Can anyone recommend a really good engine remap box for the TD4?

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
Alibro said:
Wouldn't it be great if somebody bought 4 or 5 different boxes and tested them back to back so we can know if we are being robbed. Some boxes are over two hundred quid and some are well under One hundred.
What is the difference?
Are the expensive ones really that much better?
Joe says a home made MAF amp costing around a tenner will do 80% of what the most expensive kit will do so are we really paying big bucks for an empty box or is the big money in the last 20%?
And if the big money is in the last 20% then is it worth paying so much for them
At some stage I hope to be able to answer whether or not a simple MAF amp makes a difference or not but unless I buy a Ron box or one of the other units I won't have anything to compare it against.
Click to expand...

ur spot on and agree would be good if they compared them all , including after sales

know it's a very difficult thing to compare them accurately , suppose only way to test them is on the same landy and on a rolling road ??

maybe a poll on here might give a prospective buyer a direction to go in , with someone searching would then see how freelander owners find there units

price,
ease of fitment ,
mpg improvement
torque increase
after sales
cost
reliability
features
 
gstuart said:
cheers , it's gary , but don't worry been called worse, lol

fitted a synergy box around 4 years ago , is a very interesting idea of urs and wished I had known earlier :)

did find the owner , Ron , to be really honest in what it would and wouldn't do

if u had any problems he was just a phone call away , personally found the Ron box got rid of flat spots and made the landy go like a steam train , also improving the mpg , handy having the dashboard switch , to change it from power if u wished to tow etc, or economy for better mpg

know there are many on the market and agree some sales are claiming all sorts of thing

appreciated the write up, my brain hurts now ;):)
Click to expand...
Let me just answer this one - (and if your handle is ;gstuart; htf do we end up with gary ??:eek:
But . that is another story... so let me set the record straight for once,
Ron, as in RONBOX - is a superb bloke, he has done excellent work and his products are great ! no question there. He is an ACE guy. - He produces simple electronic designs with built in connectors fro the plug and pray brigade. Also, you pay A HUGE HUGE - ENORMOUS premium for such.. a few pence or quids worth of stuff in a nice Christmas present with ribbons on... that is about it....
Question though >? can we get similar results for a few quid - ?? - answer - yes !!!!!!!!!!- absolutely .//////

That is all she wrote really :D

The decision is up to you.......
 
Joe_H said:
Let me just answer this one - (and if your handle is ;gstuart; htf do we end up with gary ??:eek:
But . that is another story... so let me set the record straight for once,
Ron, as in RONBOX - is a superb bloke, he has done excellent work and his products are great ! no question there. He is an ACE guy. - He produces simple electronic designs with built in connectors fro the plug and pray brigade. Also, you pay A HUGE HUGE - ENORMOUS premium for such.. a few pence or quids worth of stuff in a nice Christmas present with ribbons on... that is about it....
Question though >? can we get similar results for a few quid - ?? - answer - yes !!!!!!!!!!- absolutely .//////

That is all she wrote really :D

The decision is up to you.......
Click to expand...

the g in gstuart stands for gary , lol

would be great if ur box came along earlier seeing u have the technical knowledge , can see people building them to see and like u say would be good to compare them
 
Skinny Mike said:
I took my synergy 2a to pieces to have a sneaky peak what's inside it. Unfortunately all the chips have their id tags rubbed off, probably to stop it being copied. But iirc it had about 3-4 chips in it on a small circuit board.
Mike
Click to expand...
It will have 1 microprocessor (probably a 'pic') and a couple of buffers (probably op amps).
It is a very simple circuit really. There is no point rubbing the tops off the chips as you can easily identify the processor by hooking up to the icsp (in circuit serial programming) however, you cannot read the contents as the read protect will be set by a 'fuse' (a special setting in the chip) at the time it was programmed.
A digital version is basically the circuit I did repeated in a micro -in the most basic way, the micro looks at the input voltage, looks up an appropriate value to put out and does it. The benefit of doing it this way is cost on mass production, and the ability to use a non linear relationship of output to input. It also allows other sensors to be easily hooked in such as MAP which can give extra info including idle and boost. In theory it is possible to calculate rpm from the fuel pressure pulses but I would need to see a scope output of the sensor. There should be a tiny variation on the HP sensor with every injector opening period (purely a theory... :)
 
Skinny Mike said:
I took my synergy 2a to pieces to have a sneaky peak what's inside it. Unfortunately all the chips have their id tags rubbed off, probably to stop it being copied. But iirc it had about 3-4 chips in it on a small circuit board.
Mike
Click to expand...
I took mine apart too. I should have taken a photograph, but didn't. It looks like it has a couple of Op Amps and maybe a PIC. There are some passive components and then the cable connections and switch connections.

What is interesting is what it's doing to the sensor feedback to the ECU. The feedback is being modulated about every second or so to a higher value. So while the engine is stopped, the HPFR sensor is reading 0 jumping to 1026 iirc at one second intervals.
When the engine is running, this modulation stabilises but the value returned to the ECU is higher then if the box is removed. The MAF signal returned is also higher then the non box signal.

So effectively the box it tricking the ECU by changing the data the ECU is using for fuel volume control.
 
A good debate!

I would agree completely.

The tuning "boxes" do what they do: alter sensor readings so that the ECU alters fuelling and ignition maps, and probably the turbo pressure too, for the conditions that it "sees". On a turbo engine, you'll get improvements in performance that you won't see on a N/A engine. I guess that 9 times out of 10, these tuning boxes will do what you bought the thing to do in the first place, and will be happy. Most of our cars only need to pass the visible smoke test anyway - so everyone is happy.
I am sure that Joe is right: if you are happy to build your own circuits, you could probably achieve much the same results for a few quid. The RoverRon kit is great because it is plug and play, easy to install and doesn't involve any parts identification, sourcing & buying/ fabrication/ soldering etc.

The re-map option is doing something similar, in that the fuel, ignition and pressure maps are altered, but being set up on a rolling road means that everything is optimised for the best power/torque for the least amount of fuel expended. You can imagine that the development time is rather more protracted - and hence this is often reflected in the cost.

Which is best? As a fan of rolling road testing products, I completely favour this: there is no comparative data on the various options. Which offers the best ft.lb/£? I reckon it'll be a tuning box of some description. What offers the best power/torque/MPG? A re-map.

Currently, you pay your money and make your choice. :)
 
[GALLERY=][/GALLERY]
Nodge68 said:
I took mine apart too. I should have taken a photograph, but didn't. It looks like it has a couple of Op Amps and maybe a PIC. There are some passive components and then the cable connections and switch connections.

What is interesting is what it's doing to the sensor feedback to the ECU. The feedback is being modulated about every second or so to a higher value. So while the engine is stopped, the HPFR sensor is reading 0 jumping to 1026 iirc at one second intervals.
When the engine is running, this modulation stabilises but the value returned to the ECU is higher then if the box is removed. The MAF signal returned is also higher then the non box signal.

So effectively the box it tricking the ECU by changing the data the ECU is using for fuel volume control.
Click to expand...

Yes, i thought I should have taken a photo once I'd put it all back together. Although I don't want to upset the peeps at synergy by posting pics of there stuff.

Still can't decide wether to put it back on now the freebie seems to be working again, or leave it off and have an eco remap done when funds allow.
Decisions decisions:rolleyes:
Mike
 
Nodge68 said:
What is interesting is what it's doing to the sensor feedback to the ECU. The feedback is being modulated about every second or so to a higher value. So while the engine is stopped, the HPFR sensor is reading 0 jumping to 1026 iirc at one second intervals.
When the engine is running, this modulation stabilises but the value returned to the ECU is higher then if the box is removed. The MAF signal returned is also higher then the non box signal.

So effectively the box it tricking the ECU by changing the data the ECU is using for fuel volume control.
Click to expand...
Exactly Nodge, all these boxes do the same - some slightly more sophisticated than others. By increasing the maf signal with the box attached (which is exactly what my little circuit does) it is tricking the ecu into thinking it has more air mass entering via the MAF hence the ecu increases it's fuel strategy to follow the changes.. By artificially lowering the fuel pressure signal signal to the ecu it would cause the ecu to increase the fuel pressure - however, as you have noted it appears to RAISE it slightly. This is quite interesting and I am still pondering the results :) . I also recall the 1 second pulsing on idle from your measurements on the CTS problem thread and I raised my eyebrows at that one too. The idle reading / pulsing may be a code anomaly, or a reasonably clever calibration routine IF the rpm is going to be calculated from minor HP sensor variations on injector opening. I would love to see a digital storage scope trace if you have the time (I think you said you had a scope ?)
The actual effective RAISING of fuel pressure signal to the ecu is surprising and would result in the pressure modulator winding down the HP pressure by increasing tank return, and also an increase in injector duration. speculation mode on - It could be something to do with spray patterns with shorter duration at higher HP pressure fighting against the longer duration / greater HP commanded by the MAF increase - or to look at it another way - the - if the desired result is longer injector duration then this would be an appropriate strategy.
If you ever get chance nodge can you check those results again - I am sure you are correct but a second look would be good. Also, I am not familiar with the 930, is it showing HPS voltage or calculated HPS pressure ?
It is a very informative result and one I find quite fascinating, yet it some ways - semi logical - the ecu is far more intelligent than the fudge boxes and to get the very best there may well have to be some double trickery going on.
I also presume the MAP sensor (if connected ?) remains the same as I am 'presuming' it is used only as an idle / over run sense.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm:cool:
 
rob_bell said:
A good debate!

I would agree completely.

The tuning "boxes" do what they do: alter sensor readings so that the ECU alters fuelling and ignition maps, and probably the turbo pressure too, for the conditions that it "sees". On a turbo engine, you'll get improvements in performance that you won't see on a N/A engine. I guess that 9 times out of 10, these tuning boxes will do what you bought the thing to do in the first place, and will be happy. Most of our cars only need to pass the visible smoke test anyway - so everyone is happy.
I am sure that Joe is right: if you are happy to build your own circuits, you could probably achieve much the same results for a few quid. The RoverRon kit is great because it is plug and play, easy to install and doesn't involve any parts identification, sourcing & buying/ fabrication/ soldering etc.

The re-map option is doing something similar, in that the fuel, ignition and pressure maps are altered, but being set up on a rolling road means that everything is optimised for the best power/torque for the least amount of fuel expended. You can imagine that the development time is rather more protracted - and hence this is often reflected in the cost.

Which is best? As a fan of rolling road testing products, I completely favour this: there is no comparative data on the various options. Which offers the best ft.lb/£? I reckon it'll be a tuning box of some description. What offers the best power/torque/MPG? A re-map.

Currently, you pay your money and make your choice. :)
Click to expand...
Hi Rob,
I think the price differential of both options is actually getting to be on a par.. A rolling road setup on an add-on (fudge) box would be pretty pointless even with its basic input to output non linear abilities as you would have to have full access to the actual programming for the look up table in the fudge box - not likely lol..
Where as a remap (on the later engines with flash capabilities) could well be ending up a similar price. Have you seen the price of some of these add on fudge units !! - yikes !.
THE biggest seller IMO is the plug and pray ability of the boxes - ie they come with the leads. for many (most) this is the only way they would / could do it as the prospect of tapping a specific - but easy to get to cable / cables is daunting.
With most re-maps form the few experienced suppliers in the UK (I only know of two) the RR session would be short with them present as the beauty of the freelander - for example - are that there are only a very limited number of maps used throughout the vehicle life. They will be so close out of the box - based on vehicle spec and work already done - that the RR time and adjustments would be short. It is not like fitting a complete new system and a full remap.
I agree, it is a fascinating subject.
 
Joe_H said:
Exactly Nodge, all these boxes do the same - some slightly more sophisticated than others. By increasing the maf signal with the box attached (which is exactly what my little circuit does) it is tricking the ecu into thinking it has more air mass entering via the MAF hence the ecu increases it's fuel strategy to follow the changes.. By artificially lowering the fuel pressure signal signal to the ecu it would cause the ecu to increase the fuel pressure - however, as you have noted it appears to RAISE it slightly. This is quite interesting and I am still pondering the results :) . I also recall the 1 second pulsing on idle from your measurements on the CTS problem thread and I raised my eyebrows at that one too. The idle reading / pulsing may be a code anomaly, or a reasonably clever calibration routine IF the rpm is going to be calculated from minor HP sensor variations on injector opening. I would love to see a digital storage scope trace if you have the time (I think you said you had a scope ?)
The actual effective RAISING of fuel pressure signal to the ecu is surprising and would result in the pressure modulator winding down the HP pressure by increasing tank return, and also an increase in injector duration. speculation mode on - It could be something to do with spray patterns with shorter duration at higher HP pressure fighting against the longer duration / greater HP commanded by the MAF increase - or to look at it another way - the - if the desired result is longer injector duration then this would be an appropriate strategy.
If you ever get chance nodge can you check those results again - I am sure you are correct but a second look would be good. Also, I am not familiar with the 930, is it showing HPS voltage or calculated HPS pressure ?
It is a very informative result and one I find quite fascinating, yet it some ways - semi logical - the ecu is far more intelligent than the fudge boxes and to get the very best there may well have to be some double trickery going on.
I also presume the MAP sensor (if connected ?) remains the same as I am 'presuming' it is used only as an idle / over run sense.
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm:cool:
Click to expand...

I will rerun the test at some point in the future. However I myself though it odd that the box applied a fuel pressure increase in the ignition on, engine off state. It definitely registered a modulated pressure of 0 to 1026 or something similar. I'd have thought it would reduce the pressure returned to ECU.
Running between the booster on and off is more difficult to determine as there is a fluctuation in the fuel pressure of a couple of thousand KPa anyway.
 
Last edited:
Nodge68 said:
I will rerun the test at some point in the future. However I myself though it odd that the box applied a fuel pressure increase in the ignition on, engine off state. It definitely registered a modulated pressure of 0 to 1026 or something similar. I'd have thought it would reduce the pressure returned to ECU.
Running between the two booster on and off is more difficult to determine as there is a fluctuation in the future of a couple of thousand KPa anyway.
Click to expand...
Excellent Nodge, and agree 100%. As for another test when convenient - that would be great. I can sort of understand the readings at idle (but it doesnt quite add up) - it may be a 930 issue - it may a a code anomaly in the fudger, or it may be absolutely correct and a method of cal. I would have thought the ecu wuold have thrown a 'non plausible' code though if the pressure went to 0 :eek: ?
On running, I really WOULD have expected the box to show a slight DECREASE in pressure when on, to trick the ecu to increase the pressure above normal. This is one area where it is really uncertain and contrary to all normal ideology - however unlikely, it may be a chicken and egg situation as to what the 930 is actually reading - Can it read raw data (voltage input) from the sensor ?

Edit - hmm, if the output was a couple of thousand KPa then that is up to 20 Bar. difference
However - we are looking at figures of 200 Bar crank, 300 bar idle and 1300 Bar at max operating conditions. So, I suppose a figure of 20 bar may be a measurement anomaly also.
As you say, it is extremely difficult to compare. I would personally bet my bottom (euro) dollar on the pressure sense input to the ecu being lowered - hence the ECU increasing actual HP pressure. (sorry for my mental conversion of 100 KPa to Bar - I am just more comfortable with Bar from diving :) - it sort of registers in my head 'visually' - a bit like Ltrs per 100 Km as opposed to MPG - I am JUST after 10 years :eek: - getting used to Ltrs/100Km// it now means something tangible. metric and imperial - I don;t want to go there lol:oops: I just tent to use either and mix and match as both work for me.:rolleyes:
As always Nodge mate - very very much appreciated..
Do you have scope btw ?
Cheers
Joe
 
Last edited:
Joe_H said:
Excellent Nodge, and agree 100%. As for another test when convenient - that would be great. I can sort of understand the readings at idle (but it doesnt quite add up) - it may be a 930 issue - it may a a code anomaly in the fudger, or it may be absolutely correct and a method of cal. I would have thought the ecu wuold have thrown a 'non plausible' code though if the pressure went to 0 :eek: ?
On running, I really WOULD have expected the box to show a slight DECREASE in pressure when on, to trick the ecu to increase the pressure above normal. This is one area where it is really uncertain and contrary to all normal ideology - however unlikely, it may be a chicken and egg situation as to what the 930 is actually reading - Can it read raw data (voltage input) from the sensor ?

Edit - hmm, if the output was a couple of thousand KPa then that is up to 20 Bar. difference
However - we are looking at figures of 200 Bar crank, 300 bar idle and 1300 Bar at max operating conditions. So, I suppose a figure of 20 bar may be a measurement anomaly also.
As you say, it is extremely difficult to compare. I would personally bet my bottom (euro) dollar on the pressure sense input to the ecu being lowered - hence the ECU increasing actual HP pressure. (sorry for my mental conversion of 100 KPa to Bar - I am just more comfortable with Bar from diving :) - it sort of registers in my head 'visually' - a bit like Ltrs per 100 Km as opposed to MPG - I am JUST after 10 years :eek: - getting used to Ltrs/100Km// it now means something tangible. metric and imperial - I don;t want to go there lol:oops: I just tent to use either and mix and match as both work for me.:rolleyes:
As always Nodge mate - very very much appreciated..
Do you have scope btw ?
Cheers
Joe
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that the I930 is simply displaying the figures that the ECU is broadcasting on the bus. The figure is in KPa which which is the most likely denominator for it to use. The I930 doesn't have the facility to read the actual sensor. I wouldn't even think that is output by the ECU.
The only way to get the actual sensor data, would be to back probe the connector and display the results on my scope.
A test for the future I think.

Edit: Light bulb time.
I've just had a thought as to why the RB might be lowering the HPFR slightly at idle. Maybe at low MAF values, the fuel pressure value is held low to ensure a clean exhaust and correct idle speed. Obviously increased fuel will up the idle speed, or alter timings enough to make black smoke.
There's definitely something more clever than a simple boost of the sensors signals.
I suspect that the data is being run through a basic MAF vs FP map, sending controlled, modified sensor data to the ECU.
 
Last edited:
Nodge68 said:
I'm guessing that the I930 is simply displaying the figures that the ECU is broadcasting on the bus. The figure is in KPa which which is the most likely denominator for it to use. The I930 doesn't have the facility to read the actual sensor. I wouldn't even think that is output by the ECU.
The only way to get the actual sensor data, would be to back probe the connector and display the results on my scope.
A test for the future I think.

Edit: Light bulb time.
I've just had a thought as to why the RB might be lowering the HPFR slightly at idle. Maybe at low MAF values, the fuel pressure value is held low to ensure a clean exhaust and correct idle speed. Obviously increased fuel will up the idle speed, or alter timings enough to make black smoke.
There's definitely something more clever than a simple boost of the sensors signals.
I suspect that the data is being run through a basic MAF vs FP map, sending controlled, modified sensor data to the ECM.
Click to expand...
Interesting... can you confirm if the RB has a tap from the MAP sensor ?
Joe
 
Joe_H said:
Interesting... can you confirm if the RB has a tap from the MAP sensor ?
Joe
Click to expand...

No MAP connection to the Synergy 1a at all. It plugs into the MAF and HPFR sensor. So basically the RB is between those two sensors and the standard harness. The Synergy doesn't even know engine speed or throttle position. It can only base it's modification on the MAF value seen.

The Ron box boost controller (seperate box completely) has a connection to the MAP sensor only.
 
Nodge68 said:
No MAP connection to the Synergy 1a at all. It plugs into the MAF and HPFR sensor. So basically the RB is between those two sensors and the standard harness.
The Ron box boost controller (seperate box completely) has a connection to the MAP but not the standard Synergy unit.
Click to expand...
Ah, thats ok, I can see that working - I suspect the rpm sensing is a simple HP FP sensor signal pulse detection on injector opening.
Yes, I really really DO think the HP FP Sensor should be reducing the signal sent to the ecu (at the mo' - I believe the sensor is a negative coefficient value in relation to increasing pressure. however, that would not alter the readings in the 930 (depending on WHERE they originate) - chicken and egg again - are we seeing the actual sensor or the ecu desired pressure.. ? - I suspect actual.
But I keep going back in my mind that the fuel pressure should be sent to the ECU via the fudge box as a LOWER value to increase the actual rail pressure...

I have to go back to my roots in 1981 when I was 24 and had been in the tuning industry. for 6 years.... :eek::D - old age and poverty haha - this was played when we were baffled....:rolleyes:


Joe :)
 
Here's the MAF and HPFR sensor specs from the M47R manual.
Screenshot_20160826-140523.png
Screenshot_20160826-140458.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Freelander 1 td4 “the misfire”
Replies
10
Views
1K
Ross Tait
R
F
04 TD4 new clutch time. Can anyone recommend a good garage North East UK
Replies
10
Views
905
Alteredtech
Alteredtech
J
Disco 2 Has anyone used a TD5 with the M&D kit for an MT82
Replies
12
Views
1K
MJI
MJI
C
The incredible part for Freelander 2.0 Td4
Replies
2
Views
609
liliana fox
L
rob_bell
Discovery Sport Massive CAN bus failure
Replies
17
Views
4K
rob_bell
rob_bell
Back
Top