or not) how to support.


So getting back on track, is there actually anything to suggest a 3.0 TTD in a D4 is stressed? Never read that! :)

[Redback]

As an ex RAAFie myself .... a pilot is quite capable of burning the hot end out of a jet engine, over-boosting the old Caribou or over-speeding a prop in a C130J .... over-torqueing, stalling, breaking lifting surfaces off the aircraft ...


A whole myriad of things can go wrong and can be induced.


And if you knew anything about modern multi-engine jet aircraft you'd know that degradation or loss of one engine will allow you to run the other to exceed it's "safe" limits.


So Pat's comment about tuning may not be technically correct ... but ... no need for the Dis!


You've waded into a pool of so many variables with no way of measuring ...


The old L13 Lycoming engine in the H model Huey (1300SHP) was (once all the peripherals were taken off) quite a bit larger than the GE T700 that the Australian Blackhawk is running. As in, the turning and burning parts in the newer T700 are smaller but produce a lot more power ... in normal flight mode. They also have the ability in several levels of contingency to exceed 2000SHP. A Rolls Royce version of the same engine running in a civil Westland variant of the Blackhawk exceeded 3000 SHP.... same size engine.


So the RR engine was not designed for boy racers, nor was it down or over-tuned .... it was just designed.... possibly like the JLR Engines ;).


So did you get the other part? ... contingency power ..... I think it's common on all platforms! That was Pat's point I think.


What's the physical size difference of a Super or Classic Hornet's engine Vs the F111? I think they produce far more power for their size Vs the older engine, don't they? ... all from the same conservative US engine industry...

Panavia Tornados were capable of running on far more AB time than any American equivalent at the time. Doesn't actually make the engine any better (unless you are flying the thing and wanting to be somewhere else... for whatever reason) but it's just a case of engineering.

Is it possible ... has it crossed your mind, that the Yanks design under their limits to stop failures versus longevity. They design phenomenal stuff but their maintenance regimes and people are sub-standard (that sounds nasty ... but If you've worked in the ADF and have ever seen how the US AF, Marines or Army maintain their aircraft, you'd know exactly what I mean)....so they have to compensate. As an Ex-RAAF'ie you would know that to be true.

Mean Time Between Failure is stated but often not quantified or qualified in a true measurable sense .... and if you dug into the root cause of that analysis it's a Pandora's Box of politics, etc. When have you ever seen anything designed using the LSAR data? It's a BS methodology, yet the industry hangs on to it. It is useful as a CM tool but all the things about engineering being based on reliability engineering data, functional maintenance, etc, is generally BS. Geeks design and the Logis figure out (or not) how to support.


So getting back on track, is there actually anything to suggest a 3.0 TTD in a D4 is stressed? Never read that! :)

I won't comment on the 2.7L AND 3.0L TDV6, as I'm not qualified to do so, but I would imagine the SDV6 would not be stressed, being the de-tuned version of the TDV6.

What I really don't understand, why would you get a power upgrade on the 3.0l, I mean really, how much power do you need.

Having the 2.7l, I would like a touch more, but a lot more, a mild tune would suffice, something that's not going to increase EGTs a lot, and I would be definately getting a gauge to monitor them also, something that I think tuners should include with the tune.

Baz.

[SBD4]

Interesting that LR have 5 variants of the same 3.0ltr engine:

155Kw/520Nm introduced MY13 - replaced 2.7ltr
180Kw/600Nm introduced MY10 and replaced MY13 by 183 variant
183Kw/600Nm introduced MY13
190Kw/600Nm introduced MY13 in RRS
215Kw/600Nm introduced MY13 in RRS

Does show there is some head room in the engine for up-rating output.

[PeterOZ]

blah blah blah

dont speak your mind when tossers with no knowledge bleat.

[TerryO]

Interesting that LR have 5 variants of the same 3.0ltr engine:

155Kw/520Nm introduced MY13 - replaced 2.7ltr
180Kw/600Nm introduced MY10 and replaced MY13 by 183 variant
183Kw/600Nm introduced MY13
190Kw/600Nm introduced MY13 in RRS
215Kw/600Nm introduced MY13 in RRS

Does show there is some head room in the engine for up-rating output.


Note they have only increased top end horsepower and not torque. More top end hp in a 4wd is nice but in most applications pointless unless your a constant traffic light drag racer. Most of these other upgrades have substantial increases in torque which is where LR have avoided any increase, what does that say?

[PeterOZ]

I won't comment on the 2.7L AND 3.0L TDV6, as I'm not qualified to do so, but I would imagine the SDV6 would not be stressed, being the de-tuned version of the TDV6.

What I really don't understand, why would you get a power upgrade on the 3.0l, I mean really, how much power do you need.

Having the 2.7l, I would like a touch more, but a lot more, a mild tune would suffice, something that's not going to increase EGTs a lot, and I would be definately getting a gauge to monitor them also, something that I think tuners should include with the tune.

Baz.

so its ok for you to carry on is it?

Military engines are de-tuned, RAAF did de-tune many of it's engines from the Mirage through to F111 and current fighters being the classic and super hornets. It's a fact.

If you don't like my opnion and comments then tough, I really don't care for yours either

[Tombie]

so its ok for you to carry on is it?

Military engines are de-tuned, RAAF did de-tune many of it's engines from the Mirage through to F111 and current fighters being the classic and super hornets. It's a fact.

If you don't like my opnion and comments then tough, I really don't care for yours either

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/02/60.jpg

[PeterOZ]

whatever, have one yourself

Seems to be alot of double standards applied. Some are allowed to say whatever the hell they like in whatever tone they like while others are jumped on.

Listen for the whistle as my care factor falls.

[Redback]

so its ok for you to carry on is it?

Military engines are de-tuned, RAAF did de-tune many of it's engines from the Mirage through to F111 and current fighters being the classic and super hornets. It's a fact.

If you don't like my opnion and comments then tough, I really don't care for yours either

I wasn't directing my comments at you or being rude to anyone, just commenting about the TDV6 having enough power that you really don't need more power.

But comments like the bold above really don't serve any purpose other than to antagonise people.

You don't need to be aggressive to put your point across.

Baz.

[PeterOZ]

I wasn't directing my comments at you or being rude to anyone, just commenting about the TDV6 having enough power that you really don't need more power.

But comments like the bold above really don't serve any purpose other than to antagonise people.

You don't need to be aggressive to put your point across.

Baz.

oh and again it seems fine for people to abuse me antangonise me yet nothing said or done about anyone else.

[Redback]

oh and again it seems fine for people to abuse me antangonise me yet nothing said or done about anyone else.

F the lot of you.

If you find people have antagonised or abused you, just report them and let the Mods sort it out.

Baz.

[Tombie]

oh and again it seems fine for people to abuse me antangonise me yet nothing said or done about anyone else.

F the lot of you.

Are you ok Peter?

Seems you're having a rough day.

Sit back, relax... Its Friday...

Hope you're ok and its nothing too serious that's troubling you.

[Celtoid]

Are you ok Peter?

Seems you're having a rough day.

Sit back, relax... Its Friday...

Hope you're ok and its nothing too serious that's troubling you.


I second that Tombie.


I'm not sure what has gone wrong in this conversation and I hope that everything is OK.

[scarry]

Back on topic.:D

Maybe i do need one of those chip thingys.

A late model D4D lowlux beat me up the range last weekend,only just though.

Some young guy with his cap on backwards.

Must have been chipped;)

Anyway,about 2 k's before Dalby,there he was talking to the boys in blue:D:D

[Muskie]

have a drive of mine first Paul....then decide of you want more Power on Tap:cool:

[giskard]

Newbie question, I'm under the impression that the 3.0l TDV6, SDV6 for the Disco and RRS is the same physical engine just mapped differently. So why would a little tuning to get closer to the full power version hurt?

I asked this question when I got my TDV6. Apparently the engines (or turbo's) are different. So it's not as simple as a remap, to bring it up to the same power as SDV6.

[astonm]

Some interesting reading in this thread, especialy being that I am planning on some form of upgrade to my TDV8 RRS fairly soon.

I'm sure as per previous comments, some may think, what the hell do you need to do that for, you should have more than enough thrust.
Well sure, it's no slouch, but I am aware that the engine / gearbox management is often seriously limiting it, based on a set of very conservative rules that ensure minimal wrty for Landrover and also keep emissions well within specification for the numerous fuel qualities, temperatures etc that one may be exposed to in various parts of the world, .... a lot of which arnt relevant to me. ie compromised settings to suit all.

From what I have read, and what I can feel in small doses, before the managemnet throttles things back. There is considerably more potential available in this platform..... Possibly enough to stretch my permagrin from ear to ear :D:D

I would guess the same would be the case with the TDV6 in any of its forms.
Interesting point from SBD4 re: various and continualy increasing power outputs.

Interesting that LR have 5 variants of the same 3.0ltr engine:

155Kw/520Nm introduced MY13 - replaced 2.7ltr
180Kw/600Nm introduced MY10 and replaced MY13 by 183 variant
183Kw/600Nm introduced MY13
190Kw/600Nm introduced MY13 in RRS
215Kw/600Nm introduced MY13 in RRS

Does show there is some head room in the engine for up-rating output.

Indicates to me that the engineering strengths are already there, but more so the control systems are becoming more capable of doing just that.... CONTROL
Keeping the unit out of harm by more rapidly and more acurratly monitoring and controlling it up towards its engineering limits to gain more potential output.

Re TerryO's comment about maximum 600NM torque


Note they have only increased top end horsepower and not torque. More top end hp in a 4wd is nice but in most applications pointless unless your a constant traffic light drag racer. Most of these other upgrades have substantial increases in torque which is where LR have avoided any increase, what does that say?


That is interesting, wonder if its transmission related or something else within the driveline ?

And that really is what its all about... keeping within a dont break me tollerance, while also staying within a wear and servicing cost acceptable sweet spot.

I have noticed there are a lot more conpanies coming in to play that do this as their core business, some of which I'm sure do work with the major marques to arrive at the standard MAPS.
There are various options out their, such as:
Plug in Tunning Box's
Drive in / Drive out tuning file remapps
Same as previous with Dyno fine tune
Remove ecu for tuning file remap application via return mail
Hand held programmer to upload via OBD2 port

Also, there are local companies using many of the above, and also drawing on Tuning files from Europe, particularly Germany as well as UK and US.

It is a bit of a mind field of quoted performance figures too, some quoting Crank output, others quoting at wheels output
Some quoting instant Peak output, others quoting at specific RPM or average across a range..... if they cant supply a realistic set of Data or Charts, why bother.

Im tending towards a hand held programmer, whereby you recieve the unit, connect to the OBD port, download the existing vehicle map to it, post via email, recieve modified map by return email. upload modified map back to vehicle.... Enjoy extra thrust:twisted: or experince the pain of a poor choice:eek:

It allows you to quickly at any time load the original standard map back into the vehicle before servicing / warranty etc, or have a number of different tunning files on the unit to choose from if desired, or can be moved on to a different vehicle (some locked to a VIN unless u pay a bit more)

My overall view of it is
If your more conservative, play it safe.... If your inclined to be more adventurous with technology ... do your research and dip your toe in cautiously.... as I said, I plan to, and will post the experience for better or worse

I suspect, that within a couple of years, the general discusion in a thread such as this wont be a question of whether to do it or not, but rather... there Will be a prefered method... and the questions will be discussing the merits of one particular tuning file over another.

There are certainly valid points about over stressing, or more so increasing potential stress on the drivetrain as a whole.

Also some very interesting reading re the RAAF analogies.... thanks guys


Hope I havnt offended anyone along the way

Regards Neil M :cool:

[TerryO]

I will soon be fitting a BAS upgrade for the 2.7 in the D3, I bought the upgrade years ago and never fitted it because of a number of reasons that should now be sorted, I hope.

Do I expect this to make the 2.7 a handgrenade? Nope, it's been done hundreds of times and most everyone has been rapt with the power increase and fuel saving and to date I have not read anywhere a report saying that their engine blew up within any period of time after doing a BAS remap.

Having said that the power increases with a BAS remap are modest, but I'm happy with that, however I would think twice about remapping the ECU on a 3.0 litre where the claims of increased HP are massive. Especially if they claim huge increases in torque. Then again after having been through the process of having to have a new 2.7 fitted and the associated drama's, even though it cost me nothing, I would not take any undue risk in getting maximum HP and Torque out of a small capacity diesel because I do not want to ever have to replace another engine in a late model Disco. To that end I even decided after the hassles in getting a new 2.7 fitted that when I finally bought a D4 that I would rather pay extra in fuel bills by buying a V8 petrol then risk a out of warranty 3.0 that may end up having issues. To date I have not seen one report of a 5.0 V8 petrol blowing up or needing big dollar maintenance done to it like I have with the 3.0.

[astonm]

What I didn't mention in the previous post, was that I have had experience with a Tuning box product previously.
This was a Chip Express unit installed in a Citroen C5 TDV6 - same motor as the LR 2.7 with Twin Turbos (Ford / PSA joint project)

My experince with that was, generaly good
It reduced the Turbo lag considerably, and improved the fuel economy
There were several settings that could be modified, however via dip switch with the unit mounted under the bonnet, not easily accessable.

So I tended to leave it set on the more conservative side of its possibilities, and I would say at those settings, the increased power output was not as stated.... (turbo lag definately reduced)

When stepped up to be more power oriented, it was certainly more powerfull, but less refined, and I found a bit of an annoying tendancy to hunt on the highway..... This was purchased 5 years ago mind you, so there are a lot more current options available now, and I would choose differently

I didnt have any issues with reliability during the time it was installed.

regrds Neil

[jonesy63]

Not MY - both Baz and my D4 are MY11... so it must have changed between mine and his! I'll look tomorrow to see the manufacture month of mine.

FWIW - mine is a March 2011 build 2.7 D4. Superchips Bluefin loaded on it fine, although I wish that BAS would do one for it - I prefer his tune.

[rar110]

The RRV tdv8 has the same ZF 6 speed tranny and similar diffs as the D3 as far as I can tell. Stock standard the tdv8 produces 200kw/640nm. So a D3 should cope with an upgrade.

[Graeme]

There are many versions of the 6HP26X (not including the 6HP28X version) gearboxes used in LRs. As an example there are at least 4 different 6HP26X output shafts that mate to the rear planetary gear and mate to the same transfer case, 3 versions of the clutch E drum and input shaft just to mention 2 items. Just because the torque and power is OK for one version doesn't mean its OK for another.

[rar110]

There are many versions of the 6HP26X (not including the 6HP28X version) gearboxes used in LRs. As an example there are at least 4 different 6HP26X output shafts that mate to the rear planetary gear and mate to the same transfer case, 3 versions of the clutch E drum and input shaft just to mention 2 items. Just because the torque and power is OK for one version doesn't mean its OK for another.

Thanks Graeme, so a motor with more power/torque is probably specially matched to a ZF version to deal with such outputs?

[Graeme]

Yes. As an example the 6HP28X used in MY2010+ LRs have different versions with different gear/clutch components for the 3.0 TDV6, the na 5.0 V8 and the SC 5.0 V8 with the 3.0 version handling more low rev torque than either of the petrol V8s.

[Redback]

FWIW - mine is a March 2011 build 2.7 D4. Superchips Bluefin loaded on it fine, although I wish that BAS would do one for it - I prefer his tune.


I hate you

I hate you

I hate you










































Did I mention, I hate you:p

Baz.

[~Rich~]

Got my mail Baz?

BTW I have the BAS remap too Baz, but alas only a D3 - so you don't have to hate me. ;)

[Redback]

Got my mail Baz?

BTW I have the BAS remap too Baz, but alas only a D3 - so you don't have to hate me. ;)

Yes Rich, thanks for that, some good shots in there;)

Baz.

[jonesy63]

Did I mention, I hate you:p

Baz.

I think I read that somewhere! :D

Though you never mentioned your build month! :wasntme: