2.2 fuel economy!!!

[Welly]

so just when you're easing off due to wheelspin

[gumby6371]

I take it then Doggy you don't get the ....nothing...nothing...wheel spin....whip lash driving experience in yours?
Me thinks some more fettling will be happening this weekend!

[jonsowman]

Yes Jon, the generic map it is, I did try the '200' map but found it way too 'jerky' on acceleration to be user friendly day to day and a bit dangerous on wet roads. Trying to nip out of a junction when the wheels turn but you don't go any where can turn your undies a slightly darker colour in rush hour traffic.
Other than a noisy top link that I still haven't sorted and an airbag light that stayed off just long enough to pass its MoT retest I'm quite pleased with her at the minute.

Good stuff, thank you. I must investigate some of these options when I have more than 20 seconds spare time!

[gumby6371]

You know it makes sense Jon,
one sunny afternoon twirling spanners on the drive and she'll be a touch lighter, quicker and a bit less thirsty.

If she keeps behaving herself I might even get the nice new oil and filters that have been sitting in my shed for 6 weeks and actually service the engine!

[rossd]

With that "generic" remap, your trip computer won't be reading accurately. Taking a look at the generic file that was floating around the coupe forum some time ago in WinOLS, its technically a VERY crap file. Yes it makes your car more powerful, but it's essentially taken out all the built in ECU safety limits and "de-calibrated" the whole ECU structure.

The trip computer works by the ECU telling it how much fuel it is injecting into the engine at any given point along with the speed of the car and distance travelled to work out the fuel consumption. With the awful remap file you have, the ECU doesn't actually know how much fuel its injecting as it is being fooled by the bodged calibration. Therefore, it supplies what it thinks is being injected, but in reality the IQ amount is a lot higher due to the remap.


Use the proven "fill the tank" method and you will find the reality is your MPG is probably a bit lower!

[gumby6371]

With that "generic" remap, your trip computer won't be reading accurately. Taking a look at the generic file that was floating around the coupe forum some time ago in WinOLS, its technically a VERY crap file. Yes it makes your car more powerful, but it's essentially taken out all the built in ECU safety limits and "de-calibrated" the whole ECU structure.

The trip computer works by the ECU telling it how much fuel it is injecting into the engine at any given point along with the speed of the car and distance travelled to work out the fuel consumption. With the awful remap file you have, the ECU doesn't actually know how much fuel its injecting as it is being fooled by the bodged calibration. Therefore, it supplies what it thinks is being injected, but in reality the IQ amount is a lot higher due to the remap.


Use the proven "fill the tank" method and you will find the reality is your MPG is probably a bit lower!

You have a valid point but I always brim it when the light comes on and I'm usually within 1 to 1.5 miles of the stated figure, I have yet to find a car that was particularly accurate whether the map was standard or not.
My point was purely that the 2.2 can be reasonably economical with a few tweeks here and there even if the trip is telling you little white lies.

It would be interesting to know what the economy would be like on a standard 136 map with the FAP and EGR removed if anyone has one ? It could be my monday to Friday map on the pootle to work and back

[GingerMagic]

WEll, my replacement is de-fap and egr blanked on a standard map ( at the moment ) so I will do a week and let you know how I get on.....

[gumby6371]

Has the map been modified to not care about the FAP or are you just running it until it notices?

[Doggy]

WEll, my replacement is de-fap and egr blanked on a standard map ( at the moment ) so I will do a week and let you know how I get on.....

Be interesting to see how that goes, but my experience suggests you get as least as much of a fuel efficiency gain from installing a no-EGR map as you get from the EGR blank alone.

FWIW my trip computer seems very accurate - last 2 tankfuls have shown 50.5 mpg on the trip display and calculated figures from brimming the tank of 50.8 and 49.9 respectively. In nearly 6 years, two 406's, various maps and 120k miles, I have never found the trip computer to be significantly inaccurate.

[GingerMagic]

WEll, my replacement is de-fap and egr blanked on a standard map ( at the moment ) so I will do a week and let you know how I get on.....

Be interesting to see how that goes, but my experience suggests you get as least as much of a fuel efficiency gain from installing a no-EGR map as you get from the EGR blank alone.

FWIW my trip computer seems very accurate - last 2 tankfuls have shown 50.5 mpg on the trip display and calculated figures from brimming the tank of 50.8 and 49.9 respectively. In nearly 6 years, two 406's, various maps and 120k miles, I have never found the trip computer to be significantly inaccurate.

+1, I didn't really trust mine at first - especially with the big fluctuations in numbers but when I work it out myself it is normally pretty good.

Has the map been modified to not care about the FAP or are you just running it until it notices?

I am just hoping that the car isn't bothered about it and its just happy to be able to breath properly...........

I have the new maps, along with Galletto - just waiting for another couple of weeks to make sure everything is okay first.

[Doggy]

I am just hoping that the car isn't bothered about it and its just happy to be able to breath properly...........

When I first blanked my EGR, I continued using the '180 no-FAP' map, (with egr), for several weeks. No EML or MFD warning messages, but PP2k did reveal the usual, "EGR circuit - air flow higher than expected", message.

[GingerMagic]

With that "generic" remap, your trip computer won't be reading accurately. Taking a look at the generic file that was floating around the coupe forum some time ago in WinOLS, its technically a VERY crap file. Yes it makes your car more powerful, but it's essentially taken out all the built in ECU safety limits and "de-calibrated" the whole ECU structure.

The trip computer works by the ECU telling it how much fuel it is injecting into the engine at any given point along with the speed of the car and distance travelled to work out the fuel consumption. With the awful remap file you have, the ECU doesn't actually know how much fuel its injecting as it is being fooled by the bodged calibration. Therefore, it supplies what it thinks is being injected, but in reality the IQ amount is a lot higher due to the remap.


Use the proven "fill the tank" method and you will find the reality is your MPG is probably a bit lower!

You have a valid point but I always brim it when the light comes on and I'm usually within 1 to 1.5 miles of the stated figure, I have yet to find a car that was particularly accurate whether the map was standard or not.
My point was purely that the 2.2 can be reasonably economical with a few tweeks here and there even if the trip is telling you little white lies.

It would be interesting to know what the economy would be like on a standard 136 map with the FAP and EGR removed if anyone has one ? It could be my monday to Friday map on the pootle to work and back

Well its now been a week of De-fap and De-EGR without any ECU modifications and so far so good.

My average fuel economy, with 75% urban and 25% A-roads is 50.6mpg. I guess it will be higher on a run but I don't think its outstanding enough to warrant changing the map on a weekly basis....