Quote:
Originally Posted by androdev  'Box' and 'remap' are two different things. (another topic)
Manufacturer's goals:
>Legal compliance (environmental concerns)
>Tax and insurance benefits (lesser power, lesser tax and insurance)
>Lower warranty claims (have huge factor of safety)
>More variants with the same components (different software settings)
Box and remap go against all the above goals. Btw, remap is *way* better than a box if available. |
I believe tax is based on the displacement not power. And as I've expalined in another thread , emissions are measured in gms/KWh when going for ARAI certification- So one way to reduce emissions is to increase power.
Huge factor of safeties increase the base enigne cost. there are a lot of tradeoff's when you make an engine which ahs to me mass marketed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsk1979 Not only the gearbox, in any engine where tolerances are limited, extra power will hasten the failure of critical components. |
Hmm... I think i've a different opinion. The engine faliures depend on how that extra power is developed by an engine. I'm yet to hear about some engine failure caused by a header or FFE. I'd like to say that if the extra power developed by the engine is due to increase in- in cylinder pressures, then there would be extra wear on the engine parts.
I'd say the clutch is the weakest link, if you see a lot of clutch wear - it might indicate that the drivetrain is not rated for that torque. But nayway I'm an engine guy so I dunno much about drive trains.