Diesel Remap opinions

Firestar_3x said:
Why?

https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-revie...ives/2017-porsche-panamera-4s-diesel-uk-drive

The New S6 & S7 is hardly slow either.

Whilst i will never prefer diesel over petrol it can achieve a rather impressive performance and economy balance.

As for your argument about limited difference in economy, i'm no mathematician but i'd call a 24% improvement in economy rather significant.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand that a performance car isn't just about 0-60. Hence my point about sports cars. Think of the reasons they don't use diesels.
The reason the new Audi s cars are diesel is simple, co2 emissions. It's worth pointing out Porsche are ditching diesel moving forwards.
 
So the 4s is not a performance car and other than 0-60 time is slow, dynamically its hardly a boat either.

Clearly the argument is total ********, you don't get diesel sports cars because they sounds like a tractor and add extra weight not because they are slow, people do not desire them therefore they do not sell.

A remapped 335d will show most things up, you can get significant performance and additional economy benefits from remapping the right diesel car, i fail to see the issue.
 
Firestar_3x said:
So the 4s is not a performance car and other than 0-60 time is slow?

Clearly the argument is total ********, you don't get diesel sports cars because they sounds like a tractor and add extra weight not because they are slow, people do not desire them therefore they do not sell.

A remapped 335d will show most things up, you can get significant performance and additional economy benefits from remapping the right diesel car, i fail to see the issue.
Click to expand...

Read your own link...they'd plump for the petrol version of the same car.
Where did I mention them being slow? I specifically stated performance isn't just about 0-60 time. You've even touched on 2 key points, they sound like crap and are heavy lumps. I suggest you learn to read properly and then try making a coherent argument.
 
Firestar_3x said:
Depends on your reasons for purchase, if i wanted to drive across Europe i'd value the 600 mile range over the additional benefits of the petrol.
Click to expand...

In which case you want economy. Hence why 'performance' maps again don't make sense.
 
Dis86 said:
In which case you want economy. Hence why 'performance' maps again don't make sense.
Click to expand...

No, that would depend on the remap, i've had Revo remaps done which resulted in better part throttle economy and more performance at WOT.

Evoque is returning marginally better economy too, and that has seen a 25% uplift in both BHP and torque.
 
Last edited:
The reason most sports cars were petrol historically was that 1) diesel didnt have turbo charging, and non turboed diesels wee dreadfully slow, and 2) most sports cars just inserted a larger petrol engine.

When turbos for diesels became mainstream they functioned much closer to petrol, but also become more tuneable.

A performance map is irrelevant to what fuel is being used, its just a map that typically dials out the safeguards the manufacturers have installed for poor fuel etc that they may see in some countries.
They aren't really performance maps, they are "run closer to engine max" maps. If they were true performance maps they would take the engine to the point it was truly maximised and at that point it would be down on expected life, just like motorsport engines are tuned to the max and have short lives.

They are sold as performance maps as thats the end result and the target demographic. They often work just as hard to sell the benefits of being tuned more optimally resulting in better fuel economy.
 
Dis86 said:
Read your own link...they'd plump for the petrol version of the same car.
Where did I mention them being slow? I specifically stated performance isn't just about 0-60 time. You've even touched on 2 key points, they sound like crap and are heavy lumps. I suggest you learn to read properly and then try making a coherent argument.
Click to expand...
You clearly don't like diesels, which is fair enough, but for my situation it was the only viable option with the amount of mileage i do. Not to mention the fact that the petrol version of my car (Focus ST) is only 30kg lighter (which is nothing), and they use artificial noise within the cabin which actually makes the car sound pretty decent, i don't really care what the outside of the car sounds like as i'm not driving on the roof.
 
Dis86 said:
In which case you want economy. Hence why 'performance' maps again don't make sense.
Click to expand...

It's not a black and white decision though, is it? We all have different use cases and priorities. Seems perfectly reasonable to buy a diesel because you prioritise better economy most of the time, but be tempted by the relatively easy performance gains of a remap. It's not like applying a remap to a diesel will suddenly render it no more efficient than the petrol version; and remapping a petrol might make for more of a performance gain, but it's not going to make it as efficient as the diesel counterpart.
 
Conscript said:
It's not a black and white decision though, is it? We all have different use cases and priorities. Seems perfectly reasonable to buy a diesel because you prioritise better economy most of the time, but be tempted by the relatively easy performance gains of a remap. It's not like applying a remap to a diesel will suddenly render it no more efficient than the petrol version; and remapping a petrol might make for more of a performance gain, but it's not going to make it as efficient as the diesel counterpart.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way. Your car is actually an amazing example. It's not an out and out sports car but it is a performance car. Would it work with a diesel engine, mapped or otherwise?
 
Dis86 said:
Look at it this way. Your car is actually an amazing example. It's not an out and out sports car but it is a performance car. Would it work with a diesel engine, mapped or otherwise?
Click to expand...

I'd actually argue that it is a sports car and not a performance car, but that's another discussion entirely, based upon subjective viewpoints. But to answer your question, no it wouldn't work with a diesel engine.
How does that render diesel remaps pointless for completely different cars owned by different people?
 
Dis86 said:
Look at it this way. Your car is actually an amazing example. It's not an out and out sports car but it is a performance car. Would it work with a diesel engine, mapped or otherwise?
Click to expand...
I asked for opinions on a couple of different remaps i had my eye on, and some how we end up here?
 
Conscript said:
I'd actually argue that it is a sports car and not a performance car, but that's another argument entirely. But to answer your question, no it wouldn't work with a diesel engine.
How does that render diesel remaps pointless for completely different cars owned by different people?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. I'm arguing about performance remaps. Diesels simply don't suit 'performance' due to their power and torque profiles. Its why, as ive highlighted, no sports cars use diesels. So when people are saying they want it to increase performance or driveability they're fundamentally looking at the wrong thing. I pointed it out yesterday, 0-60 time doesn't equate to performance and that is what these maps generally achieve.
If you want an engine that has good driveability you're looking for a petrol simply due to the physical and chemical characteristics of the engine and fuel.
Would you ever put a diesel in your car?
 
Dis86 said:
It doesn't. I'm arguing about performance remaps. Diesels simply don't suit 'performance' due to their power and torque profiles. Its why, as ive highlighted, no sports cars use diesels. So when people are saying they want it to increase performance or driveability they're fundamentally looking at the wrong thing. I pointed it out yesterday, 0-60 time doesn't equate to performance and that is what these maps generally achieve.
If you want an engine that has good driveability you're looking for a petrol simply due to the physical and chemical characteristics of the engine and fuel.
Would you ever put a diesel in your car?
Click to expand...
Just stop, as I've pointed out, petrol is a no go due to mileage. There is no issue with me wanting the car i own to feel more rounded as a commuting vehicle, remapping is the easiest and quickest way to do it. If you want to argue about "Performance" remaps for diesels being pointless start a new thread.
 
weathmatth said:
Just stop, as I've pointed out, petrol is a no go due to mileage. There is no issue with me wanting the car i own to feel more rounded as a commuting vehicle, remapping is the easiest and quickest way to do it. If you want to argue about "Performance" remaps for diesels being pointless start a new thread.
Click to expand...

How does it make it more rounded?
 
Dis86 said:
It doesn't. I'm arguing about performance remaps. Diesels simply don't suit 'performance' due to their power and torque profiles. Its why, as ive highlighted, no sports cars use diesels. So when people are saying they want it to increase performance or driveability they're fundamentally looking at the wrong thing.....If you want an engine that has good driveability you're looking for a petrol simply due to the physical and chemical characteristics of the engine and fuel.
Click to expand...

If someone wants to increase "performance and drive-ability" then yes, if you follow that to it's ultimate conclusion, you'd buy a petrol.
But evidently he's not just after "performance and drive-ability", because he's bought a diesel.

So his main priority is economy - that doesn't mean that he should abandon desire to improve the "performance and drive-ability" entirely. If a performance remap achieves that, then it's not pointless at all.

Your argument seems to be based on an absolute position, when there are varying degrees to what people want or need. It's not a simple as "diesel cars aren't primarily about "performance" (however you define it), therefore any attempt to improve it is pointless".
I, too, would not choose to buy a diesel in the first place if my ultimate aim is performance. But I can completely understand why someone might buy a diesel and still be tempted to improve the "performance" of it, even if the aspects of the performance that it improved don't necessarily match your expectations of what performance should be.

Dis86 said:
I pointed it out yesterday, 0-60 time doesn't equate to performance and that is what these maps generally achieve.
Click to expand...

And I think it was pointed out in response that it's not only what they achieve. In fact, it seems that in most cases, diesels respond well to remaps, improving upon both performance and economy.
But again, a lot of this is down to your personal expectations - no, in isolation, a 0-60 time doesn't equate "performance" overall. But perhaps improved acceleration if something he wants, in which case, a remap will do that, while he can still enjoy the overall economic benefits of owning a diesel.

Dis86 said:
Would you ever put a diesel in your car?
Click to expand...

No. I'm sure someone would though, if they wanted the economy enough. There are examples of "sporty" cars with diesels, because for some people, the desire for economy obviously outweighs the desire for pure "sportiness" - Audi TT, for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom