Fuel Efficiency remap or not

Discussion in '4th Generation (2013-2017)' started by CRAIG1969, Wednesday 5th Feb, 2014.

  1. CRAIG1969 Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    craig coventry
    12
    3
    Just wondering if any of you guys think remapping is a good idea or not,
    More a remap maybe for better fuel efficiency not performance
    Could we get more out of our CR-V,s than standard mapping it comes with,
    Not clued up on this but have spoke to a few work colleges who say it would improve your vehicle.
    Any comments on this would be appreciated :Smile:
     
  2. TheDarkKnight Expert Advisor ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    2,688
    492
    If you are not clued up, then its worth to steer clear. Besides, why invalidate your warranty on a brand new car for the sake of a few meagre MPG?

    I get 60mpg-plus from my CR-V, why would I need to map it?

    CR-V is a very efficient machine for its size and bulk. Mapping = stupid.

    Thats my take.
     
    Loading...
  3. Ichiban Founder Staff Team

    England CJ Leeds
    30,134
    6,389
    516
    Well its depends what you want to achieve better acceleration or just want the top end speed? This so called improved fuel efficiency is a false economy. No doubt if you get the remap you get better performance but the long term issues of ERG increased clutch wear then you will rue the day why I got it when the bills start to mount.

    The choice is yours fella.
     
    Loading...
  4. DeviateDefiant Co-Founder Staff Team

    United Kingdom Leo Northants
    9,206
    2,977
    3
    I'm all for remapping but it needs to be done by a reputable tuner, not by a cheap firm inexperienced with i-DTECs, and also not an eBay "plug-in" chip tune (never heard a good result from those). As TDK said, it isn't too wise to do at all within your warranty period.

    Tuning solely for economy isn't worth it either. You're just to run the risk of premature component wear for a quid or two in your pocket each month. Honda have already tuned it for a great balance (performance, economy, wear, emissions etc.).

    If you wanted extra power, I'd say to it out of warranty, otherwise don't bother gambling pounds to make pennies.
     
    Loading...
  5. CRAIG1969 Junior Member ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    craig coventry
    12
    3
    Dk what sort of journeys do you do to achieve 60 plus MPG
    I do a 34 mile round trip to work each day the most I've had is 43 MPG
    That's on eco mode no Heavy breaking and changing gear on 2000 revs each time
     
  6. TheDarkKnight Expert Advisor ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    2,688
    492
    95% of my journeys are motorway.

    On the weekends, mostly urban stop-start, I quite easily waft around at 45mpg.

    Also, see this link and my image of MPG performance:

    http://hondakarma.com/posts/49920/
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sunday 23rd Feb, 2014
    Loading...
  7. Brodziu Valued Contributor ★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆

    Greg Manchester
    396
    95
    I remapped mine not because I wanted more MPG, but purely I wanted more power, I was aware that it will kill mu clutch quicker, but there is more pleasure from driving, but as DD said it has to be done by proper man who knows what is he doing :Smile:
     
    Loading...
    DeviateDefiant likes this.
  8. Quacker Banned ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    My 2013 CR-V is coming up to a year old and has covered just over 18,000 miles. Not once has it been filled at a commercial filling station in that time, but has always been filled from my own storage using gravity feed and using the little plastic funnel supplied for the job.

    Purely from the figures presented by the car's computer display, the car varies between 39 at worse and 43 at best between an average of 450 mile top-ups. I have a near-weekly 280 mile round trip, which is motorway apart from 60 miles, and depending on how I drive it on the day, it gets to between 39.5 and 41mpg with motorway speed of between 70 and 80 mph where possible.
    No idea whether the computed figures are accurate or not but I also have a Nissan Juke which is between 1 and 2 MPG optimistic in its calculations.

    I had an Audi Q7 before the Honda and I did have its 3.0V6 diesel engine remapped. This transformed the drivability of the car while also actually bettering its fuel economy. I was curious as to whether the better economy according to the display was real or not so I did physically test the accuracy and it was spot-on after the re-map. There is always the possibility that it was pessimistic before though I suppose. Anyhow, and allowing for the economy getting better as the miles accumulated on this car, the indication was that before the remap it was doing around 28mpg and after 60,000 miles with the remap at 20,000, the economy was up to 33mpg driven a good bit faster than the Honda. This was an auto while the Honda is a manual.

    So basically what I'm saying is that the Honda is not as economical as I would have expected and going from my experience with the Audi, the fuel economy might well improve as the miles increase and also might benefit from a remapping of the ECU [at your own risk].

    Also I suppose I'm saying that I'm slightly disappointed that the diesel CR-V doesn't do better. When buying it, the choice was between it and an automatic Mercedes ML with the 2.2 twin-turbo engine and seven speed automatic. The fuel economy of that for the combined cycle was better than the much lighter and less powerful Honda. What swayed it was buying British and I have no regrets for doing so. No matter that the Honda doesn't beat the Merc fuel economy, it is a lovely car that hasn't put a foot wrong in 18,000 miles, which is more than can be said for previous Mercs and BMW's I have owned.

    The biggest irritation I have with this forum and the reason I seldom visit is the regular anti-Swindon comments made by the main moderator. It is enough to put a whole lot of people off the brand.
     
  9. TheDarkKnight Expert Advisor ★ ★ ★ ★ ★

    2,688
    492
    I definitely concur with you that the 4th Generation CR-V is a delight to own. Like you, I have racked up just over 10,000 miles in mine and its been effortless.

    However, I would disagree with the fuel economy aspect - as I noted in Post 6 of this thread, the CR-V does exceptionally well fuel-wise. OK, not as brilliant as my 8th Generation Accord, but then the CR-V is significantly bigger, heavier and carries more dead-weight. I guess it depends on the driving role/styles etc, but from my own experience, I'm beyond delighted with it. :lol:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sunday 23rd Feb, 2014
    Loading...
  10. Ichiban Founder Staff Team

    England CJ Leeds
    30,134
    6,389
    516
    I have to admit the stock diesel CR-V goes down the road like a dream and is very sure footed. It's a million time better than the 3rd Generation diesel CR-V. I do like them it's a credit to Honda how good they have made the car. I would recommend everyone who doubts how good it is take a long extended drive all your doubts will be quashed. They did for me :Blushing:
     
    Loading...
  11. Ichiban Founder Staff Team

    England CJ Leeds
    30,134
    6,389
    516
    Ooh HOW did I miss this :Aghast: You are certainly entitled to your opinion.. But it does mean I am wrong Quacker. :Hey:
     
    Loading...
  12. Quacker Banned ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

    It was an afternoon's test drive that convinced me, just as one convinced me to change the RR for the Q7 a few years before. It is far more refined and well equipped than my Audi was and if I specced a new Audi up to this level it would be twice the price. Granted I lose the lovely auto transmission and a bit of ultimate acceleration (less than you imagine) but I really am rather chuffed with it. It drives so well that I don't even consider remapping it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Since the vast majority of Honda UK sales, if not European car sales, are now Swindon built and the brand and it's vehicles retain a very good reputation, which is confirmed in my case by the build quality of my CR-V, your regular criticism of UK built Honda's is rather disconcerting and very nearly put me off buying it in the first place. I'm glad it didn't.

    Not trying to be clever but a read of your own terms and conditions would imply that such criticism of the brand and product is frowned upon.
    Having said that, perhaps you may be generally correct and that Swindon's product is indeed substandard and that my experience is exceptional? You certainly seem to have more experience of the broad product range than I have.
     
  13. Ichiban Founder Staff Team

    England CJ Leeds
    30,134
    6,389
    516
    Its is a frank and open feedback call it criticism of how cars are made in Swindon, as NO one is willing to engage in this conversation as it anti British or its wrong thing to do? perhaps it is in a lot of members.

    Swindon has cleaned up its act on the current 4th Generation and 9th Civic but its past has not been that rosy... so customers who have been bitten they will never return.You have none of this excess baggage or pre conceived notions but for a lot of loyalist this is a RAW topic especially how Honda UK has ripped apart the Accord methodically to promote British made cars .. and I am happy to say this forum is proud to have this open and so called criticism of Swindon,

    However your points are noted as feedback.:Thumbup:
     
    Loading...