Freelander 1 Has anyone used an MG 135ps ECU on a FL1 TD4?

I'm going to guess the answer to that would be NO because the Rover / MG variant of the TD4, the so called CDTi, uses a conventional rather than Variable Geometry turbo, so their ECU would not be set up to control our fan-dangled turbos? But I was wondering if anyone had played with this idea as it could be a very cheap source of horsepower?

You can have the TD4 EDC re-mapped for more power. However this does increase risk premature crankshaft breakage, which does happen occasionally on the standard TD4.

I've got a KESS v2 remapping gubbins at the workshop, but I was wondering about the 135 ECU as a swap because I can buy a 135 ECU for less than a map file to upload onto the stock ECU using my Kess. The hippo threw its fan belt today, and I've still the wheel bearings to do to is, so I probably should sidestep anything that invites more unreliability.

The 135 EDC won't necessarily work with the HDC, which isn't needed on the Rover 75. I think the alarm module is much the same, but that would need to be checked, as would the alarm module compatibility with the FL1 CCU.

I think the 135bhp was only a remap anyway, it was also offered by dealerships under the X Power name as an upgrade.

Apparently, you can get 200bhp, 300ft.lb from the M47R in the ZT CDTi, if you use the BMW 330D VNT turbo: https://www.sawstuning.co.uk/remap-results/

Perhaps a stronger crankshaft would be sensible...? And a stronger clutch

As a rule of thumb, if you start pushing engine performance to over 10% over stock, you will find that you will need to start replacing other parts to cope. Which is fine of course, but it depends on what your objectives are

@rob_bell That dyno looks lush, but I'm going to have to tread lightly with the amount of tuning I do, as mine is an automatic, and apparently the autobox is "only" good for around 160bhp. Think it was @Nodge68 who informed me of this limitation? So I'm thinking along the lines of:

• a set of muddy mods induction pipes
• bigger intercooler
• tone down the setttings on my Synergy 2 "ronbox" to just a pierburgh maf adapter
• then polish it all off with a mild remap

Currently, the way its set up, my TD4 pulls like a train from a standstill, but loses interest by ~3000rpm. This gets annoying when the autobox decides to kickdown into the noisy but gutless upper section of the engines rev counter. I've got a Kess v2 master, and a copy of winOLS, so I've reached out to SawsTuning about getting a copy of that map, fingers crossed. Even if I were to upload that with the GT1749v rather than the 330d's GT2256v I'd still have an output that would follow that curve, just run out of air at the top end, with the map being constrained by AFR targets. But I'd imagine that would end up as giving me about 75-80% of the maps potential, about 160 horse, which would work out superb for my project.

Im making a promise here, Bo later than February, I'll post a build thread chronicling my freelanders evolution from a special vehicles built freelander commercial van, into a family car, then on to being a surprisingly capable mild offroader, and now getting built for some creature comforts and high performance.I used to have great fun chasing down boy racers in my RRC with a 6.2 diesel with uprated injectors and fuel pump and really aggressive timing, 230bhp and a gazillion lb/ft. I want to make the freelander able to do the same, coming back off a trail covered in mud and detouring to boyracer hangouts to spend an evening embarrassing local yoofs in their noisy as heck 1.2/1.3 fisher price "my first car" modded hatchbacks.

Jayridium said:

I'm going to have to tread lightly with the amount of tuning I do, as mine is an automatic, and apparently the autobox is "only" good for around 160bhp. Think it was @Nodge68 who informed me of this limitation? So I'm thinking along the lines of:

Click to expand...

The Jatco box has a maximum torque limit of 300Nm, which doesn't give you much space for improvement on the TD4, which already puts out 260Nm @ 1750Rpm. Only mild tuning can be done, or auto gearbox life is seriously reduced. I managed to cook the clutches in mine, simply by using a Synergy set to maximum.

Thanks nodge, I guess I'm looking at around 140bhp remapped, best outcome can aim for is having a flat torque curve of just under 300nm across a wide section of the rev range.

Sounds as though you're going to be a little limited by the gearbox, but have fun with the project, will be interested to hear how this comes along

I’m running a 140bhp remap and a synergy on my new manual one it’s rather torquey but top end is lacking.

Time to find a 330d VNT turbo then DD

I was given the drawing to make an adapter plate to fit one no idea where it’s gone though

For a man of your talents DD, a simple job I think

Time is my biggest enemy to playing

That is so true - my main complaint too!

We are missing something here, as according to most remap places, the BMW e46 320D, as in the contemporary BMW to the FL1 TD4 that uses ostensibly the same engine, makes 150bhp on a GT1749v as standard, and this increases to ~200bhp with a remap. Yet our engines make ~110bhp before remap, 140-150bhp with remap.

https://www.celtictuning.co.uk/serv...50-bhp-2003-2005-ECU-remap-chiptuning/stage-1


I'm beginning to wonder if we have a different, detuned component inhibiting our engines, something like a lower lift camshaft profile or more restrictive injector nozzles. I mean, that celtic tuning remap dyno on the e46 more or less apes the output of the sawstuning mg with the bigger turbo, so how come the beemer can make those outputs on the standard gt1749v where as our cars need to a gt2256v to get to the same output?

Jayridium said:

We are missing something here, as according to most remap places, the BMW e46 320D, as in the contemporary BMW to the FL1 TD4 that uses ostensibly the same engine, makes 150bhp on a GT1749v as standard, and this increases to ~200bhp with a remap. Yet our engines make ~110bhp before remap, 140-150bhp with remap.

https://www.celtictuning.co.uk/serv...50-bhp-2003-2005-ECU-remap-chiptuning/stage-1

I'm beginning to wonder if we have a different, detuned component inhibiting our engines, something like a lower lift camshaft profile or more restrictive injector nozzles. I mean, that celtic tuning remap dyno on the e46 more or less apes the output of the sawstuning mg with the bigger turbo, so how come the beemer can make those outputs on the standard gt1749v where as our cars need to a gt2256v to get to the same output?

Click to expand...

The M47R is same output as the original BMW M47. It gives about 265Nm of torque and 114 BHP. The differences are injectors, turbo and the crankshaft is cast iron. The Later M47TU is a very different engine, with many changes to it to produce much more power, including an extra 50cc of capacity.

a 330d VNT turbo

Click to expand...

would the ecu need reprogramming ?

just wondered .. as recently i've removed my DGB1 turbo controller ..
the engine kept loosing power .. but not consistently .. just now and again ..
( was running ok after a stop and restart .. )
i started monitoring the boost data .. and saw some really odd figures .. like ..
24 psi boost .. i.e. 38 psi map .. and no subsequent change on the readout ..
( i think the max psi allowed is about 30/32 map .. not sure though )
turned the engine off .. restart and boost reading was stuck at 0.5 psi boost
but .. the engine ran fine ..
i stopped and switched the DGB1 to 'bypass' .. and all went back to normal
( btw: with the dgb1 working .. the boost figures via the data bus are known to be inaccurate )

so .. next day read the fault codes ( via a hawkeye ) and had about 5 faults ..
did not note all .. but one read 'map sensor short circuit' ..
another read 'excessive maf airflow' .. didn;t note the others as that was enough to tell me
that the 'boost' were the problem
( the engine warning light never came 'on' )
the synergy and pierburg maf are still operational ..
anyhow .. the turbo controller has been removed 'n all is well re. the live data readings
and engine running condition ..
( no more fault coded either )
just a slight loss of power .. not realy that noticable .. just a couple of mph on my regular ' test hill'
about 1 mile in length .. approach at 45/50 mph in 5th gear .. then foot to floor
( be 2 lanes up .. 1 lane down type .. more or less a straight line )
about 4mph slower without the dgb1 by the time the hill top is reached ( traffic conditions depending )

anyhow .. don't know if the t.controller has developed a fault in itself ..
or the fact that the fault happened with the ambient temp at 2c ..
i.e. cold dense air ..
( have had the controller on board for a few years .. no prev. issues )

sort of wondered if it were a case of turbo 'over-boost' causing the loss of power
or maybe an internal fault with the dgb1 gizmo
( the dgb1 .. i supposed to not exceed the map sensor specs.
( and engine type info. to be stated on ordering one ..
( be by the makers of the synergy.2a. module ..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

just got me thinking what might be the case in fitting a larger turbo ..
i.e. would the ecu need to be updated in some fashion ?
( i've no plans to install a larger turbo myself ..
( but be wondering what installing one would entail ..

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit jan.2022
power issue turned out to be faulty high-pressure fuel pump
now sorted ..

```````````````````````````````

Can't comment about your gizmo, but yes, if fitting anything that markedly increases air, then fuelling needs to be increased to compensate - and the best way to do that would be through re-mapping the fuel map.

And yes, the M47R is a little different from the BMW motor. I don't know the details, but the Rover variant is common rail, whereas the contemporary BMW unit was not. Later BMW M47 engines were further refined as Nodge says. Again, technical specifics I don't know, but it isn't unfortunately a question of a quick remap sadly.