Does any here drive a remapped truck preferably a Scania ?
Has it improved it ?
Has mpg improved ?
Has your boss had any issues mechanically with it ?
I’m asking as I quite like my 2016 G410 as it’s easy to drive and get in to places where our XFs struggle to 
only down side is pulling any load over 18t and I can walk up some hills quicker 
Detling hill is 5/6th and 20mph tops 
I remember going to Morrison’s sittingbourne in a fh700 ( yes stobarts did have 1 ) & my mate in a g-cab ( can’t remember if it was a 380 or 400) , but guess who got there first ( it wasn’t me ) , at the end of the day there’s not many hill 300 hp more is going to make any difference whereas if the limiter I set higher there a lot of flat where that 1/2 mph will make a difference , I could see him visibly going away from me , frustrating to say the least
As for remapping , not a lorry but my mrs fiesta st is , done by Collins , goes like the clappers , but does struggle to put the power down
I’ve driven mapped trucks, all scanias. You need to be careful who does the map and how aggressive it is. I was in a 2012 420 that got mapped, the difference was amazing. It went from a gutless pile to an absolute flying machine, the MPG was actually better too. It lasted about 6 months and did a piston, it was massively over fuelling. The map was replaced with a moderate one so didn’t pull quite as well but truck was fine from there on, it’s still working now 6 years later with no issues related to the map. Also had a tuning box that had been on two 450’s as they are locked to a map. It piggybacks the ecu and puts more fuel in. Both trucks were greatly improved with the box on, bhp up by 70 ish and MPG up by just under 1. Your 410 is the same engine so I’m guessing a good tuner could safely put yours to a 450 or 490
Only problem with some of these maps is because their solution is to dump more fuel in the DPF filter ain’t going to be happy, especially if it’s mostly local work you do.
If a re-map really did give more power and better mpg without problems.…
Why didn`t the manufacturer do that from the start?
They really arent nasty people who enjoy making things hard for drivers*.
- I do have to keep reminding myself.
Franglais:
If a re-map really did give more power and better mpg without problems.…
Why didn`t the manufacturer do that from the start?
They really arent nasty people who enjoy making things hard for drivers*.
- I do have to keep reminding myself.
I’ve always had this view too (although admittedly I’m no expert). I’d imagine Scania spend hundreds of millions on r+d so I find it hard to believe that a man in a garage with a laptop knows better.
I drive a 6yr old P410 and while I wouldn’t say it flies up hills, I certainly wouldn’t call it gutless - does the job just fine. And tbh I wouldn’t expect to be flying up Detling hill in anything fully freighted. Just make up for the time lost going down the other side if you’re really that bothered. Could easily get 100+ I’d imagine.
Cue next thread about fitting carbon ceramic brakes on a Scania G410. 
Franglais:
If a re-map really did give more power and better mpg without problems.…
Why didn`t the manufacturer do that from the start?
They really arent nasty people who enjoy making things hard for drivers*.
- I do have to keep reminding myself.
As Conor says, it’s emissions. I would expect once mapped it would still pass MOT emissions tests.
Unauthorised maps can have catastrophic EGTs, resulting in burned valves or pistons and/or cracked or distorted heads and blocks.
As far as I know, no European trucks are fitted with pyrometers, so all this will be happening while the driver is grinning from ear to ear, blissfully unaware of the carnage occurring below the cab.
Map development is not something that even a moderately large facility can produce with any guarantee of reliability, it’s far more complex than dialing in more fuel or boost and adjusting the timing. It also requires expensive R&D followed up with more expensive testing, if you want safe, reliability.
Before remapping, find out who wrote the map and what, if any warranty it carries, particularly consequential damages.
Franglais:
If a re-map really did give more power and better mpg without problems.…
Why didn`t the manufacturer do that from the start?
They really arent nasty people who enjoy making things hard for drivers*.
- I do have to keep reminding myself.
My mrs fst is 180 hp as standard , you could have it mapped by mountune to 215 hp , that had a Ford warranty on it ,
My mrs has now been mapped for 3 + yrs and had no issues , no interest in mpg , just wanted more power , I’d guess there very few who have there car mapped for mpg , just power
stu675:
Franglais:
If a re-map really did give more power and better mpg without problems.…
Why didn`t the manufacturer do that from the start?
They really arent nasty people who enjoy making things hard for drivers*.
- I do have to keep reminding myself.
As Conor says, it’s emissions. I would expect once mapped it would still pass MOT emissions tests.
It not a truck, but the XC60 Volvo I have has been remapped by Volvo and the emissions are no different.
Washwipe:
stu675:
Franglais:
If a re-map really did give more power and better mpg without problems.…
Why didn`t the manufacturer do that from the start?
They really arent nasty people who enjoy making things hard for drivers*.
- I do have to keep reminding myself.
As Conor says, it’s emissions. I would expect once mapped it would still pass MOT emissions tests.
It not a truck, but the XC60 Volvo I have has been remapped by Volvo and the emissions are no different.
I’ve got a V40 myself D3. I understand that the D4 is exactly the same engine just a different map. So in that situation I wouldn’t expect any reliability problems nor adverse mpg and I’d expect emissions to be acceptable.
The more power you have, the better mpg you get, all things being equal. I remember Top gear ragged a Prius round the track at top speed then matched the speed in an M3 which achieved better mpg.
Many years ago, I read a report of a truck that was remapped to 1000 bhp. Still limited though.
Franglais:
If a re-map really did give more power and better mpg without problems.…
Why didn`t the manufacturer do that from the start?
They really arent nasty people who enjoy making things hard for drivers*.
- I do have to keep reminding myself.
Engines are tuned by the manufacturer to be able to accept a wide range of fuel compostitions ( whats in fuel varies widely country by country )If you know the exact make up of your fuel you can get your engine tuned to perform better . This is why you get the gains from tuning maps.
beefy4605:
Franglais:
If a re-map really did give more power and better mpg without problems.…
Why didn`t the manufacturer do that from the start?
They really arent nasty people who enjoy making things hard for drivers*.
- I do have to keep reminding myself.
Engines are tuned by the manufacturer to be able to accept a wide range of fuel compostitions ( whats in fuel varies widely country by country )If you know the exact make up of your fuel you can get your engine tuned to perform better . This is why you get the gains from tuning maps.
Are you suggesting that fuel varies widely throughout Europe?
Or that the trucks supplied to Europe are somehow detuned to accept sub-standard fuel?
I do accept that almost any engine can be tuned to give more power, if one has access to a different fuel. Not many trucks get such do they?
And it would be an exaggeration to say “This is why you get the gains from tuning maps.”
Yes, some maps might give more power, but certainly not all maps are equal. Loads of them out there are simple crude devices that just give excess fuel to the engine.
stu675:
I’ve got a V40 myself D3. I understand that the D4 is exactly the same engine just a different map. So in that situation I wouldn’t expect any reliability problems nor adverse mpg and I’d expect emissions to be acceptable.
On the V60 platform:
“The D3 engine is identical to the D4, albeit with a 40PS deficit.
Fleet customers will save £1,000 opting for the D4 over the D3 like-for-like, but when it comes to efficiency there is little to differentiate.
Both emit 117g/km and claim 64mpg combined.
The difference in company car tax is minimal, at less than £6 per month – so unless the D3 is at the very top of a driver’s band there is little disincentive to go for the more powerful D4.
The biggest difference between the two on paper is in 0-60mph acceleration time. The D3 takes 9.9 seconds, while the D4 just 7.9.”
fleetnews.co.uk/cars/review … est-review
So, approx 40HP difference and no claimed mpg difference.
stu675:
The more power you have, the better mpg you get, all things being equal. I remember Top gear ragged a Prius round the track at top speed then matched the speed in an M3 which achieved better mpg.
From the above it seems not.
And of course a Prius and M3 are not in any way “all things being equal”!
“Top Gear” is (was) good entertainment but it isn`t my go to source for facts. 