Remap by Hilltop Motorcycles

[Delboy777]

As far as I can remember we Dyno'd one bike - fitted the Accelerator module and did the Dyno test again......... no noticeable change. The ACC module is really just a Resistor with a bit of wiring as far as I remember - this changes the value of the info sent to the ECU, which in change will add more fuel to the mixture. however the ECU is the little shite that then talks to the Lamda sensors, which tell it that the ratios aren't correct and the ECU re-adjusts again to compensate....... so really you go into a loop.

We then tried the ACC module and actually disconnected the Lamda's...... and yes then we noticed a difference and the bike was great for a few rides, but not advisable to do this on a long-term basis. In fact we removed the ACC module and tried it just with Lamda's disconnected... and response was same as with the module connected.


If I was you... do a run for a few miles - carefully disconnect your Lamda's and try the run back again... see if you notice a difference in response...?

Goose i know exactly what the module does ive read up on it on here and elsewhere and the feeling seems to be that it does work for what it was designed for, ie to smooth out the lean running mixture and so make the bike a little more friendly while in slow traffic etc. Im well aware that it will make no difference in power output thats not what it was designed for, but it seems it does do the job for those that have fitted one..

 

[APE]

We had a misfire on one of our GS's on a recent European trip - in torrential rain. It transpired in the services that it was down to the PC-V, which was quite easily remedied, but we could have been more robust in fitting it in the first place, which would have prevented the issue. Once sorted it has been problem free since. No issue on the standard TC, or the remapped bike in the rain so far

There does appear to be some reliability issues with the Power Commandar and perhaps it's not the best option if you ride in all weathers/ tour aboard/ rack up big miles.
Given the poor fuelling on the single cam - especially the final version (2008/09 ?) I'm sure the remap is a good option - as long as you're not looking for a big power gain.
On the Twin Cam I suspect it is not worth it. The fuelling is good out of the box and the money is probably better spend on beer tokens...

 

[Deleted account 211025001]

Interestingly, the official Husky 'power up' kit as fitted to my 630 consists of a blanking plug for the removed lamda and a resistor to plug into the loom where the lamda was.

Andres

 

[Wilsdorf]

There does appear to be some reliability issues with the Power Commandar and perhaps it's not the best option if you ride in all weathers/ tour aboard/ rack up big miles.
Given the poor fuelling on the single cam - especially the final version (2008/09 ?) I'm sure the remap is a good option - as long as you're not looking for a big power gain.
On the Twin Cam I suspect it is not worth it. The fuelling is good out of the box and the money is probably better spend on beer tokens...

I'd probably agree - although on the single cam, we sorted out the PC-V and weather proofed it - so it most likely won't fupp up again. As I said, if we have been a bit more robust in the original fitting we may have foreseen the potential torrential rain issue and addressed it at the time. The Remap looks a more elegant solution, and I would possibly be inclined to go down that route, after all you need a little dyno time for both to get it right (in fact most should take a lot more than a few runs on a dyno to set up properly), if and only if it was represented correctly and marketed as a alternative with similar benefits, and not a sort of 50% of the increase you would expect from sticking on a turbo

 

[Sgt Bilco]

There does appear to be some reliability issues with the Power Commandar and perhaps it's not the best option if you ride in all weathers/ tour aboard/ rack up big miles.

Really? I fitted a PC3 on my 2006 GSA 3 years ago and it's been faultless for 50,000 miles through some pretty harsh conditions including 4 trips up the Dalton Highway in Alaska which is as rough as you would want. The unit sits under the seat and has been covered in all sorts of shite. I had the bike dyno'd to give more low down grunt and with my keihan de cat exhaust system, it kicks out about the same bhp and torque as the twin cam and fuels beautifully from any revs in any gear. Whole set up with 2nd hand PC3 and dyno run was about £200.

 

[Delboy777]

Really? I fitted a PC3 on my 2006 GSA 3 years ago and it's been faultless for 50,000 miles through some pretty harsh conditions including 4 trips up the Dalton Highway in Alaska which is as rough as you would want. The unit sits under the seat and has been covered in all sorts of shite. I had the bike dyno'd to give more low down grunt and with my keihan de cat exhaust system, it kicks out about the same bhp and torque as the twin cam and fuels beautifully from any revs in any gear. Whole set up with 2nd hand PC3 and dyno run was about £200.

 

[ricalnic]

Has anyone yet felt strong enough about the remap offered by Hilltop, that post remap there was no significant improvement, and therefore asked that it be rolled back and a refund of their £350 or so. I know if I parted with over 300 of my hard earned, and didn't get the anticipated improvement I would be straight back through the donor for my wedge back.

The consensus of opinion does seem to be money well spent, and in the correct direction,and certainly better spent on a remap that many of the other farkles that we pursue.

I'll look forward to providing my feedback when I eventually manage to make the journey to have it done to my bike. As my bikes a keeper for me, I'll look forward to hopefully years of confidence that my bike, and it's fuelling, are optimal.

 

[Mr Bean]

Whilst I was waiting for mine to be done there were two other gents having theirs re-mapped. After they came back I got talking to one and his view was that he couldn't notice the difference (he was a viewer on here - not sure if a subscriber), but accepted that as the road was wet he couldn't be certain.

Me on the other hand notice virtually no increase lower down, but it is (appears) much more willing as the revs increase towards the red line which to me suggests more power.

As posted previously, it is smoother than before at lower RPM.

Do I believe the numbers on the dyno print out - probably not, but I am happy with the overall result on my 2007 machine.

 

[Bendy toy]

You can't use a diesel car remap as a comparison! Diesels have a turbo so you up the boost and the fuel you can get a massive gain in power. Same goes for a turbo petrol engine although it's more limited. A normally aspirated engine though has no way to get extra air into the engine via a remap. That takes head work and camshafts along with a lot of time and cash. And there is the rub, without getting more air into an engine, gains will be strictly limited to what you can fine tune and better use of the limited air avaliable to you.
I totally belive hilltop offer a good service in so much as your bike will run far better than stock. Their dyno sheets just don't add up though but hey they aren't the first nor will they be the last tuner to exaggerate.
Don't let that put you off though, as I said they do a good job at smoothing out power delivery and it's cheaper than a PCV plus dyno time to set it up properly.

Its a shame I mentioned the engine type. My point was the reliability of a chip/remap vs add-on box such as Power Commander. Some folks imply that Hilltop is rubbish because their graphs show such great power gains. But the whole point is the major improvements in usability. Any significant power gains are a bonus. To satisfy the pedants, most remaps offer some power increase.

Any big twin is likely to be more strangulated to meet the emission requirements than a straight four so removing that strangulation will have a bigger effect.

 

[Wilsdorf]

Any big twin is likely to be more strangulated to meet the emission requirements than a straight four so removing that strangulation will have a bigger effect.

That is a very sweeping statement. Why would you expect a twin to be "strangulated" to meet emissions? is this a myth, or a strange extrapolation of the fact that some other configurations are more power efficient?

 

[Wilsdorf]

Has anyone yet felt strong enough about the remap offered by Hilltop, that post remap there was no significant improvement, and therefore asked that it be rolled back and a refund of their £350 or so. I know if I parted with over 300 of my hard earned, and didn't get the anticipated improvement I would be straight back through the donor for my wedge back.

I would have quite happily taken mine back and had it put back to standard, and then gone down the full system and Powercommander route instead (as we don't have anyone local who carries out remaps on the GS) - but I don't live in the UK and it would be an expensive hassle to take mine back. The other side of it is, I don't think it is a bad mod, and more than likely as good (possibly a little better in some respects) as the PC - but I would say in my experience, there is likely to be little ultimate difference between whichever option you choose.

 

[Giles]

I agree with you - a bit of a sweeping statement! But, I think in the real world (so just thinking about all the bikes i've owned from V's to inline 4's to twins ...) you'd get such a huge benefit from tuning a twin. They're not the smoothest fresh out the box. And I agree with the comments on the real world improvements and not just what it says on paper. Think about things like matching engine revs - easy on a four - a very linear rise and fall of revs and easy to either Brap Brap Brap or better still that silky constant rev down change, throttle held on tap tap tap into second for the roundabout.

Not so silky on a twin always! And that for me was why the remap was so successful. I don't give a hoot about top speed and BHP, I want beautiful fuelling and a light throttle that reacts crisply and instantly .....

 

[Wilsdorf]

Not so silky on a twin always! And that for me was why the remap was so successful. I don't give a hoot about top speed and BHP, I want beautiful fuelling and a light throttle that reacts crisply and instantly .....

I agree with your first paragraph.

On the 2nd - yes, absolutely - and if that is the rationale for going for the remap, then that is all the reason you need - however, I am quite sure there are more than a few who went for this particular remap because of the numerous stated power improvements, rather than thinking - "do you know what, I'll just spend £350 for slightly smoother fueling".

 

[Bendy toy]

That is a very sweeping statement. Why would you expect a twin to be "strangulated" to meet emissions? is this a myth, or a strange extrapolation of the fact that some other configurations are more power efficient?

Slow speed airflow is less consistent
High peak pressures are created more often
Larger exhaust valves dont cool as well as small valves causing hot spots
Higher mechanical stress due to inertia of larger moving parts
Sensitive to poor quality fuel
More difficult to reduce noise levels on a twin than a four
Power = torque x revs. Small cylinders allow higher revs so more power. Sports bikes sell on numbers. Big twins cant compete of power so sell on bike image.

With big twins its simply easier to opt out of the power numbers game. Detune the engine and sell on image. Its possible to make huge power (e.g. Ducati) but they are fragile.

Lots of small bangs can be tuned more accurately, allows fewer ECU tuning compromises so less benefit when a remap us used to optimise the ECU map. Anyone wanting a super fast and smooth bike out of the box should buy a four banger or even a six.

Going back to the subject of turbo diesels - I believe the lower spec engines are potentially almost as powerful as at least the next model up. I'm a cynic who believes they are detuned to make the punter pay for the higher spec even when additional manufacturing costs are minimal. My 1.9 TDI 90 went to 110bhp and drove just like a 110. The 110 went to 130bhp and guess what it drove just like the 130. Eventually VW brought out the 170 which really was about as maxed out as they got - and quite fragile apparently. The less costly 130 could also be chipped/mapped to 170.

 

[Schtum]

Eventually VW brought out the 170 which really was about as maxed out as they got - and quite fragile apparently. The less costly 130 could also be chipped/mapped to 170.

My local Dyno guy tells me that every 170 PD that he's had on the rollers puts out something closer to 190 bhp, which is quite a step up from the nominal 168 bhp as it comes out of the factory and makes the nominal 205 bhp / 325 lbs-ft which mine has after a remap by Angel Tuning relatively mild. A DPF delete and a further remap will give c. 245 bhp and a corresponding increase in torque. My Golf now flies and in-gear overtaking ability rivals my old GS if not the new WC. More to the point and consistent with recent discussions on this thread, it's also much nicer to drive. Previously it stuttered and stumbled, especially at low revs in traffic. Now, it'll slow down to 20 mph in second gear and pull away again quite happily.

Any fragility you might have read about is most likely associated with blocked DPFs - I've never even had a check engine light in over 5 years of ownership. The other thing that goes wrong with them is that some of them have plastic tensioners for the chain that drives the oil pump which is located in the sump. The tensioner breaks up and the chain then breaks or comes off. There was also a recall last year for new injectors on some cars, including mine. Now, do I leave the DPF intact and settle for 205 bhp or bin it and go for the full-fat 245...?

All of this applies to the 2.0 TDI 170 PD. The 2.0 TDI CR 170 is a completely different device and has recently been superceded by a 177 hp version. SWMBO collects a new Tiguan with that engine in it next week and I'm looking forward to seeing how it drives and if it responds well to the Viezu tuning box which we currently have fitted to her 140 hp model, giving a reputed 175 bhp.

 

[Doberman]

My local Dyno guy tells me that every 170 PD that he's had on the rollers puts out something closer to 190 bhp, which is quite a step up from the nominal 168 bhp as it comes out of the factory and makes the nominal 205 bhp / 325 lbs-ft which mine has after a remap by Angel Tuning relatively mild. A DPF delete and a further remap will give c. 245 bhp and a corresponding increase in torque. My Golf now flies and in-gear overtaking ability rivals my old GS if not the new WC. More to the point and consistent with recent discussions on this thread, it's also much nicer to drive. Previously it stuttered and stumbled, especially at low revs in traffic. Now, it'll slow down to 20 mph in second gear and pull away again quite happily.

Any fragility you might have read about is most likely associated with blocked DPFs - I've never even had a check engine light in over 5 years of ownership. The other thing that goes wrong with them is that some of them have plastic tensioners for the chain that drives the oil pump which is located in the sump. The tensioner breaks up and the chain then breaks or comes off. There was also a recall last year for new injectors on some cars, including mine. Now, do I leave the DPF intact and settle for 205 bhp or bin it and go for the full-fat 245...?

All of this applies to the 2.0 TDI 170 PD. The 2.0 TDI CR 170 is a completely different device and has recently been superceded by a 177 hp version. SWMBO collects a new Tiguan with that engine in it next week and I'm looking forward to seeing how it drives and if it responds well to the Viezu tuning box which we currently have fitted to her 140 hp model, giving a reputed 175 bhp.

Might as well do what I did myself...Get an intercooler, DPF delete, Bosio Nozzles, fit the 2260VK turbo and get the respectable 280-300bhp you always wanted!

 

[Fluffmeister]

Not so silky on a twin always! And that for me was why the remap was so successful. I don't give a hoot about top speed and BHP, I want beautiful fuelling and a light throttle that reacts crisply and instantly .....

And this is the effect that the Hilltop Remap has had on my previous GS and current GSA , figures are for willie banging rights, it's all about the way it rides Same as my wee shopping wagon, all the VAG 1.6CR Tdi are pretty much the same, the 75bhp / 90 bhp / 105bhp. My little Fabia Scout started as a lowly 90, on the rolling road at JKM in Portsmouth it made 98 (tyre shredding stuff) but after a few software tweaks put's out 146bhp with a big increase in torque. The main improvement is just in the way it drives, it's now a perfect little shopping wagon. My GSA fuels perfectly, or as perfectly as a big lummox of a boxer can do.

 

[masterman21]

And this is the effect that the Hilltop Remap has had on my previous GS and current GSA , figures are for willie banging rights, it's all about the way it rides Same as my wee shopping wagon, all the VAG 1.6CR Tdi are pretty much the same, the 75bhp / 90 bhp / 105bhp. My little Fabia Scout started as a lowly 90, on the rolling road at JKM in Portsmouth it made 98 (tyre shredding stuff) but after a few software tweaks put's out 146bhp with a big increase in torque. The main improvement is just in the way it drives, it's now a perfect little shopping wagon. My GSA fuels perfectly, or as perfectly as a big lummox of a boxer can do.

+ 1

 

[APE]

Really? I fitted a PC3 on my 2006 GSA 3 years ago and it's been faultless for 50,000 miles through some pretty harsh conditions including 4 trips up the Dalton Highway in Alaska which is as rough as you would want. The unit sits under the seat and has been covered in all sorts of shite. I had the bike dyno'd to give more low down grunt and with my keihan de cat exhaust system, it kicks out about the same bhp and torque as the twin cam and fuels beautifully from any revs in any gear. Whole set up with 2nd hand PC3 and dyno run was about £200.

What sort of improvement did you see on the dyno ? Was it comparable to those shown on here ? I am interested if there is a meaningful improvement in power and torque - less worried about 'smoothness' as I find mine is fine as is.

 

[Sgt Bilco]

What sort of improvement did you see on the dyno ? Was it comparable to those shown on here ? I am interested if there is a meaningful improvement in power and torque - less worried about 'smoothness' as I find mine is fine as is.

I'll have to dig out the dyno graph but not sure if I still have it. I had it set up specifically for my riding style which is all low down power because a)I'm a bone idle rider and b) when I take people up the Alaska, we run a a steady pace and want to maximise mpg. It does run out of steam above 6500rpm but I can ride plenty fast enough without bouncing off the limiter. I do recall looking at other graphs from a Twin cam at the dyno centre and the torque and bhp were on par with that engine.