[Norph]

Hi,

As the topic would suggest. I've recently had mine done (210hp 2.4) and I'm trying to gauge if it's a "good" map or not.

So I was curious to see what others had managed.

I'm also keen to know what the torque limit is for the drivetrain too, if anyone has specific knowledge?

Cheers,

Andrew

 

[OldSmokey159]

My 2.4 (210 version) is 235bhp plus 420 torques. Could go a little more according to some but to be honest you might risk destroying the clutch quite quickly, and at a grand a pop, you don't want to do that!! Performance is suburb.

 

[FiremanAxe]

I had my last 1.9JTDm mapped from 150 to (IIRC) 190 horses and from 320Nm to 380Nm
(these are all quoted figures not actual)

Its was great but I was paranoid about the gearbox and as soon as things started to get a bit mushy (when selecting gears) I traded it against a 2.0JTDm which is 170 BHP out of the box and 210 BHP after the remap.

Not sure of the Nm increase but the change is like night and day, the car pulls like a train and keeps getting faster and faster up to well over 100mph. (I usually bottle it around 100 as I dont fancy a ban if I get caught.)

The gearbox in my 2.0 is the same as the 2.4 gearbox and it's handled the increase well (although I'm now only at the same level as an unmapped 2.4, as far as BHP is concerned, dont know about the Nm)

Axe

 

[dc]

I had my first Brera, a 2.4 diesel remapped by Red Dot Tuning some years ago and the claimed bhp was 240. No reason to doubt the figure as it really flew afterwards..

 

[kandlbarrett]

"Claimed" figures are almost worthless (no one is going to quote low figures for their map - it won't sell) and even rolling road figures should be treated with extreme caution as there are a lot of variables between rolling roads that will cause each rolling road to give different results. Even the rolling road testers can adjust some variables that will cause the final calculated figure to appear higher than it really is. (Most of us men have balls bigger than our brains and prefer to use a rolling road that gives high numbers so it is in the interest of the rolling road operator to, within reason, get you big numbers.)

The only real test is the same rolling road on the same day and even then there are variables that can affect the calculated output between rolling road runs.

So "claimed" and "seat of your pants" are almost worthless and while actual rolling road figures are better they should also be treated with caution.

See the last post in this thread by JBSmith1 with graphs to see how rolling roads vary. He is very experienced tuning the 2.4 159 and has spent thousands.

http://www.alfaowner.com/Forum/alfa...r/967562-more-power-from-your-2-4-lump-2.html

Anyway after all that here are my power and torque graphs after AHM remapped my wife's 159 200. These were produced on AHM rolling road. Adie believes that the drop in torque at 3,000 rpm and corresponding effect on the BHP graph is probably tyre slip on the rollers.

 

[Norph]

"Claimed" figures are almost worthless (no one is going to quote low figures for their map - it won't sell) and even rolling road figures should be treated with extreme caution as there are a lot of variables between rolling roads that will cause each rolling road to give different results. Even the rolling road testers can adjust some variables that will cause the final calculated figure to appear higher than it really is. (Most of us men have balls bigger than our brains and prefer to use a rolling road that gives high numbers so it is in the interest of the rolling road operator to, within reason, get you big numbers.)

The only real test is the same rolling road on the same day and even then there are variables that can affect the calculated output between rolling road runs.

So "claimed" and "seat of your pants" are almost worthless and while actual rolling road figures are better they should also be treated with caution.

See the last post in this thread by JBSmith1 with graphs to see how rolling roads vary. He is very experienced tuning the 2.4 159 and has spent thousands.

http://www.alfaowner.com/Forum/alfa...r/967562-more-power-from-your-2-4-lump-2.html

Anyway after all that here are my power and torque graphs after AHM remapped my wife's 159 200. These were produced on AHM rolling road. Adie believes that the drop in torque at 3,000 rpm and corresponding effect on the BHP graph is probably tyre slip on the rollers.

Thanks for the link, just read this thread. It's very interesting.

An immediate question I have is what is the maximum torque a standard clutch and flywheel can take?

I'm struggling to get a picture of where the upper safe limit is. For context this is so I know where I should be avoiding rather than aiming for!

Anyone have any experience or ideas on this matter?

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

 

[kandlbarrett]

The 159 2.4 clutch and gearbox are strong and with just a map it is unlikely you will significantly shorten their life. The M40 gearbox has proven to be especially strong and will take significant torque increase.
NOTE: it is torque and NOT power (bhp) that wears the gearbox, clutch, diff and drive shafts.

The killer for clutches, dual mass flywheel, diff and drive shafts is using all the available torque whilst at low revs. Control yourself, use the gearbox and especially avoid using heavy throttle unless you have a minimum of 1800 rpm (preferably 2000rpm) and the components will last.

 

[epsonix]

Attached are my current 159 1.75TBI and former 159 1.9JTDM:

TBI was made for RON98 fuel, and tunning was meant to be not any extreme (to leave a lot of safety headroom still)

 

[alexb911]

This was my aggressive RedDot remap, does smoke fair bit though if you really go for it...

 

[jatkinson]

This was my aggressive RedDot remap, does smoke fair bit though if you really go for it...

I soooo need to go get mine mapped (Y)