DMS Remap

Author
Discussion

TonyF

Original Poster:

2,300 posts

283 months

Wednesday 18th November 2015
quotequote all
Had my gtc V8 remapped today By DMS and am a very happy bunny. Rob is amazing and very knowledgeable. He kept the map on the safe side but still achieved 690bhp and 640ft/lb of torque.
After driving it, I am sure it will give my 458 a shock !!

ted 191

1,425 posts

232 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
You sure that's correct........an extra 190 bhp !

TonyF

Original Poster:

2,300 posts

283 months

Monday 23rd November 2015
quotequote all
Yes, and you can feel the extra horses to.
Amazing transformation.

Corbeliere

720 posts

126 months

Tuesday 24th November 2015
quotequote all
An idea of cost would help Tony.
Sounds good, enjoy the extra oomph!

TonyF

Original Poster:

2,300 posts

283 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
Worth every penny of the £1300 I paid.

Corbeliere

720 posts

126 months

Wednesday 25th November 2015
quotequote all
That's a good price considering what GIAC in the states charge.
Thanks for the info'.

Byteme

450 posts

149 months

Saturday 16th January 2016
quotequote all
Bentley could have done that but chose not to. I wonder why.

TonyF

Original Poster:

2,300 posts

283 months

Sunday 17th January 2016
quotequote all
Byteme said:
Bentley could have done that but chose not to. I wonder why.
Took my car to DMS Hq and put in on the rolling road, had a fiddle around with the mapping and final figures were 703.8 bhp and 886 ft lb of torque. Very pleased....

matt5791

381 posts

133 months

Monday 18th January 2016
quotequote all
What's the trade off? I've never had a car re-mapped before but I'm guessing you can't have your cake and eat it?

Personally I wouldn't buy a car that had previously been modified in this way so I'm guessing there may be a trade off in re-sale value - but then again, maybe there are people for whom it adds value - I don't know.

TonyF

Original Poster:

2,300 posts

283 months

Monday 18th January 2016
quotequote all
matt5791 said:
What's the trade off? I've never had a car re-mapped before but I'm guessing you can't have your cake and eat it?

Personally I wouldn't buy a car that had previously been modified in this way so I'm guessing there may be a trade off in re-sale value - but then again, maybe there are people for whom it adds value - I don't know.
Not sure about resale values but I haven't had it done to rag the car around like some would think, just releasing the power it's more than capable of and making the car more driveable throughout.
Did think about this long and hard and had chats with DMS prior to taking the plunge so to speak.
Obviously, I can't think of any "trade off" it's just made the car so much better, the torque curve is so linear and if I could work out how to put a picture up of the dyno run results, I would. (Any help or pointers please?)


Silent1

19,761 posts

242 months

Monday 18th January 2016
quotequote all
The trade off is that the engine will wear out quicker and is more likely to have something break on it, that's why the manufacturer tuned it to where they did and it's also why people can chose to accept a greater risk but get more power.

TonyF

Original Poster:

2,300 posts

283 months

Monday 18th January 2016
quotequote all


Managed to do it I think....

TonyF

Original Poster:

2,300 posts

283 months

Monday 18th January 2016
quotequote all
Silent1 said:
The trade off is that the engine will wear out quicker and is more likely to have something break on it, that's why the manufacturer tuned it to where they did and it's also why people can chose to accept a greater risk but get more power.
The 4.0 V8 TT unit is the Audi unit that has been tuned to much more than mine with no reported failures, it's just a very underrated engine in its untuned form.

matt5791

381 posts

133 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
I ask because I don't like the way my Jeep Commander 5.7 hemi is tuned - there isn't enough low down torque - I'd be prepared to accept less power, if I had to, for more low down torque.

I intend to take this car to 150K miles or something, so re-sale value isn't much of a consideration! Although, I don't want to knacker the engine up or make it unreliable.

In standard form the Jeep is, official figures, 322bhp and 369lbft - but I'm sure it could give more, especially in the torque department and especially when that torque peaks - at the moment it feels like 3500 rpm or something, which is too high.

TonyF

Original Poster:

2,300 posts

283 months

Tuesday 19th January 2016
quotequote all
matt5791 said:
I ask because I don't like the way my Jeep Commander 5.7 hemi is tuned - there isn't enough low down torque - I'd be prepared to accept less power, if I had to, for more low down torque.

I intend to take this car to 150K miles or something, so re-sale value isn't much of a consideration! Although, I don't want to knacker the engine up or make it unreliable.

In standard form the Jeep is, official figures, 322bhp and 369lbft - but I'm sure it could give more, especially in the torque department and especially when that torque peaks - at the moment it feels like 3500 rpm or something, which is too high.
This was one of my criteria when they mapped mine, I specifically asked if they could work on the torque figures rather than bhp as initially the bhp was around 730 bhp.

GT3ZZZ

960 posts

177 months

Monday 8th February 2016
quotequote all
Byteme said:
Bentley could have done that but chose not to. I wonder why.
Easy - because they have to save enough headroom for the facelift, gen 2, 'speed', gt3 versions etc etc. The 4.0TT Audi unit is barely ticking over in its standard GTC tune

TonyF

Original Poster:

2,300 posts

283 months

Saturday 20th February 2016
quotequote all
Just got back from running my Bentley against my 458 in a straight line and unbeleivably there was nothing in it !!!
Very impressive from a 2.3 tonne car against a Ferrari...