Remapping -Definitive comparison results

[SmartieParts]

See this thread for testing methodology. Please post any discussions relating to the testing methods there - this thread should only be for discussion of the results themselves.

Background - In an attempt to provide fellow smarties with the most complete information to date, I gathered up a sample of each of the major West Coast remaps and put them to a battery of tests to see how they compare. The goal was two fold - first, to provide the data a lot of us always wished we could have... second, to see if the Spanish-bred "Mozsimo" remap could hold its own since I am in negotiations to offer that remap as a service. I previously stated that I would be open and complete with the test results so that consumers could make their own decisions. Unfortunately, no Eastern tuners submitted their remaps for testing.

The Field - Because I never got any permission from the tuners (I got permission from their customers) to test their remaps, I am not going to refer to any remap by name, other than the Mozsimo remap. I don't think I did anything wrong and I don't feel I needed their permission since the tested samples were purchased and volunteered by their respective purchasers for testing... but nonetheless, I would appreciate if you all use the same names in discussions here:

• 
  
  

The Methods - Again, methods are detailed at this thread but I'll give a summary here: I picked a relatively straight, flat, long country road and tested all remaps on the exact same course. The exact same equipment, driver, and weights were used to ensure fairness. I did four runs for each map, consisting of two runs up the road, and two runs back. I used the G-Tech Pro RR accelerometer device to measure HorsePower (HP), Torque (Foot Pounds), 1/4 mile time (Seconds), 1/4 mile trap speed (Miles Per Hour), and 0 to 60MPH time (Seconds). I honestly believe this is as close to a fair and complete comparison that we will ever see, but any questions you have regarding that should please be directed to the linked thread above.

The Results - Lets get right to it, shall we? The raw data is attached as a PDF for the run-by-run data and images for the best-run graphs. Here are the podium summaries:

• 
  
  

Conclusions and Editorial Commentary - At first I had said that I wasn't concerned about actual HP numbers since the GTech may not be accurate (claimed 2% error) but more importantly that there are different ways of measure HP. But normally it is the manufacturers and car magazines that inflate the numbers the most because they are going by the most generous measurement (crank HP). What I tested here was the strictest measurement (net HP) so we can expect all figures to be below that of the manufacturer or tuner's claims. But when I saw that I measured the stock at 36 HP... only 10% off of the claimed figure... I admit I was rather shocked when you see claims of 65 HP measuring at 28% below the claimed value! In fact, all the HP figures for the remaps were fairly similar between 47 and 50 HP. What is undeniable is that the VMap was indeed the fastest even if it wasn't the most powerful. From the testing, I discovered that the VMap had the most "launch" by quite a margin, although it had less top end power. It did get the car down the track slightly faster than the others. The Mozsimo remap has its power in the higher gears as I noticed a strong push toward the end of the track. The CMap fell in between, offering the smoothest observed power delivery. White smoke was evident in the CMap, Mozsimo, and stock runs - I could see it in my rearview mirror. The CMap seemed to shed smoke in 2nd and 3rd gear while the Mozsimo and stock maps showed the smoke in 3rd and 4th gear. The VMap exhibited darker smoke that was clearly visible in the rearview, especially upon launch and in 2nd gear. To me, this makes sense with the power deliveries that I observed. The VMap rockets off the line, but at the expense of going from idle to full acceleration which I might presume doesn't give it enough time to burn the fuel, which results in black smoke. The others get their power in higher gears so the white smoke I saw was probably the pollution from hammering it as hard as it can go, but still being completely combusted (or closer to it).

Regardless of the remap, there is no doubt at all of the value of getting it done. Compared to stock, you can shave a full 3 or 4 seconds off your zero-to-freeway speed and this can make a huge difference when you're talking about a car that needs a runway to merge.

People will ask about price, I'm sure. My understanding from latest discussions with customers is that the VMap costs between $800 and $1500 depending on if you hit a promotion or not. The CMap is $750 last I heard. The Mozsimo remap is yet to be priced, but considering the results I will probably price it between $700 and $800 depending on the costs that I am currently negotiating (I get a pretty nice discount if I pre-pay for 100 cars... but can I get that many at any price???). The stock map, of course, is free

Other Notes - The speed limiter of 135kph is present on the stock and CMap. It has been removed for the Mozsimo. I was not able to determine if the VMap has the limiter because of lack of opportunity. I was going to test top speeds for each... neat looking but not very useful results are as follows:

• The VMap was not tested because 171kph freaked me out but also because I realized that going downhill is hardly a valid way of testing top speed, but on level ground I couldn't find a road long enough to find out anything past around 150ish.
  
  VMap claims to have 30% faster shift times than stock, while CMap claims 5 to 7% and Mozsimo just says "quicker" with no numerical claim.... bottom line, they all felt pretty much the same and I could barely notice a difference over stock in any case. Its not the shift that is quicker, in my observation, its getting to the next gear. It might be quicker... I'm sure they have a reason for their claims and others have said they notice it... I guess I'm not that sensitive (which is why I bought a GTech and did these tests!).
  
  I had hoped to do some sort of semi-scientific testing for smoke, engine noise, and fuel consumption figures... but I haven't yet devised a good plan for that. I was able to observe some smoke traits (as mentioned above) but engine noise seemed the same in all cases, including stock. In theory, fuel consumption can be better or worse than stock depending on where and how you drive. If you routinely drive 120+ and/or uphill, then honestly a remap will improve your mileage. But if you are usually in the city and you utilize your new-found power on a constant basis then you are going to take a hit at the pump. I have no scientific data to back that up at the moment.
  
  
  
  
  Please - discuss away!! Again, if you have any questions related to the testing methods (fairness, scientific validity, etc etc) please post at the linked thread at the top. Use this space for discussing the actual results as they are laid out. Thank you.
  
  - Steven

Edited January 16, 2015 by FlossyTheSmart
removing broken attachment

[David]

The VMap's quicker shift times go a long way in explaining its best in class acceleration despite having slightly less torque than the Mozsimo. By the time you get to the end of the quarter mile, you've made at least three gear changes. If you can shave an almost imperceptable .2 seconds off each shift, you can easily make up for a lack of power.

Assuming the G-Tech and your weight measurements are accurate, I'm impressed with the CMap's horsepower rating. The tuner claims 50HP and your results show 47.9, a difference of only 4%. Closer than even the stock claims. This shouldn't be surprising as the tuner has his own dyno on which to base his claims.

[SmartieParts]

Very perceptive! You might be interested to know that with the smart you go through 4 shifts (up to 5th gear) on a full-out quarter mile. So you are right that the slightly faster shift times by the VMap are accounting for the slightly faster 1/4 mile times. That, and the quicker launch I'd guess.

The G-Tech's accuracy claims are impressive and I had the car weighed 'as-tested' so that should be spot on plus or minus my personal weight fluctuations ... however, it is my understanding that the CMap claims 60HP, not 50 (I've heard 58 to 61 but I was personally told 60) so that would make the error 20% I'm afraid. It should be claiming 50 in my opinion.

Originally it was not my goal at all to call into question tuners' claims. I didn't think it mattered. The only reason I do now is because clearly Smart wasn't far off in their 40 HP figure, but the aftermarket ones are way off and I think its a bit misleading. It also forces new competition to make false claims. If I do get authorized to sell the Mozsimo remap, do I call it 60HP? How about 70HP since it beat out the VMap in HP figures alone. No, I'll call it 50 because that is a reasonable claim given the results. Unfortunately, many people will compare that to 60 or 65 and just like many things in life... numbers sell.

Ultimately, of course, I don't believe the HP figures even matter. As you pointed out above, they don't really tell the story. If you are looking for the best pure track performance and were only given HP figures, you would choose the Mozsimo remap... but a quick scan of the net results (1/4 mile and 0-60 times) shows you that despite lower HP the VMap crosses the finish line first.

HP aside, I think the results show that all three remaps show a considerable gain over stock. They all have their pros and cons. The VMap, as expected before the tests, is the fastest-but-dirtiest. The CMap is very balanced from bottom to top (but still has the annoying speed governor). The Mozsimo has higher top-end but struggles a bit at the very low-end of the spectrum.

- Steven

[Gent]

The Vmap does not have a rev limiter, I saw 4000 RPM coming out of the Sierras in California before I chickened out. I'm afraid I didn't have the GPS going at that point. With the car lowered but using stock exhaust, stock tires, close to sea level, running USA diesel on a sustained flat the vmap seems to max out between 154 and 157 kph at ~3500 RPM. I don't believe there was any significant wind.

The new Blindy exhaust feels like it has helped the top end acceleration and speed, but I dropped my Palm which I use for GPS - so no hard facts on that. It does seem to have taken away some of my low end torque that I gained with the remap, so a bit of a trade off there.

On the subject of smoke - in my hopped up air VW, I kept a close eye on my exhaust tips for tuning. If it ran rich (more fuel), I got black, if it ran lean (not enough fuel), I got white tips. White tips typically showed on the highway runs, and I worried about that as a lean running engine can cause damage.

The sulphur in our diesel is what is responsible for a lot of the soot we see, so I don't know if the VW analogy holds up. If it does, it might be a concern regarding the white smoke.

Interesting results Steven, thanks for doing this.

[SmartieParts]

I think the white smoke observed is normal exhaust since it was also evident with the stock setup. However, doing some quick Google-research on smoke, it seems with a diesel that white smoke is often caused by coolant entering the system (yikes) so it may be that it is my car that has a problem! Wouldn't that take the freaking cake. It also said it could be unburned fuel, which is what I thought the black smoke was. It said the black smoke was from an over-rich mixture (as you said) but also warned, "If black smoke is noticed while the engine is idling at low altitude or under normal driving conditions this condition should be diagnosed a.s.a.p. to prevent engine damage". I didn't notice it at idle, but I have observed it on your car when just driving around... although not much until you punched it. Really, in any case I probably wouldn't call the smoke "excessive"... you just notice it more with the VMap and its a different colour.

I'd like to take advantage of the equipment I have and test the Blindy and other performance parts (filter, air intakes, etc) and exterior mods (valances, spoilers, etc) to see what effects they have... but I have no specific plans. If anyone wants to take advantage of my equipment, just let me know.

Oh, and it wasn't a rev limiter I was talking about, its a speed governor (not quite the same thing). In 6th, you hit the limited speed at about 3250 rpm - well below any rev limits. Regardless, if you were able to get your rpms over 3500 and your needle showed 140 then you definately did not have the limiter. So good to know. In that case, I would suppose that the Mozsimo would have the greatest theoretical top speed because of the higher HP/TQ figures with the VMap being slightly behind and the other two stuck at 135ish... I'm never going to find out which is fastest and anyone else would be crazy to try. So really it should be a binary comparison... either limited or not.

- Steven

[Gent]

call me crazy

[Dang]

Excellent work Steven!!!

It's interesting there is less than a 3% hp difference between the units you tested, and about a 1/2 second 0 to 60. On a car that isn't a rocket in the first place, these are pretty close. I think an earlier comment you made is appropriate. Whatever remap is in the city you live is probably the one to get.

I was surprised that you got the stock car to 60 in just over 17 seconds. smart lists it as about 20 seconds, and when bsmart and I were doing some gtech tests it was very close to that. Is there a chance that all of the 0 to 60 ratings are somewhat overstated?

Some of the subjective comments are interesting as well.

Thanks for doing this!

Dang

P.S.

I have the CMap like David, and was told it was 50hp as well, so does seem pretty close to claims.

[SmartieParts]

Well that's cool... if the CMap is indeed being billed as a 50 then right on Mr. C!! I heard 60 on more than one occasion, but you guys are closer to the horses mouth than I, so let's go by that then.

No, the run times are accurate, I'm sure of it. That extra kick is probably just some of the other goodies I have The Gtech is a fairly precise instrument so I highly doubt they get the timer part of it wrong.

- Steven

[Dang]

Cool, I want to hear about your other goodies!

.....well, not your other goodies....your car's other goodies.....

If the Gtech isn't 1000% level it tends to produce some odd results, but good to know. Perhaps you just have a Wednesday car or something.

Later!

Dang

[Gent]

I didn't notice it at idle, but I have observed it on your car when just driving around... although not much until you punched it.

I should add that the way I drive is "punch it" or "braking".

[MB MCC]

Very perceptive! You might be interested to know that with the smart you go through 4 shifts (up to 5th gear) on a full-out quarter mile. So you are right that the slightly faster shift times by the VMap are accounting for the slightly faster 1/4 mile times. That, and the quicker launch I'd guess.

The G-Tech's accuracy claims are impressive and I had the car weighed 'as-tested' so that should be spot on plus or minus my personal weight fluctuations ... however, it is my understanding that the CMap claims 60HP, not 50 (I've heard 58 to 61 but I was personally told 60) so that would make the error 20% I'm afraid. It should be claiming 50 in my opinion.

Originally it was not my goal at all to call into question tuners' claims. I didn't think it mattered. The only reason I do now is because clearly Smart wasn't far off in their 40 HP figure, but the aftermarket ones are way off and I think its a bit misleading. It also forces new competition to make false claims. If I do get authorized to sell the Mozsimo remap, do I call it 60HP? How about 70HP since it beat out the VMap in HP figures alone. No, I'll call it 50 because that is a reasonable claim given the results. Unfortunately, many people will compare that to 60 or 65 and just like many things in life... numbers sell.

Ultimately, of course, I don't believe the HP figures even matter. As you pointed out above, they don't really tell the story. If you are looking for the best pure track performance and were only given HP figures, you would choose the Mozsimo remap... but a quick scan of the net results (1/4 mile and 0-60 times) shows you that despite lower HP the VMap crosses the finish line first.

HP aside, I think the results show that all three remaps show a considerable gain over stock. They all have their pros and cons. The VMap, as expected before the tests, is the fastest-but-dirtiest. The CMap is very balanced from bottom to top (but still has the annoying speed governor). The Mozsimo has higher top-end but struggles a bit at the very low-end of the spectrum.

- Steven

Steve !

Obviously looks like we are here talking about apples and pears .... I believe your data are acurate, but most important thing is your instrument is taking meassurements (as you previously explained) from rear axle of the wehicle in open enviroment. Tuners all the time compare result data with original engines (in this case SMART) on the crank (flywhel). Even if they run the vehicles on the dyno...... Sooooo if you add all negatives of outside run and add coeficient of loses (on RWD vehicle between 17 to 22%) between engine and wheels which touches the pavement you'll be probably close to the numbers what V-map, C-map claims ........

NO FLAMES .............. Cheers.... George

Here is the first of the C-map dyno run from 11/2005 on REAR AXLE

Edited January 16, 2015 by FlossyTheSmart
removing broken attachments

[bilgladstone]

It is hard to truly compare results versus tuner figures. Especially with BHP numbers, since there are several ways to take this measurement as George says.

In fairness to the various tuners and their different remap profiles, it is important to remember that this set of data are comparative with each other across the field, and not empirical numbers.

For example, a profile that is claimed to produce 60BHP may indeed do so under a certain set of conditions when measured in a certain way. Just because it may not have produced that number in Steven's trial sets does NOT mean that a tuner has mislead anyone or that his remap doesn't perform as he says.

What is salient is the comparative performance under the (near as possible with limitations) same set of conditions. I.e. THIS profile reaches max torque earlier off the line and THAT one reaches Max TQ higher in the RPM range.

No single remap can ever be considered the "winner" because they are all built for different performance criteria: quicker low-end acceleration; higher top end power for highway passing; cleaner fuel burn; shorter shift intervals; fun or efficiency.

But in this comparative graph, we can finally evaluate the characteristics of a few different profiles and are able to choose the one that is most suited to our individual needs.

A great big 'attaboy' to Steven for running this series!

Bil

[SmartieParts]

Yeah, that was my point originally, that I wasn't out to "debunk" the claims of the tuners.... BUT... my point now is that... well... they are misleading. Its clear to me because smart claimed 40 HP and I measured pretty darn near 40 HP. So when some tuner claims 50, 60, 65... whatever... they are OBVIOUSLY leading people to believe that is relative to the claimed 40HP. And that's fine... if the 40 was way off too, then its ok for the 60 to be way off. But it wasn't the case. So I believe it was a little unfair to use a completely different measurement method. This is ESPECIALLY true when those same tuners will say things like "up to 50% more power over stock"... it just isn't true.

George... I am quite clearly comparing apples to apples. It is the tuner's claims that are comparing apples to pears. Its fine to state the dyno figure for the remap, but then that should be vs the same dyno figure for the stock car, rather than comparing to the claimed 40HP which seems to be, by the results above, the net HP figure and not crank HP.

Anyway, once again I'll state that ultimately it doesn't matter. I think its important for consumers to understand the power gain isn't as significant as tuners are leading them to believe... but at the same time, there ARE gains and there is definite value in the remaps regardless of which one you choose.

I don't believe I've said anyting bad (flaming) about any of the remaps... I think I've been very objective so far, no? There are some sour points, sure, but nothing that isn't the truth and (I believe anyway) fairly stated.

- Steven

[IMSMRT]

I think you did a great job in theis comparison and that like you claim ...you are comparing the apples and apples .

Most people considering a remap at this point...will choose one based more on geography knowing that no one so far has had any trouble with ANY of these remaps.

And like Steven said there are benefits to some programs other than HP gains.

S

[Dang]

Yeah, that was my point originally, that I wasn't out to "debunk" the claims of the tuners.... BUT... my point now is that... well... they are misleading. Its clear to me because smart claimed 40 HP and I measured pretty darn near 40 HP. So when some tuner claims 50, 60, 65... whatever... they are OBVIOUSLY leading people to believe that is relative to the claimed 40HP. And that's fine... if the 40 was way off too, then its ok for the 60 to be way off. But it wasn't the case. So I believe it was a little unfair to use a completely different measurement method. This is ESPECIALLY true when those same tuners will say things like "up to 50% more power over stock"... it just isn't true.

...Its fine to state the dyno figure for the remap, but then that should be vs the same dyno figure for the stock car, rather than comparing to the claimed 40HP which seems to be, by the results above, the net HP figure and not crank HP.

.....

Steven....

Hmmmmm........

I feel the need to address those comments. A disclaimer up front. I have the CMap, so can only properly comment on my experience with that one.

I don't know much about the other remaps you tested. If some of those are claiming up in the 60+ horsepower range, then I agree, that does seem misleading. I only know the CMap one.

For that one, how are the claims misleadiing? For the stock car, you got 36.0hp, the CMap graph shows 38.05hp, but as bilgladstone mentioned, that's well within the variance due to different test methods, and different cars for that matter. The stock horsepower rating on that graph is from a test of a real car. I know because I watched him do it. He ran the car with whatever came from the factory on the dyno. He then loaded the remap in without doing anything to the dyno and ran the car again. That's the second graph you see.

The difference between the stock and remapped HP ratings on the graph, and the difference between the two on your tests is within 2% of each other. In a perfect world you and the dyno should have got exactly the same results, but with two different cars, two different test methods, and perhaps most importantly a GTech vs. a dyno, that's impressively close. It says something to the GTech and your testing methods that they are only 2% apart.

This is the second posting you've made where you seem to question the claims of the CMap remap, which to me is odd, because it seems to be one of the few that's actually doing what's claimed. I was happy with your results since they seemed to validate those claims, and the "CMap guy" was always a little fustrated with the guys claiming 65hp because he was quite sure they weren't getting it. (He had actually tested one of the other remaps on his dyno). If one of those others is the claimed 65hp one, than that's the one that clearly is not delivering what was promised, not this one. (again I don't know the others, perhaps they are claiming 50hp as well.)

Why the comments on the CMap?

Thanks!

Dang

[MB MCC]

Yeah, that was my point originally, that I wasn't out to "debunk" the claims of the tuners.... BUT... my point now is that... well... they are misleading. Its clear to me because smart claimed 40 HP and I measured pretty darn near 40 HP. So when some tuner claims 50, 60, 65... whatever... they are OBVIOUSLY leading people to believe that is relative to the claimed 40HP. And that's fine... if the 40 was way off too, then its ok for the 60 to be way off. But it wasn't the case. So I believe it was a little unfair to use a completely different measurement method. This is ESPECIALLY true when those same tuners will say things like "up to 50% more power over stock"... it just isn't true.

...Its fine to state the dyno figure for the remap, but then that should be vs the same dyno figure for the stock car, rather than comparing to the claimed 40HP which seems to be, by the results above, the net HP figure and not crank HP.

.....

Steven....

Hmmmmm........

I feel the need to address those comments. A disclaimer up front. I have the CMap, so can only properly comment on my experience with that one.

I don't know much about the other remaps you tested. If some of those are claiming up in the 60+ horsepower range, then I agree, that does seem misleading. I only know the CMap one.

For that one, how are the claims misleadiing? For the stock car, you got 36.0hp, the CMap graph shows 38.05hp, but as bilgladstone mentioned, that's well within the variance due to different test methods, and different cars for that matter. The stock horsepower rating on that graph is from a test of a real car. I know because I watched him do it. He ran the car with whatever came from the factory on the dyno. He then loaded the remap in without doing anything to the dyno and ran the car again. That's the second graph you see.

The difference between the stock and remapped HP ratings on the graph, and the difference between the two on your tests is within 2% of each other. In a perfect world you and the dyno should have got exactly the same results, but with two different cars, two different test methods, and perhaps most importantly a GTech vs. a dyno, that's impressively close. It says something to the GTech and your testing methods that they are only 2% apart.

This is the second posting you've made where you seem to question the claims of the CMap remap, which to me is odd, because it seems to be one of the few that's actually doing what's claimed. I was happy with your results since they seemed to validate those claims, and the "CMap guy" was always a little fustrated with the guys claiming 65hp because he was quite sure they weren't getting it. (He had actually tested one of the other remaps on his dyno). If one of those others is the claimed 65hp one, than that's the one that clearly is not delivering what was promised, not this one. (again I don't know the others, perhaps they are claiming 50hp as well.)

Why the comments on the CMap?

Thanks!

Dang

Thanks Dang !

What Steven did not do, was calibrating his car for the test. In other words he should know before he started real HP and torque of his car. I remember on few occasions C-map man told me how conserative MB technical data about Hp are and they're different from country to country depend on software setup and fuel. All cars he remaped included mine were over 40 HP (on the flywheel). If you look at the dynorun I supplied for Steven and compare stock and remap runs and if you add 17% (conservative) for loses ( tranny, diff, axels,tires) to his data which were taking from rear tires, then results are :

Stock HP on flywheel ......... 44.5 HP

Stock torque flywheel ........ 88.2 ft/lbs

Then remap results:

HP on flywheel ......... 58.78 HP

torque flywheel ........ 99.47 ft/lbs

Then if C-man told you you have 50 HP in your remap he meant on rear wheels. As you see from calculation for flywheel, results are pretty close to the claims of 60HP/100ft/lbs (flywheel)...

So if Steven claims he had on his stock run 36HP on rearl wheels and we add another really conservative 2% (19%) for outside run, his SMART car is running on flywheel almost 43HP. By rights these loses should be added to all results of his runs to be hones with tunners.

Otherwise: I would like to personaly thanks Steve for great COMPARISON test he did and wish him luck with his Moszimo software!

Kind regards .... George

Edited January 16, 2015 by FlossyTheSmart
removing broken attachments

[SmartieParts]

Dan - I wasn't talking about any map in particular... just that stating 60HP or 65HP is misleading to the consumer, in my opinion, if the results come out to be 47 or 49, etc. I have never had any problem at all with the CMap. Yes, I was told 60HP but you guys have said the CMap has been marketed as a 50HP version and that is pretty much bang on! If you want my opinion on the CMap in particular, I love it! I had it on my car for over a year, had ZERO problems with it, and enjoyed the extra power going over the Coquihalla. I think Mr. C is head, shoulders, and feet above the rest of the tuners in terms of performance technology knowledge and his quality remap is evidence of that. He's been reasonably priced from the beginning and deliberately holds back on certain areas of performance out of genuine concern for his customers' cars. I was not flaming the CMap at all!!! Sorry if it came off that way. I was mearly stating that the practice of inflating the HP figures in general is misleading to consumers. It is by no means limited to any of the tuners represented here... the 65HP claim is very common in the European markets too and I'm sure its no more true there than it is here.

Dan, you're a customer of Mr. C and I know George is a close friend of his as well... and I think you are both reading my statements in a defensive manner, presuming that I'm running a mud slinging campaign to promote the Mozsimo remap and at the same time denounce my competitors. First off, I'm not yet licensed to sell anything. Second, I think I best protect my interests by being fair, open, and honest with results like these. If I give anyone reason to suspect foulplay, then what good does it do me? I think what I've done really is help all the tuners because I've demonstrated in a comprehensive manner that no matter which one you get, there IS a reason to get it! If a customer is in a position to choose between them, the I give them some info to make that choice. Ultimately, as its been discussed before, people are most likely to get the remap that is geographically convenient for them so there's no reason for me to try and say my map is better than the CMap or the VMap or whatever. I wanted to find out if the Mozsimo could hold its own so that I could sleep at night knowing my customers were getting good value for their money, and I think I've demonstrated that is the case. Beyond that, I have no reason at all to say anything negative about the "competition" that isn't true.

The VMap smokes... and is not anywhere near 65HP (when you measure net HP as evidently Smart did with their 40HP figure)... these are observations I made. They are negative, sure... but that's not me flaming it.

I haven't actually had anything bad to say about the CMap. I mean, it routinely placed 3rd in the track results but by such a small margin there's hardly any reason to mention it. Other than that, what did I say? *IF* a 60HP claim is being made, then it is misleading... it seems at least some people are being told 50HP and that's great, because that is much more accurate!

George = I'm not I follow your whole calibration argument. The Gtech measures net HP for all maps, stock or otherwise... so there's no reason for me to add some arbitrary percentage value to be "fair" to tuners... the numbers speak for themselves. Had my stock HP figure been 20 or 60 or something far off from 40 (which I actually expected) then I couldn't make any comments on tuners' claims... but because my stock value came in at (close to) 40 then I should have seen a value close to 65 for the VMap and close to 50 or 60 for the CMap (which we did see close to 50).

Anyway, once again - thank you all for your comments, enjoy the data! I never was out to say anything bad about any of the tuners and I don't think I have.

- Steven

[MB MCC]

Steven !

Whole argument is probably just stupid... When I talked about apples and pears I meant HP/Torque on flywhel and rear wheels.

I believe all tuners selling their sofware with the result on the crank 60/62/65 HP as the SMART car 40HP and there is probably your missing 20% of the power, cause your Gtech is takin' data from the rear of the vehicle. Please go back to C-guy dynorun chart and figure it out. As Dang stated your and C-man stock runs were pretty close. Your HP were just 2% different because your run was outside and C-man did it on his dyno stationary. But............. both runs (data) yours and C-man were taken from rear axle. I believe from your stock run and my calculation your Smart had 43HP on the flywheel at the time of the test .......... If c-man tells me he had new software with 50HP (As Dang talked about)I understand he's talkin' about the power on rear wheels. If he tells me he should do somethin' about that 60HP software he meant 60HP on the flywheel.............. I hope so, this will clear some smoke and I still believe that my car as it feels has over 60HP/100ft/lbs on the crank which represent 49.8HP/83ft/lbs on rear wheels .....hehehehe

So ... best regards to Kellowna from George

[Dang]

Thanks Steven for the clarification. Perhaps I was reading more into the postings than was really there.

I think it is important to identify suppliers who have been upfront and honest, and I think "Mr. C" is one of those people. I'm sure he could have easily said his remap was 65hp and gotten away with it, but didn't, and probably lost business because of it. I know of at least one person from Alberta that was getting his car mapped in Vancouver because he "wanted 65hp instead of 50hp". Little did he know he was probably getting (by your tests) 1hp less! At least his car would still accelerate the best.

Didn't mean to imply you had any bias towards the Mozsimo map. That's the one all of us probably know the least, and it did well in your tests, so appears to be a good new option for anyone looking to get a remap.

Thanks!

Dan

[MB MCC]

Dan - I wasn't talking about any map in particular... just that stating 60HP or 65HP is misleading to the consumer, in my opinion, if the results come out to be 47 or 49, etc. I have never had any problem at all with the CMap. Yes, I was told 60HP but you guys have said the CMap has been marketed as a 50HP version and that is pretty much bang on! If you want my opinion on the CMap in particular, I love it! I had it on my car for over a year, had ZERO problems with it, and enjoyed the extra power going over the Coquihalla. I think Mr. C is head, shoulders, and feet above the rest of the tuners in terms of performance technology knowledge and his quality remap is evidence of that. He's been reasonably priced from the beginning and deliberately holds back on certain areas of performance out of genuine concern for his customers' cars. I was not flaming the CMap at all!!! Sorry if it came off that way. I was mearly stating that the practice of inflating the HP figures in general is misleading to consumers. It is by no means limited to any of the tuners represented here... the 65HP claim is very common in the European markets too and I'm sure its no more true there than it is here.

Dan, you're a customer of Mr. C and I know George is a close friend of his as well... and I think you are both reading my statements in a defensive manner, presuming that I'm running a mud slinging campaign to promote the Mozsimo remap and at the same time denounce my competitors. First off, I'm not yet licensed to sell anything. Second, I think I best protect my interests by being fair, open, and honest with results like these. If I give anyone reason to suspect foulplay, then what good does it do me? I think what I've done really is help all the tuners because I've demonstrated in a comprehensive manner that no matter which one you get, there IS a reason to get it! If a customer is in a position to choose between them, the I give them some info to make that choice. Ultimately, as its been discussed before, people are most likely to get the remap that is geographically convenient for them so there's no reason for me to try and say my map is better than the CMap or the VMap or whatever. I wanted to find out if the Mozsimo could hold its own so that I could sleep at night knowing my customers were getting good value for their money, and I think I've demonstrated that is the case. Beyond that, I have no reason at all to say anything negative about the "competition" that isn't true.

The VMap smokes... and is not anywhere near 65HP (when you measure net HP as evidently Smart did with their 40HP figure)... these are observations I made. They are negative, sure... but that's not me flaming it.

I haven't actually had anything bad to say about the CMap. I mean, it routinely placed 3rd in the track results but by such a small margin there's hardly any reason to mention it. Other than that, what did I say? *IF* a 60HP claim is being made, then it is misleading... it seems at least some people are being told 50HP and that's great, because that is much more accurate!

George = I'm not I follow your whole calibration argument. The Gtech measures net HP for all maps, stock or otherwise... so there's no reason for me to add some arbitrary percentage value to be "fair" to tuners... the numbers speak for themselves. Had my stock HP figure been 20 or 60 or something far off from 40 (which I actually expected) then I couldn't make any comments on tuners' claims... but because my stock value came in at (close to) 40 then I should have seen a value close to 65 for the VMap and close to 50 or 60 for the CMap (which we did see close to 50).

Anyway, once again - thank you all for your comments, enjoy the data! I never was out to say anything bad about any of the tuners and I don't think I have.

- Steven

Steven!

I have one more question.... did you set up readout for torque value for you test runs manualy or it is automatic?? Seems to me read of torque in all test runs are little bit to low. On the run with readout around 50HP, torque should be in the margin of around 80ft/lbs .... !!??!!

Thanks ... George

[Gent]

This (attached) has material related to concerns and doubts. This was a very interesting comparison that Steven performed. As per the article, the Gtech is a very good tool for measuring acceleration and getting consistent results. As a tool for measuring changes in a vehicle to assess whether improvements are positive or negative, the Gtech is stellar. That said, if we are measuring the improvements to acceleration, the high to low ranking would look more like: Vmap, Mozsimo, Cmap and stock. Quite a few factors may be inherent to testing the smart car though. Everyone knows that the remapped cars can really pitch when they shift - this is one mentioned. Our short wheelbase and the stock vs. sport suspension is another. Does anyone know a dynamometer in the lower mainland we can get to? I think I'd like to do that before I start accusing people of misrepresentation (!). Edit: Regarding the smoke - my brother-in-law has been hopping-up and re-mapping his diesel trucks for a while now. He said that white smoke on a new car with a remap is most likely improper injector pump timing. The black smoke is due to a rich mixture, which can be a concern for the turbo if it pushes the exhaust temperature too high. They are both excessive fuel, it's just that one (black) is combusted and the other (white) is not.

Edited January 16, 2015 by FlossyTheSmart
removing broken attachment

[MikeT]

The V-Maps I've seen seem to smoke a fair bit (black), and pretty badly on hard acceleration, FWIW. Driving behind Steven's car with the C-Map, I can't say I noticed any more smoke than there is with the stock car, which is to say the occasional tiny puff, never a cloud.

[Gent]

I'll pay that price for 1/2 a second better in the quarter mile.

[bilgladstone]

I'll pay that price for 1/2 a second better in the quarter mile.

Of course it's not just you who's paying the price *cough* *cough*

[Gent]

That's just ONE of my James Bond - like options. Don't make me trot out the sharks with friggin' laser beams attached to their heads!!!!

[image deleted by moderator (s_mack) because 1. it was huge and was screwing with the thread but more importantly 2. it was not showing up (dead url?)]

dude - big picture! sorry!!!