[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.

[tsk1979]

More torque will also mean shorter life for g'box.
For example Tata engines can do 90bhp(DICOR), but the gearbox cannot handle it while maintaining required reliability profile
Not only the gearbox, in any engine where tolerances are limited, extra power will hasten the failure of critical components.
But in toyota's etc., you won't find much of a problem.
Reason, those engines are built to last 200-300K kms with normal use. If they last only 150K kms, you won't notice, because the target audience rarely keeps the vehicle above 100K.

[Jomz]

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.

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.

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by GTO

As good as the increased power is, I am not too sure about the diesel powerboxes increasing fuel economy or reducing emissions.

Exactly my thoughts, especially w.r.t. FE.
In most cases, people go for the box to increase the power of their car and while I have no idea how the box works, I think it would not be very wrong to assume that to be able to generate more power (output), the quantum of fuel (input) required would be more than when it is pumping out the rated power, logically resulting in lower FE.

[theMAG]

Peter/Turboindia,

Can you contribute to this thread please, since you're best positioned? Any objective inputs will be greatly appreciated, since the number of fans of Pete's Box (incl me) grow by the day.

[amtak]

Mahesh,

Why would Peter/TurboIndia list the disadvantages of their product on a Public Forum? Wouldn't it affect their business and Image?

[PatienceWins]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Exactly my thoughts, especially w.r.t. FE.
In most cases, people go for the box to increase the power of their car and while I have no idea how the box works, I think it would not be very wrong to assume that to be able to generate more power (output), the quantum of fuel (input) required would be more than when it is pumping out the rated power, logically resulting in lower FE.

Exactly my thoughts.
I am unable to understand the increase in fuel efficiency with increased power.

[tsk1979]

Ever pondered why there is no power box for DICOR from Tata?
Is it technically impossible?
Well no, there is a certain DICOR somewhere(2.2) which will run 180bhp.
The reason is reliability.
Increase power of Toyota innova by 20%, it won't be a problem, but with tata where tolerances may be tight, you may run into gbox issues.

i dont know about emissions
but FE I can comment about.

all numbers with AC on max and blower on 2

if driven normally, stock VDI gives 18.2 kmpl
after the filter and box i get 19kmpl- not a big difference.
if driven with the mods in place, specifically for mileage- i get 22kmpl
if driven with a heavy foot in race mode- 14.8kmpl
Note- after the tuning box- the car is in race mode all the time
cant help it.
I slow down only when family is with me.

FE after the tuning box is very,very sensitive to driving style.

but the object of the tuning box is not mileage, its fun, and driveability

AFAIK- the amount of fuel injected at lower revs is altered only by a very miniscule amount. but it is injected over a slightly longer period of time.(Jomz or sameel might be able to educate us here)
this gives higher torque at lower RPMs, which explains the significant increase in FE at lower RPMs

[theMAG]

Originally Posted by amtak

Mahesh,

Why would Peter/TurboIndia list the disadvantages of their product on a Public Forum? Wouldn't it affect their business and Image?

Not really. Every product has its own set of operating guidelines, which if not followed by the customer, might lead to suboptimal/non-ideal situations, for which the vendor may not be responsible for.

Another way of rephrasing my earlier question is asking Peter these operating guidelines and worst-case scenarios under noncompliance of the same.

[srijit]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Ever pondered why there is no power box for DICOR from Tata?

Doesnt Steeroid's 3L Safari have an Italian box, similar to a Pete's?

[tsk1979]

The 3.0L is a very overengineered piece. I doubt anything can shake that tank of an engine. However how long the gbox takes it.. is anybody's guess. OTOH it is a known fact that the 1.4DICOR is capable of 90bhp without problems, but in that setting the torque destroys the gbox

[v1p3r]

OT: tsk, when you say 'destroy' the gearbox, it means to have a component failure factor that is over an accepted (internal) norm for Tata Motors. This may mean that their standard rate of failure for gearboxes is 1 per 1000 and with the 90 hp engine, and a commensurate increase in torque, it will fail 1.3 per 1000 or even 2 per 1000.

I am sure with the kind of abuse stock Indicas and Indigos go through, being used as taxis everywhere, we would have heard of catastrophic drivetrain failures if the components were engineered so badly. I've come across Indicas where the cars have not had oil changes in 40,000 km. They often run full load, and the driver really pushes the engine by short-shifting into higher gears as early as possible.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by amtak

Mahesh,

Why would Peter/TurboIndia list the disadvantages of their product on a Public Forum? Wouldn't it affect their business and Image?

Considering that Peter has been with us since the early days, he is well aware of the spirit of Team-BHP. I am sure he has no problem outlining the highs / lows of the box to maintain the objective nature of Team-BHP.

Originally Posted by v1p3r

I am sure with the kind of abuse stock Indicas and Indigos go through, being used as taxis everywhere, we would have heard of catastrophic drivetrain failures if the components were engineered so badly. I've come across Indicas where the cars have not had oil changes in 40,000 km. They often run full load, and the driver really pushes the engine by short-shifting into higher gears as early as possible.

V1p3r, Tata have intentionally restricted the power output of the common-rail Indica / Indigo due to concerns over the extra torque load on the gearbox.

[bossman]

Picking up from where SGIITK & HELLSTAR left... ...I have been told by people acrosss various Toyota Dealerships (across cities) not to use the Premium Diesel but use the normal variety...

Not sure whether this has been discussed anywhere else on TBHP...