General Re-Mapping of 1.3 Multijet

[mjs4x4]

Just to add my two penny worth here (as I started this thread).

I don't know much about Fiats but I do know plenty about VW Group cars - and of course there is a massive market in re-mapping VAG diesels. Some of the re-mapping that the VW engines take gives massive increases in torque and I don't hear about people having to change gearboxes to handle all that extra power!

Larger increases in torque DO sometimes require the fitment of an upgraded clutch - usually drive plate and pressure plate - but with fairly mild re-maps there is usually enough strength in the standard clutch if the car is not being thrashed all the time.

I can't believe (though I am open to being proved wrong) that FIAT makes a gearbox that is so weak that it risks ruin with anything other than a small increase in torque over the standard produced by the 1.3MJ. I expect that the power output of the 500 1.3MJ is set to achieve what FIAT believes to be an optimum balance of driveability / low emmissions / economy.

On the question whether dealers 'chip' or re-map their cars my own experience of the local Skoda dealer was that they cheerfully told me their Octavia 4x4 TDI (105bhp) was tuned to 130bhp - they reckoned it was a better drive than the 'standard' larger 140bhp TDI.

I am certainly interested to get my 500 re-mapped when I get it. Engine life? Well I guess any modern diesel (even a 1.3) - properly maintained - should be good for 200,000 miles. If that is reduced to, say, 175,000, do I really care at 12,000 miles pa?


Mike

 

[The Beard]

The only reason I can think of for the gearboxes of the Panda/500 being a different torque rating is that both are built in the same factory and that 95% of models will only ever have a max torque output of 150nm. Even then, I can't see how it is any cheaper to make the lower reated 'box. In saying that,
I'm assuming the 500 Abarth will (apart from body shell and dash) be built at Abarth's facility in Italy.
The 500 and Panda, are also physically smaller and lighter than the GP so the higher torque output may not be necessary. Also don't underestimate how important a £10 saving could be to a car maker. £10 per 'box X 1 million cars = £10M.
There is also a car's place in the general scheme of things. When the new
180/190 bhp 1.9 JTD comes into Alfa/Lancias, don't expect to see it in the Bravo. Why would you pay more for an Alfa only to get blown away by a FIAT.

 

[mjs4x4]

Is it being suggested that the gearbox mated to the 1.3MJ in the Grand Punto is completely different to the gearbox mated to the 1.3MJ in the Panda / 500??

Surely someone on here with dealer connections and access to part numbers could tell us that?


Mike

 

[N500SHP]

Is it being suggested that the gearbox mated to the 1.3MJ in the Grand Punto is completely different to the gearbox mated to the 1.3MJ in the Panda / 500??

Surely someone on here with dealer connections and access to part numbers could tell us that?


Mike

There are changes in the part numbers, but the boxes are made the same, to the same spec with the same materials and to behonest, no one can seems to know why!

Thing is, I dont know any manufacturer these days who's gearboxes are so weak that they wouldnt withstand 200+ lb ft of torque on a diesel, even a 1.3 Multijet. Hell if you towed something, even in standard, you would quickly destroy it.

 

[N500SHP]

Also don't underestimate how important a £10 saving could be to a car maker. £10 per 'box X 1 million cars = £10M.

Sorry, didnt see that bit. Yes totally agree, but I really dont think Fiat have cut any corners with the 500, the build quality is superb, just hearing the doors close you notice the New Fiat standard also evident in the Bravo.

I also don't think they would have taken any backwards step from the products and build quality of the past 2-3 years of the units in the GPS and Doblo etc etc and the feel of the 'box in the 500 is much better than the 1.3 boxes have been before.

 

[oilrag]

Perhaps the Panda and 500 have the C514 gearbox,
while the 1.3 Multijet in the GP has the C510?

The box dimensions seem different, perhaps that it?

http://www.fptpowertrain.com/eng/applicazioni_automotive_cambi_eu_sa.htm#g31

 

[mjs4x4]

If I am following the plot on this:

1.3MJ Diesel engine in standard spec - maximum torque is 190Nm at 1750rpm.

The 514 Gearbox is presuably the stronger box for the MJ Diesel and is rated at 206Nm max input torque.

Those figures look very close.

Am I missing something?



Mike

 

[oilrag]

The way I read it is that both the C510 and C514 gearboxes are used with the 1.3 multijet diesel in different applications.

standard torque for the 1.3 Multijet as fitted to the GP is 190nm and the C510 gearbox seems to be used for which max rated torque is 206nm.

In the Panda and 500 it looks like the C514 gearbox is used which is rated to 150nm of torque and the standard torque of the multijet has seemingly been restricted to 145nm to not exceed this figure.

That makes the C510 gearbox the stronger of the two as seemingly fitted to the GP and the Punto Mk2b.

I think none of this matters at all as they are great cars as standard.

But it does seem leave the Panda 500 owner more vulnerable to potential trouble if the engine of these cars is chipped to the maximum.

* as there is greater potential for torque increase as this has been deliberately restricted by the manufacturer*

I mean, if the Multijet in the Panda/500 were chipped up to even the standard torque of the engine in the GP application it would be 40nm over the box rating and it can of course be chipped considerably beyond that.

Its just an opinion and I may be wrong, but it would be good if someone did a heads up from a Dealership or Fiat to comment on this so that the risks could be calculated on a personal basis.

Regards

 

[Jake_in_notts]

Im following this with interest . I had a Saab 95 remapped happily because I knew that the engine, gearbox and running gear could take it because they used pretty much exactly the same in the Aero version with bigger injectors and a larger turbo. I would consider a remap if I was certain that there was redundancy in the system to cope with the extra torque.
The engine seems ok but there appears confusion over the box, is that the current state of play so far?

 

[Nuova500]

Thats exactly the situation, the engine is fine but there are questions re the box. Thing is, just because one or two cars have been tested by an independant tuning company, keen to sell its products to us, thats not conclusive proof that the box on everyones car will be fine. Obviously there is a valid reason that Fiat restrict the torque in the 500/Panda and for this reason I view any tuning beyond that with a certain restraint!
Our problem is, Fiat wont obviously comment, as its a modification to their cars... we need an insider in powertrain to advise. If someone could say with absolute certainty that the box will happily cope then I would love a remap but that someone needs to be independant.

 

[Jake_in_notts]

Exactly my thoughts nuovapanda

 

[Mark Elvin]

The main point for me would be to find out if the gearbox in the 500 is used on any other car in the range first.

 

[John R Smith]

Interesting.

Certainly, the 1.3 Multijet has been de-rated for its installation in the 500, which explains why tuning companies can get 25% more power out of it, whereas the petrol engines will see only 10% at most with induction mods and re-maps combined. The question remains, why was it de-rated? Was it so the same gearbox could be used for the 1.2 petrol and the diesel? Was it to maintain a performance differential between the Multijet and the 1.4 petrol? Inquiring minds want to know . . .

John

 

[J333EVO]

Interesting.

Certainly, the 1.3 Multijet has been de-rated for its installation in the 500, which explains why tuning companies can get 25% more power out of it, whereas the petrol engines will see only 10% at most with induction mods and re-maps combined. The question remains, why was it de-rated? Was it so the same gearbox could be used for the 1.2 petrol and the diesel? Was it to maintain a performance differential between the Multijet and the 1.4 petrol? Inquiring minds want to know . . .

John

The reason for the differance is because one is turbo charged and one is N/A, you can not get big gains from remapping a N/A car, it's just not possible, 2-4% increase is about normal, hence why no remapping company will quote power figures for remapping N/A cars.

On a turbo car all the re-mappers do is raise boost, tweak fuelling, remove torque limiters which is controlled by electronic wastegate, its not a divine science. Car manufacturers spend millions on long term durability testing that can never be replicated by aftermarket tuners as the cost would make the pars they developed to expensive, this is why if you buy a properly developed race car its costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, its all about recouping development costs, its what separates winners from losers in racing terms. To give an example just to hire a dyno cell at a respected company with an operator who knows how to work it and interpolate the results on the 5 screens in the cell which relay info on everything you can imagine would cost over £100 per hour, and for long term durability you need 250hours minimum with much of that spent on WOT. Just exhaust manifolds are put through a cycle of WOT, switch off, artificially cool them (something a dyno cell can do as not only can it control water and oil temps, but also atmosphere) WOT open throttle, and this goes on again and again and again to make sure it can takes years of abuse of stop start driving. So unless you have a 24hour dyno cell you can never ever replicate what manufacture parts go through.

I love tuning cars, but I also take into consideration its a domino effect, you do something somewhere and it will always have an effect somewhere else that was not engineered to accept the differance elsewhere. I accept this and in a way enjoy it as means I always have something to work on.

We really do take for granted now just how reliable cars are, but its only because of such development work that this is possible.

I would say the only issues really with raised power, is shorter clutch life, tyres with much shorter lifespan which is not exactly hard to work out, more torque/power, same tyres & clutch trying to transmit it to the road, therefore probably higher running costs as tyres wear out a few thousand miles earlier, you see domino effect, its always there. longer term turbo will not last as long as its producing more power, what do you get when a turbo produces more power, heat, lots of it, this will reduce its lifespan as well and i would consider shortening the oil change interval as the oil will be getting made to work harder. Again service intervals are worked out on the work the engine does, you are asking it to work harder, so oil works harder etc etc

Another area worth consideration is brakes, Fiat fit better brakes to the 1.4 model, discs all round and bigger front callipers/discs so may be worth upgrading brakes.

Look after the car and it will look after you, but never ever undertake any tuning without considering the full picture, more fun always means more money.

Enjoy our cars and if that means more power then go for it, I have with every car I have ever owned.

I forgot to add, this is why when Fiat launches the Abarth tuning parts they will at first seem expensive compared to comparable after market stuff, but this will be down to longer development times and costs. One of the things I have found out from having had a couple of Japanese cars now is many have there own tuning departments. I for example had Suzuki Sport lowering springs @ £220, when I could have bought Spax for £140ish or PI even cheaper, yet I am only person I know who never experienced leaking shock absorbers due to mismatched spring/damper rates, and had a more compliant ride yet car was still as low. Or the strut brace bar, again nearly double cost of OMP item, but with the kit you got extra items to relocate the path of accelerator cable so it didn't rub on bar, OMP rubbed it so you gained unsightly mark. With Toyota again you get TRD stuff again more expensive, again you can see the extra development. If you read the blurb from Fiat they themselves have identified this marketand know its worth billions alone in Japan, never mind Europe or even USA and want some of the action.

 

[mjs4x4]

Surely this all comes down to the question of which box is fitted to the Diesel version of the 500.

I had assumed that the lower rated (150Nm) box was for the petrol models and the higher rated box (206Nm) was for the higher torque of the Diesel engine.

Do we have someone on here with dealer connections who can give a definitive answer to that? Which box in the 500 1.3MJ - the 510 or 514?

If FIAT have fitted a weaker gearbox to the Diesel and got around it by restricting the power output of the engine then they want shooting!!



Mike

 

[PEZZ175]

I would love a remap

Im not getting mine done, thats for sure... if I didnt like it as is, then I wouldnt have bought it in the first place. Still too many issues with remapping for my liking, heard plenty of horror stories.
nuovapanda 14/2/2008

 

[Nuova500]

LOL, very well reserched and yes I did say that However, IF someone could assure me the box is OK then I would have it done... at the moment there are too many ifs about!
Like I said, Id love a remap after we know exactly whats what and so far, no one has answered the question re the box properly, just roundabout answers.

 

[oilrag]

The thing is to get a definitive answer now or this thread will just disappear into the back of the forum and the question will occur again later.

Best way forward then?

 

[Jake_in_notts]

Is there a part # as well as serial # on the gear box? If so can someone with a 1.2 and a 1.3 post them to see if they match. That would at least tell us if the diesel 500 uses a different box.

 

[John R Smith]

The problem we have is that, as far as I can see, there is no readily available parts manual or workshop manual for the 500 (although the dealer network must have access to them). In fact any sort of technical info is ridiculously thin on the ground. Presumably Fiat feels that ordinary mortals are not to be trusted with this stuff.

John